Let us look at America as a foreigner such as deTocqueville might, or even as an alien from another planet would see it and perhaps wonder.

As the days and weeks go by, America will continue to unfold before our eyes just as it did throughout these past eight months -- a political convention, campaigning, opening of schools across the land, a pause to observe the working person's holiday, more campaigning, celebration of Columbus Day, a unique American holiday, then the election itself, followed by Thanksgiving, also unique -- and so America moved on. Very little happened in the United States of America of the early 19th Century that deTocqueville didn't see and comment upon. And so much of what he wrote is apparently relevant to the America of today.

BE SURE TO CLICK ONTO THE "SUBSCRIBE" BUTTON BELOW!!

Folks, I thought long and hard prior to injecting this sub-topic into our Discussion Group. Every one of us is acutely aware that discussing religion can be a passionate exercise. AND YET -- for over eight months now we have been faithful in this forum to discussing what we observe in America and other Democracies. We all remember how emotional we became regarding certain topics. How then can we not touch upon this topic? To go blithely on talking about America as if the subject of religion were not in any one's thoughts would be to enter the world of denial. It is not only in the minds of individuals but is openly discussed in all media and even in our legislative bodies.

Furthermore, deTocqueville commented upon religion in detail. It is being discussed these days because the First Amendment of the Constitution uses the word "religion." It is also being discussed because different citizens interpret this amendment in different ways. And so it will be here in this forum. FOOLS RUSH IN WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD. I like to believe that I am not a fool and I like to believe (and do believe) that all participants here have shown themselves to be serious, courteous, and considerate Senior Netters who address issues, not personalities, and will continue this approach.

We will be discussing, not any particular religion, but "religion", itself, and its relationship to America and all Democracies.

The specific religion (or lack of any religious belief) of any participant here is irrelevant unless he/she chooses to divulge it in order to explain an issue. It will not be for me (or anyone) to comment either positively or negatively upon anyone else's religious beliefs. It will not be for me to try to convince anyone of the benefits of my own particular belief. Atheists and agnostics are also entitled to their beliefs. Proselytizing will absolutely not be permitted! There are other discussion groups here on Senior Net where a participant can be more forceful.

In the Heading above are four quotes of deTocqueville on the topic of "Religion and Democracy." As is our usual policy, these quotes will be periodically changed. Let us revolve our comments around the comparison of what he saw and what we see as we observe today's society.

Alexis deTocqueville said: "I am at this moment considering religions in a purely human point of view. My object is to inquire by what means they may most easily retain their sway in the democratic ages upon which we are entering."

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WILL BE DOING HERE.

How true!! Some of the religions being practiced in America at the present time are Afro-Caribbean, Baha'i, Buddhist, Christian, Confucian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Islam, Native Peoples', Pagan, Shinto, Sikh, Taoist, and Zoroastrian.

Robby

But in answer to Jere Pennel’s question “What does a chocolate rabbit or Easter egg have to do with the celebration of Easter?” I can’t speak for the chocolate rabbit, but the egg is symbolic of Easter in this manner: The egg shell is symbolic of the tomb Christ was laid to rest in. The yolk of the egg is symbolic of life within the tomb. The cracking of the top of the egg on Easter Sunday Morning is symbolic of the stone being rolled away from the entrance to the tomb The Greek Orthodox Christians make quite a ceremony of cracking the egg on Easter Sunday Morning. Greek Catholics dye the Easter egg red to represent the blood of Christ. I am Roman Catholic.

Bill H

Thank you for your answer to Jere's question. Perhaps others here have answers or comments.

Robby

)

Bill H

Does anyone here relate that to deTocqueville's comment (above) which begins "In an age of equality...?"

You say:--"In NZ. the wish to separate politics and religion means that 'clergy' seldom refer to politics, and politicians eschew all reference to religious, and of course church matters."

Does anyone here see a connection between this comment of Trevor's and deTocqueville's quote (above) which begins "At times...?"

Robby

Robby

An amazing statistic for those of us who have not been keeping up to date with the tremendous changes taking place in this great Democracy of ours!! Nine years is not that far into the future. If these data are indeed accurate, it would behoove us to learn more about our fellow Americans who follow that faith.

Any reactions here regarding Mahlia's remarks?

On more than one occasion in this discussion group under various sub-topics we have referred to a term that deTocqueville used often in his book, i.e. "tyranny of the majority." Do you folks here see that as taking place also in the area of religion?

"I am not here to push atheism but as with all of the other religions, atheism is the one most reviled and persecuted.' BTW, atheism is not a religion. This according to Austin Cline at this site.
http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/library/weekly/aa030499.htm
Robby, didn't you say there were other forums for political comments?

Regarding finding forums for political comments, click onto the red letters "Senior Net Roundtables" - then click onto the red letters "Index" - and you will find all the discussion groups in Senior Net.

