On 10/16/2011 9:06 AM, andrel wrote:
>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>>> In the Netherlands we have sort of a state religion, in the sense that
>>> our Queen is from a particular church. But all religions that were
>>> present in the beginning of the 20th centuries all are treated the same.
>>> Yes they have privileges, but giving a church tax breaks does not make
>>> the country a theocracy.
>>
>>    I don't know how it is in Netherlands, but in Finland there's an
>> official
>> state church (from the Lutheran denomination) that has official special
>> privileges, and special legislature governing it. No other
>> denomination nor
>> religion has the same status.
>
> But is the church consulted during the law making process? If not it is
> still not a theocracy. Theocracy means that God and its representatives
> are *ruling*.
Actually, this isn't the right question. The correct question is, "Did, 
at one time, the church have primary control over how laws where 
passed." The answer is yes, and that is why no one lets them bloody to 
it any more. In the US, the answer is, "No, they fought with each other 
over what stupid thing they wanted to have passed, so never got much of 
any where. The result being that every damn one of them, and their 
followers, are *still* convinced that letting one of them dictate the 
law would be a really neato idea."

Post a reply to this message

On 16-10-2011 18:36, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> "Most people in Finland are at least nominally members of a Christian
>> church,..."
>
>    Membership of the state church says absolutely nothing. The vast majority
> of the members of the church are atheists.

I was afraid you would say that. Because you are now comparing only 
regular church going Europeans with all Christians in the US.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/15/2011 18:46, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> that he couldn't possibly be born in the US,

The thing that cracks me up about all that is that the person he was running 
against *actually* wasn't born in the USA.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 6:30, Warp wrote:
> while something like 95% of people in the US is Christian.

I think *that* number is rather high, given that some 15% are atheists and 
some 5% are Jewish, Muslim, etc. (And Mormons get counted as Christians.)

Actually, there ya go:

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Pew Forums have actually been around a long time and are fairly respected as 
a source of statistics, too.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 8:36, Warp wrote:
> (Ok, Australia isn't exactly "western", but
> I'm using the colloquial meaning of the word here.)

I think they're considered "western" because they were colonized by England 
and didn't have their own flag first.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 9:06, andrel wrote:
> 76% Christian in the states according to W.

Plus, it's 76% who *say* they're christian. Then ask how many of them have 
been to church in the last 5 years...  :-)


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 9:41, Warp wrote:
>    England, Britain, United Kingdom... It's all so confusing...

That was extremely informative in a dense and amusing way. Thanks!

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/16/2011 3:33 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 6:30, Warp wrote:
>> while something like 95% of people in the US is Christian.
>
> I think *that* number is rather high, given that some 15% are atheists
> and some 5% are Jewish, Muslim, etc. (And Mormons get counted as
> Christians.)
>
> Actually, there ya go:
>
> http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
>
> Pew Forums have actually been around a long time and are fairly
> respected as a source of statistics, too.
>
Mind, its probably inaccurate, in that its practically a national past 
time in the US to deny being agnostic, or even atheist, because you 
don't want he neighbors to find out, or you are doing so for the 
"benefit of others". There are even some priests that have admitted as 
much that the only reason they still have a job is because they think 
religion is "useful" to their parishioners, so are afraid of the 
consequence of admitting they don't believe, and quitting the job.

If even mentioning that you might, maybe, be one, wouldn't make you 
instantly unelectable as even a dog catcher here, and there wasn't a 
whole bloody movement dedicated to lying about them, I would bet the 
number of atheists, and agnostics, was *well* over 15%, but, since I 
have no idea how many it really would be, I think I will stay out of the 
pot, when it comes to exact numbers. It might be depressingly less than 
I would like, or so bloody large that no one would believe the results.

I do know that a *lot* of the "Christians" here are, I suppose, what you 
might call "Atheist Christian", they are pretty sure the Bible is mostly 
bull, that Jesus wasn't divine, and that god isn't out there, probably, 
but they still "believe in" the idea that Jesus came up with some 
amazingly great way of thinking about the world, and acting towards 
others, that no one else ever did. They are also, usually, completely 
clueless as to how factually wrong that is.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 6:30, Warp wrote:
> > while something like 95% of people in the US is Christian.

> I think *that* number is rather high, given that some 15% are atheists and 
> some 5% are Jewish, Muslim, etc. (And Mormons get counted as Christians.)

> Actually, there ya go:

> http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

> Pew Forums have actually been around a long time and are fairly respected as 
> a source of statistics, too.

  What? You don't consider Fox News to be a reliable source of information?-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzVxHF8T0Hk

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16/10/2011 11:29 PM, Darren New wrote:

> The thing that cracks me up about all that is that the person he was
> running against *actually* wasn't born in the USA.

My lolrus!

Post a reply to this message