Robby

I could not have said it any better.

Robby

1 - Buying an inexpensive paper back copy of deTocqueville's book will be helpful as you continue your participation here. They can be bought for a few pennies.
2 - For those who do not have the book and will not be getting one, check regularly the four quotes listed above under Religion and Democracy. These quotes are changed periodically. We would hope that you would compare what you see across the land with what deTocqueville saw and share your thoughts with us regarding those comparisons.
3 - In between your regular comments, you might find it enjoyable to click onto the four Links above. Since we opened this forum last July, we have already covered some of the topics mentioned in the Heading above, some of them in great detail.
4 - This discussion group has a large following. May I assure you newcomers that there are many who "lurk" and many who are regular participants but who have not yet entered into this sub-topic of Religion and Democracy.

We are fortunate to have participants here who do not live in America but are residents of another Democracy. One of our Canadian participants, Eloise, speaks French as her native language, is reading "Democracy in America" in its original French language and helps us from time to time by showing differences in translation. You have already met Carolyn and Trevor from New Zealand.

We would appreciate it if you would invite some of your Senior Net friends in other forums to come visit us.

Thank you for becoming part of our family!!

Examining the global practice of Islam is a most important topic and is being discussed in the Spirituality and Religion folder, but is not relevant to this forum.

Perhaps someone in this discussion is a Buddhist or knows someone knowledgeable about the practice of Buddhism in America and can give us further information.

Robby

Robby, I never said atheism is not a religion. I only reported what an atheist's web site said. One of the previous posters said it was a religion.

Lou says:--"I really could care less whether they are a religion or not, or even if they exist. But it doesn't seem as if they show any "christian" values." To be a religion, is it necessary to have "Christian" values?

Robby

Any further thoughts? Not about specific religions but about "religion" per se?

Robby

Just how are Religion and Democracy compatible?

Robby

Robby

The more immediate reason for this new diversity, however, is the 1965 Immigration Act which changed American immigration policy, opening the door once again to immigration from many parts of the world for the first time since the 1920's. Restrictive immigration laws going back to the first Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 had severely limited immigration from many parts of the world, particularly Asia. With the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's, however, America began to address the issues of discrimination in immigration policy. The 1965 act eliminated national origins quotas and opened the door again for immigration. The new post-1965 immigration has made clear for all Americans that the United States is a nation based not on race, ethnicity, or religion, but on common commitment to the democratic ideals of its Constitution.

In the past thirty years, the ethnic composition of the United States has gradually changed, with new immigrants from Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. What are the religious dimensions of America's new cultural mix? What changes have taken place in the religious landscape of America's cities and neighborhoods? How have new religious traditions changed as they have taken root in America's soil? And how is America changing as the freedom of religion cherished by America's founders is now cherished by Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Hindus who have come to America as immigrants?

Robby

This "enrichment" is exactly what this discussion group is about. It was what deTocqueville was examining.

The American Constitution begins with the words, "We the People of the United States of America..." The thirty-nine people who framed and signed the Constitution in 1787 were almost all white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon men. The "we" of which they spoke referred to the citizens of the new America, who were mostly English Protestants, joined by a few Catholics, and still fewer Jews. At that time, "we" did not include the Native peoples of America, or the considerable number of African slaves who accounted for approximately one-fifth of the non-indigenous population.

Over the past two centuries, the "we" has expanded and become considerably more complex. Through years of struggle, America's "we" has come to include African Americans and Native Americans, and has come explicitly to include both women and men among its voting members. It has also come to include immigrants from all parts of Europe, from Asia and the Pacific, from Africa and Latin America.

Coming to know who "we" now are and what religions we practice is one of America's most challenging tasks.

Your reactions, please?

Robby

• The definition of atheism implies the ABSENCE of gods. 'A-theist' = 'no god belief'. Agnosticism implies unsureness. 'A-gnostic' = 'not knowing', an open question.
• All religions have their roots in paganism. The development of Western Civilization through the propagation of Christianity has 'organized' older pagan beliefs into classes having some sort of 'rank order' of value. A. de T. didn't find that in America, apparently. Today it is very clear!
• 'Secular humanism' refers to social governanace of a community relying solely on human abilities to relate to events, rejecting the notion of spiritual forces that shape human destinies.
• Human nature is concerned with survival, not placating. This implies 'getting along' with all cultures of the world, not just one's own clique.
• 'Consumerism', 'communism', 'capitalism', 'anarchy', and similar words are NOT religions, but are economic/political descriptors.
• Religious comments uttered by a U.S. president are heard around the world. The current officeholder has made more public religious comments than the past 3 Presidents. Some appointments and directives made since 1/20/01 should make it clear as to current American policy regarding religious preferences.
• Lastly, human attainment of 'higher levels' is in the category of Tiger Woods' striving to achieve the status of 'Greatest Golfer of all Time', and is commendable. Just as Cassius Clay has done in boxing. Higher levels are limited by human abilities, and attempting to become super-human is quite unrealistic.

Sorry you missed it, Dave, but it came up last August and September and it was discussed in great great detail. But this is why we have the Links above -- for those of you who are newcomers. If you click onto Part I and Part II, I believe you will find yourself deeply engrossed in what you are reading.

But please don't bring your thoughts on "education" back to our current sub-topic of Religion. It would merely confuse the interchange of conversation.

Robby

Robby

People tend to post depending on their own interests. For example, Dave, when you check out the postings on "education" in the Part I Link above, you will see names that may be new to you. When we had a hot discussion on the Origin of America, other folks "came out of the woodwork" so to speak.

I must admit to a "slight" bit of frustration here and wish those who only lurk would enter occasionally to share their thoughts. But I am at least pleased that they are here and part of our Democracy in America "family."

Robby

Do you folks believe that the question of "religion" should be on the census form?

This forum is in no way deteriorating. It is moving along beautifully. May I suggest that re-reading the Heading above will help to explain the thread. It is very easy to discuss Religion and Democracy without mentioning the president in office (many participants here are doing it). Religion is a much broader topic and does not only involve the philosophy of the current president.

If you will examine the various sub-topics mentioned in the Heading -- we have already discussed Law, we have already discussed the Media, we have already discussed Wages -- and all of these were discussed without touching the political aspects of it. As stated above, "our spectrum and deTocqueville's was much broader" than just the politics of it. deTocqueville was able to cover these topics without referring to people in the political limelight and we are able to do the same.

However, Senior Net has 400 good Discussion Groups and many of them are excellent political forums where political figures can be discussed.

Robby

Our "we" includes Hindu and Jain engineers and surgeons, Zoroastrian social workers, and Sikh political adisers. It includes Native American legislators, activists, and eductaors. It includes Christians of all races and denominations -- Hispanic Pentecostalists, Southern Baptists, United Methodists, Vietnamese Catholics, Korean Presbyterians. It includes Jews from black-coat Lubavitchers to Reform women rabbis. It includes Baha'is and Unitarians, Wiccans and Earth Spirit communities, and Afro-Caribbean practitioners of Santeria and Vodou.

And it includes a wide range of people who cherish the freedom to stand outside all of these religious traditions -- as ardent secularists, as ethical humanists, or as committed atheists.

I hope all this will be helpful in describing the "broad spectrum" in which deTocqueville observed America and the way we are observing it in this discussion group.

Jenny speaks of the "the ability in American democracy to change and adapt to changes." Do you folks believe that America will be able to adapt peacefully to the great changes in religious practices?

Their presence is not always obvious unless, that is, an organized group shows up such as Secular Humanists. It is humanistic, said one member, because it finds the source of power for solving problems in human beings. Is there a place for such people in a democracy that says "In God We Trust" on its money?

The Harry Potter series has dominated bestseller lists for two years and have torn many young people away from video games and television.

Robby

The poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, found 75 percent of 2,041 people surveyed supported the concept of faith-based funding while 21 percent opposed it.

However, most respondents were selective about who should receive the money and did not think non-Judeo-Christian religious groups, such as Muslims and Buddhists, or groups outside the mainstream, such as Scientologists, should get funds.

Older people, especially those above 65, were much more worried than younger people about the blurring of the split between church and state.

How do you folks see the Wiccan religion fitting in (or not) with the concept of democracy?

The only harm can come when others try to force their beliefs on those who have different ideals. Our Constitution gurantees not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion, if that is what we wish. So far, I haven't seen this government trying to force me, or anyone else, to accept any particular belief.

Lou says:--"Our Constitution gurantees not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion, if that is what we wish." Is everyone here in agreement with that?

Robby

From time to time we present statistics which are meaningless unless we know whether the stats were created by a reputable individual or organization.

Now that I know that deT made the remark you quoted, I will look it up. I hope others here beside myself will give a reaction to your quote. I am merely the discussion leader, not the entire discussion.

Robby

As has been stated earlier, deTocqueville was merely a human being like the rest of us. We are certainly free to agree or disagree with him or question his theories. That is the whole purpose of this discussion group.

As to his remark: "there is no country in the world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America," I can't find myself agreeng or disagreeing as I have no figures with which to compare. All I can say is that he was an aristocrat who was widely traveled, was knowledgeable about European affairs, and after seeing the practice of religion in America, made his comparison.

As to the latter part of his quote: "by regulating domestic life, religion regulates the state," I see there something we can sink our teeth into. Is it not true that "we the people" are comprised of families of one sort or another, and might it not make sense that if religion is an important part of a nation's families, then, by extrapolation, religion is also an important part of a nation. Please notice my word, "IF." Perhaps religion doesn't regulate most of domestic life in America.

What think you, folks?

Robby

Robby

Robby

This is not to say that each of us here cannot give our opinions from time to time so long as we state that it is our "opinion" or share what we "believe" is someone else's remark but admit we do not know the source.

Robby

Without mentioning any specific religion and addressing only the issue rather than the personality of another participant, but comparing the concept of religion with the concept of science, do you see a meeting of the minds?

If so, how can it be done? If not, why not?

When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

The new laureate received his doctoral degree from Oxford University in 1948 and embarked on a career as a biochemist, working among research scientists discovering the structure of DNA. After several years he began studying theology, and in 1971 received a bachelor of divinity degree. Later he began teaching both biochemistry and theology at Cambridge University. In 1984, he founded a center for the study of religious beliefs in relation to science at Oxford, where he became the only member of the theology fculty also to hold a science doctorate.

Science and theology do not mix?

Robby

What is the reaction of some of you folks regarding such an "intertwining?"

Robby

Jenny says: "I cannot understand why they ever should." Agree with Jenny? Disagree?

Robby

Is everyone in agreement here that scientists are not concerned about life's meaning?

Jenny and Lou seem to have opposite approaches to this subject. Any other participants here who have an approach? And would anyone like to help us understand the term "meaning of life?"

Can they work together? Your thoughts?

Robby

Wow! All this from being curious! I prefer to ask questions rather than take every statement at face value. If I stated that Einstein was Chinese, I would be prepared to present any evidence leading to that conclusion, and I would expect that others would do the same for any statement (not opinion) they make.

Thank you for your mature comment.

Robby

As we examine this science/religion conflict (if, indeed, there is one), let us continue to respect each other's point of view. We are all human beings trying, as best we can, to understand life and its meaning. A theologian who co-directs the God and Science project at Amherst College believes that as science continues its inexorable progress, religion must, ultimately, embrace it.

Do others here who have not yet posted see Science and Religion as being able to intertwine? Or not?

Robby

Dr. Peacocke will receive the prize in a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace on May 9th, with a public event at London's gildhall the next day.

Yes, Dave, this was not only considered before but Laws and Manners was discussed in detail. May I again urge that newcomers to this forum connect to the above Links and spend some time reading previous discussions. It may help in two ways.

1 - It will bring newcomers up to date on the various segments of deTocqueville's book that have already been covered.
2 - It will point out what I consider the strength that has enabled this discussion group to last almost nine months. That strength, in my opinion, is the quiet unabrasive wisdom that is usually found in Seniors who pause to reflect -- Seniors who have spent many many decades on this planet and who have learned that no one has all the answers. This wisdom has usually fostered in them the ability to disagree in an agreeable manner -- to use soft words as they explain their point of view.

Dave mentions "deleting." The delete button can be used in two ways. A posting can be deleted by someone with authority (this is explained at the time that one registers in Senior Net) who has decided that the person posting has gone beyond the realms of SeniorNet policy. But much much more importantly, in my opinion, is the ability of a person to delete his own remarks -- to perhaps quickly write something in the heat of passion as a younger person might and then, after letting his older wisdom kick in, pause to reflect, and decide to delete his own remarks. This can save hurt or angry feelings on the part of others, can eliminate much time and space used in back-and-forth wrangling, and can become part of what I described earlier as the Senior Strength that has enabled this discussion group to be beneficial to those posting.

It is my continued belief that although it may be the norm in political and religious discussion groups to parry back and forth, that here in Democracy in America we will continue the quiet exchange of information that is demonstrated in the four Links above.

Let us continue to examine America as we have done and to compare what we see with deTocqueville's astute observations.

Robby

What are our thoughts regarding the religious beliefs of the American Indians who were here long before we arrived in the name of "religious freedom." Do we respect their beliefs?

For example, the Department of the Interior has decided that Hopi Indians should be allowed to use golden eagle hatchlings collected at a national monument in Arizona in an annual, ancient rite in which the birds are smothered. Department officials say they are trying to tread a difficult path to protect wildlife, the park system, the rights of American Indians and religious freedom.

But critics say the legal reasoning used by the agency to justify its position, detiled in a rule the agency is proposing, is so broad that it could open the way to much wider hunting and trapping by Indians in parks from Alaska to Florida.

What reactions do you folks have to this?

In the history of the world, Democracy is extremely modern. In what way, then, is Democracy changing the expression of "religion" in general?

Robby

Robby

In our democracy, all religions are to be respected. At the same time, we may have personal opinions regarding various religions. How should we handle this? And does this relate to deTocqueville's remark above which starts with "As public opinion grows ...?"

Robby

Since around 1860, tens of thousands of Portuguese Creole-speaking Cape Verdeans have migrated voluntarily to the United States. Since 1965 they have been joined by tens of thousands of mainland African immigrants from Nigeria, Ghana, Ethiopia, and so forth. A disproportionate number of these are probably Christian: Cape Verdean Catholics, Ethiopian Copts, Nigerian and Ghanaian Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecostals.

While these religions are much smaller numerically than the ones most of us are acquainted with, if my understanding of Democracy is correct, they deserve the same freedom all of us do in practicing our religion.

Do you believe they are receiving this freedom?

Robby

The tone of this discussion group is not for or against science or for or against religion. It is not for or against atheism or for or against a belief in a deity. It is for the principles that Alexis deTocqueville found in the nation he came to admire so well. It is for the principles espoused by Eloise in her posting.

It is difficult to have a strong belief yet simultaneously sit back and allow another person to express his without commenting upon it. Some people have the moral strength to do this. Some do not. Democracy allows this.

Today is Good Friday. For those of the Christian faith, it is a sacred holiday. Those of you who celebrate it are invited to share how through your lifetime, either as child or adult, you have celebrated Good Friday.

In this discussion group about Democracy we continue to show respect for those whose belief is different from ours. And one of the best ways to show respect is to make no comment at all about the other's remark but to merely hear the other's thoughts, to read what is going on in other nations around the world, and to perhaps spend some time thinking about how fortunate we are to live in a Democracy.

Robby

Robby

However, there is also another element. Since my entry into Senior Net I have come to admire the high level of native intelligence (this has nothing to do with one's educational background) on the part of almost all participants. This means, to me, that they do not require a particular belief or philosophy to be "run into the ground" or for them to be "beat over the head." They understand what is being told them the first, or at the most, the second time. After they they turn off.

Sometimes, in my experience, people who are for or against something, whether it be a particular religion (or lack thereof), or an aspect of science, or the like or dislike of a book, or almost anything in life, do themselves a disservice by a constant repetition of their belief to the point where others no longer "hear" them. In this sense they have hurt themselves.

If there are some here who are concerned because their particular belief is not always the one being brought to the forefront, I wonder if that is a sign of personal insecurity. There are many many aspects of Religion and Democracy that have not yet been touched and we need to move on. Today is Good Friday, recognized by many in America whether everyone celebrates it or not, and to ignore it would be to ignore one part of America which exists.

I agree completely! I hope everyone reads Betty's post and pauses to think.

Robby

"The majority here are of a mainstream religion."

That is an assumption. Neither you nor I nor anyone else in the forum have any knowledge whatsoever how many here belong to what religions, if any.

"A minority , with fewer numbers, therefore more visible and vulnerable."

That, also, is an assumption. None of us here have any knowledge whatsoever what the numbers are and who or what is the minority.

"Some have to assert themselves for a place at the table."

I agree completely with this. Your comment about the religions from Africa are, indeed, a good example. But there are ways of asserting oneself. I could not say it better than Betty did in an earlier posting that there is such a thing as choosing ones words carefully so as not to hurt others.

"Those villified by religious precepts, must, at times, make visible waves and at the same time, for having the nerve to do so, defend themselves."

As Discussion Leader, I watch these postings carefully and, to the best of my knowledge, not a single person has ever villified you. Perhaps this relates to the "personal insecurity" I mentioned earlier. I can assure you that if I saw such action, I would defend your right to state your belief as much as I would defend that of others.

"You have the bully pulpit and the authority here as leader--your word carries some weight and influence."

You attribute more power to me than I have. And I infer from that remark that you may not have a complete understanding as to what a Discussion Leader is nor a complete understanding as to the intelligence level of Senior Netters. As Discussion Leader I am, in effect, a facilitator. I am the steering wheel, if you wish, but the participants are the engine -- the power. You can be sure that if I spoke out of line, one or more of the participants (and perhaps even the lurkers) would very quickly put me in my place (hopefully, in a courteous manner!). The "weight and influence" that I carry is no more or less than any participant here. My job is to help those here to examine America, examine deTocqueville's book, and to compare the two.

Minority posters here.

I didn't know we had such people. I thought every one here was equal. I could very well be wrong but my inference here is another sign of insecurity.

May we move on to examining America and examining deTocqueville?

Robby

The National Park Service is concerned that they might receive requests from other tribes for similar rule changes to address religious practices. The Executive Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, representing 10,000 federal and state conservation workers, said that a survey by his organization of more than 40 large parks found that half had received requests or demands from tribes for hunting rights. Officials at Olympic National Park in Washington confirmed the trend and said it certainly applied to their park, which has seven tribes along its boundaries that have been seeking to hunt elk and other wildlife.

Any comments?

Hunting and trapping is banned in national parks and national monuments but is permitted on a limited basis in some national recreation areas and on other federal lands if specifically authorized by Congress. Said one anthropologist:--"This is about the ancient needs of a Hopi clan to practice their religion as part of the survival of their culture. When you put that in the context of a national park, you raise some very complex issues."

They are considered to be syncretic religions -- a blending of traditional beliefs into a new and different faith. They do have a common bond -- their origins and history in the New World. Their religion teaches of a hierarchy of supernatural beings who interact with humans in helpful and harmful ways.

Although their believers in the United States are small compared to the "mainstream" religions, their faith is legally protected by our Constitution just like the others (although as Mahlia indicates, not always in practice.)

Robby

 
Baptist  
     Jimmy Carter  
     Bill Clinton  
     Warren G Harding  
     Harry S Truman  
Congregationalist  
     Calvin Coolidge  
Disciples of Christ  
     James Garfield  
     Lyndon B Johnson  
     Ronald Reagan  
Dutch Reformed  
     Theodore Roosevelt  
     Martin Van Buren  
Episcopalian  
     Chester Arthur  
     George Bush  
     Gerald Ford  
     William Henry Harrison  
     James Madison  
     James Monroe  
     Franklin Pierce  
     Franklin D Roosevelt  
     Zachary Taylor  
     John Tyler  
     George Washington  
Presbyterian  
     James Buchanan  
     Grover Cleveland  
     Dwight D Eisenhower  
     Benjamin Harrison  
     Andrew Jackson  
     James Polk  
     Woodrow Wilson  
Unitarian  
     John Adams  
     John Quincy Adams  
     Millard Fillmore  
     William H Taft  
Methodist  
     George W Bush  
     Ulysses S Grant  
     Rutherford B Hayes  
     William McKinley  
Quaker  
     Herbert Hoover  
     Richard Nixon  
Roman Catholic  
     John F Kennedy  
None  
     Thomas Jefferson  
     Andrew Johnson  
     Abraham Lincoln

The beginning of Sikh organization in the United States can be traced to the arrival of Jawala Singh who came to California in 1908. After World War II, and particularly after immigration barriers were lowered in 1965, Sikhs began migrating to the United States until by 1974 there were close to 100,000 Sikhs in America. Centers can now be found in cities and towns across the United States.

The Moscow city prosecutor has been trying to outlaw the Moscow branch of the U.S.-based Jehovah's Witnesses church, using a provision in the Russian law on religion that allows courts to ban religious groups found guilty of inciting hatred or intolerant behavior.

The Jehovah's witnesses say the law is being used to restrict churches other than Russia's biggest, long-established faiths that enjoy special status -- Orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Their case is a test that could determine the fate of many minority churches in Russia.

Robby

Many modern Orthodox women have already entered professional fields. Even in some ultra-Orthodox households, women have long been the primary wage earners so their husbands can devote more time to Torah study and prayer. But until recently, Orthodox Jewish women generally chose jobs in nurturing professions like teaching, social work and nursing. Or they worked in sales at Jewish-owned businesses that closed to observe the Sabbath and holidays.

Now, according to a professor of contemporary Jewish life at Brandeis University, growing numbers of Orthodox women are balancing religious life and increasingly demanding duties in the workplace. Did deTocqueville see this coming in his quote (above) starting with "As public opinion grows...?"

Robby

She noted that although many modern Orthodox women work, in the past few chose to do so while their children were small. It is much more likely, she said, that those women will now work full time through their childbearing years. And, she said, although Hasidic women are still less likely to work while they have young children, more are looking for work after their children grow up.

Do you see deTocqueville as having alluded to changes such as these in his remark (above) beginning with "As public opinion ...?"

One priest commented: "The need for Masses and ministry in so many growing and diverse populations makes a lot of emotional and intellectual demands on a priest. The life of a priest has changed a lot. The stresses are different." This particular priest says Mass in three languages -- Spanish, Italian, and English.

Any comments on the difference between practicing religions in a Democracy which has diverse populations and languages and practicing religions in other nations which are not that diverse?

Robby

Robby

Concerning this effect of Democracy on religion, I continue to wonder if anyone here agrees with deTocqueville's comment (above) which begins with "As public opinion...?"

How do you define that difference, Idris?

Robby

In the Heading you will find a list of numerous sub-topics. Some of them we have already discussed and you can read comments by our participants here in the four Links above. Some of them we have not yet discussed and are not yet ready for them as the topic of Religion and Democracy still has many facets to cover. Take your comment about "corporate takeover" for example. We will at a later date enter that sub-topic but if you start talking about it now, it will throw into confusion others who are sticking to the topic of Religion. We have held to that procedure for nine months now and it works very well.

I don't know how long you will be allowed to hold onto the book you have. As you read comments by others, please keep in mind that many of them refer to the Heffner paperbook mentioned above. If we did not do this, many people would be lost.

I understand completely your enthusiasm as you go through deTocqueville's book. We all feel that way and that is why it has remained a classic for 170 years. Congratulations on obtaining a copy!!

Eloise believes that "This piece of French literature is a work of art." I agree 100%!!

Robby

Let me start with the definition of the word "proselytize." One could spend hours merely discussing the definition of this word but for the purposes of this forum, we will not spend hours or even minutes for that and this will be the definition. Those who believe I am not facilitating this Discussion Group properly have the right to appeal to Marcie Schwarz, Director of Education of the Senior Net. As Discussion Leader, I was given the privilege nine months ago to guide this forum in the best way I know how and I will continue to do so until given the official word not to continue.

Definition of To Proselytize:--(A)To try to convert, especially to one's religion. ( To persuade to do or join something, especially by offering an inducement. I want to concentrate on the second definition.

If someone knocks at my door and says: "I am John and I belong to Church X," I may say hello. If he asks to come in to talk about Church X, he is proselytizing. If I invite him in and he talks about his church, he is proselytizing. He does not need to ask me to join his church -- he is proselytizing by virtue of the fact that he taking my time to expound the values of his church. This is an inducement. This may be covert rather than overt but it is nevertheless proselytizing. That is why he is talking about it.

Imagine that we here are all sitting around in a living room. Someone enters this deTocqueville living room and says he belongs to Church X. No proselytizing. He says there are great values to his church (an inducement). That is proselytizing whether or not he has asked me to join. Let us also assume that someone in my living room says: "I am an atheist." No problem. He then says that there are benefits to being an atheist (an inducement). He has started to proselytize. I might or might not accept his doing this but he is proselytizing nevertheless.

In this forum we do NOT accept this! Lee says: "Should man or woman be concerned about their eternity, and they are in their sunset years, and not have a faith, they might wish to give strong consideration as to where they wish to spend their eternity." Some men and women are not concerned about their eternity, even in their sunset years, and for Lee to automatically assume that they do (as he does) is proselytizing.

Lee says: "My posts have repeatedly been atacked by Dave who cannot stand to have me post anything he disagrees with." That sentence is in itself an attack. Attacks against participants is NOT permitted in this Discussion Group.

Lee says: "I also am sorry this unhappy man must continue to attack my posts, as he feels it necessary to continually violate Robbie's request to NOT engage in personalities, which interfere with the topic of this forum. I ask that he learn to contain himself and STOP bing childish." To describe another particicpant is in itself at attack. It is not for anyone of us to describe another participant as "unhappy" or "childish." Even as Discussion Leader, I would not do that. It is also not for a participant here to comment on whether or my request has been violated. As Discussion Leader, I will handle that myself.

Martex says: "You have been judging, too. What makes you exempt from criticism? I said I was judging. Can't you see that you were, too." It is certainly permissible for one of us say "I was judging." It is not permissible for one of us to say "you were too." That is addressing the personality rather than the issue.

Dave says: "No, we are not 'judging' Lee, we are being factual concerning his incessant desire to tell other people that his brand of Christianity is the ONLY brand, and proselytizing does NOT need to be said as 'please come over to my church."

Sometimes being "factual" does not lead to good relationships. Soft words accomplish more. Whether Lee is proselytizing or not, Dave is attacking him and that is NOT permitted in this forum.

Martex says: "I am not pleased with the ignoring of posters, either, but that is understandable within the context of Robby's professional expertise. I recommend you folks stay with the program to keep personal religious judgements to a minimum." Recommendations to "stay with the program" is the domain of the Discussion Leader. I ask that all participants concentrate on one and only one goal -- addressing the issues brought up by deTocqueville.

So much valuable time is being wasted here on "You did - no I didn't - yes, you did too - no I did not." I wonder what Alexis deTocqueville would have thought of that. (Do NOT answer that. That is a rhetorical question.) Shall we move on?

It is not for any of us to comment on another participant's motives. Shall we move on to addressing the issues?

Jenny says:--"A rule is a rule if one wishes to remain involved in the conversation--certain adjustments must be made to conform, or drop out of posting on the thread."

Well said, and perhaps for some participants, dropping out is the only answer.

I most certainly agree. And if we pause and think about it, we are not really examining the right to speak but are touching on the sub-topic that was discussed a couple of months ago -- MANNERS!

Robby

Robby

As is becoming evident here, the problem is not truth but courtesy and consideration. If I remember the words correctly -- "A soft answer turneth away wrath."

Robby

Robby

Robby

Robby

It is a practice in Senior Net that in one discussion group we do not make comments about another discussion group. Each discussion group has its own topic.

Here in Democracy in America, which is under the Books and Literature folder,we have one and only one goal -- to relate to the remarks of Alexis deTocqueville, our current sub-topic being Religion and Democracy.

But they still rise about three hours after midnight, for vigils, and retire by 8 p.m. In between, they have five other prayers, celebrate Mass and work. The Trappists are a global organization, with 4,300 monks and nuns on six continents.

Robby

I kind of wonder if "keeping score" is a Senior way of looking at life.

Jenny says:--"But I see your point--the politics folder is far more democratic."

No, that was not my point. My point was that in this Discussion Group we don't pay any attention to the Politics Folder or any other folder or forum in Senior Net. We are under Books and Literature and have one and one only goal -- to examine Religion and Democracy as mentioned by Alexis deTocqueville.

Shall we move on?

But these days, the community numbers 22, many of them elderly. Said the Abbot, "It sometimes takes time for grace to work."

Any connection here with deTocqueville's remark (above) which begins "As public opinion grows...?"

An elite group of orthodox Jewish women have climbed to ever greater heights of religious education in recent years. One feminist scholar announced in a book this year that she was studying to be the first orthodox female rabbi under the tutelage of a rabbi in Israel.

The Reform movement began ordaining women in 1972, the conservative movement in 1985. But in Orthodoxy, the prospect of female rabbis is so controversial that many of the most accomplished women scholars insist they have no interest in seeking the title.

Now two Jewish women have stepped forward in the pages of the newspaper, The Jewish week, to say that they have already been secretly ordained as rabbis.

Your reactions, please?

Robby

A dean of the Theological Seminary, an affiliate of Yeshiva University, said: "Orthodoxy is guided by Halakha, Jewish law, which is very emphatic about ordination, and ordination is reserved for men and not for women, since beginning with Moses."

Robby

Did you celebrate Easter when you were a child? Do you do so now?

Robby

Robby

We should all be thankful for this democracy, in which we are free to choose whether to believe or not, especially in a country that was originally founded by religious colonists, part of whose mission was to "enlighten thse who reside in darkness" (1st Virginia charter, 1608, also the Mayflower compact, etc.). Religious freedom has been around a lot longer in this country than in many much older civilizations. It is only since WW2 that many European countries have only allowed complete freedom to worship (or not) as one pleases.

During deTocqueville's time, what was the status of religious freedom in France? (Many countries, even today, pay lip service to religious freedom, but do not look kindly on minority groups.)

You then say:--"It is only since WW2 that many European countries have only allowed complete freedom to worship (or not) as one pleases." Do you suppose it is because of the "freedom" that some of these countries have obtained or is it an American influence?

Perhaps the one characteristic that distingishes late-twentiety-century religious life from the rest of America's history is diversity. the 1960's proved a turning point for religious life. Up until the 1960's, the "Protestant establishment" -- the seven mainline denonomations of Baptists, Congregationalists, Disciples, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians -- dominated the religious scene, with the occasional Catholic or Jewish voice heard dimly in the background.

Over the next decade and a half, however, this peaceful landscape was besieged from many sides. There were "alternative" religions such as yoga and transcendental meditation, and they all challenged the traditional church and its teachings, its leaders and their actions. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, then, religion itself was not rejected so much as was institutionalized Christianity. The Church was denounced by the young adults of the '60s for its materialism, power ploys, self-interest, and smug complacency.

Can we say, then, that "religion" itself is as important in the eyes of people in democratic nations as it had been heretofore but that now it is much different?

The 1960's swung wide a door that had never been opened before. A new vista of religious options was introduced into mainstream America. This meant that mainline Protestantism or even the tripartite division of Protestant-Catholic-Jew no longer represented all of society's spiritual interests. There were different kinds of spirtualities and practices, new kinds of leaders and devotees. In the post-1960's era the religious scene has become only more diverse and complex. Do we agree that American religion at the close of the twentieth century has a pluralistic nature?

One change was that now we have a generation of seekers. Diversity has increasingly fragmented American religious life but religious interest remains as lively as ever. There is a resurgence of more traditional, conservative expressions of Christianity but also sustained interest in non-Christian alternatives. Alongside a thriving conservative Christian community stands a very different expression of religious vitality. The generation of seekers are the baby boomers who came of age in the 1960's and 1970's and are now in their thirties, forties, and fifties. And because of its vitality and sheer size, it is shaping contemporary religion in a profoundly new fashion.

Reactions, please?

Robby

Thank you for counting the number of postings.

<Shall we now return to discussing the issues?

Robby

I agree completely!! And your comment reminds me of an earlier sub-topic here on Manners in America. It's as important among ourselves as it is when we visit another nation.

Robby

African Religions, Afro-Brazilian Religions, Afro-Caribbean Religions, Agnosticism, Animism, Atheism, Baha'i Faith, Buddhism, Channeling, Christianity, Cyberculture Religions, Divination, Ethical Culture, Fourth Way, Gnosis, Hare Krishna, Hinduism, Humanism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Meditation, Messianic Judaism, Monasticism, Mysticism, Native American Religions, New Age, Occult, Paganism, Pantheism, Santeria, Satanism, Scientology, Shamanism, Shinto, Sikhism, Spiritualism, Taoism, Unitarian-Universalism, Universal Life Church, Voodoo, Wiccan. Zroastrianism.

Reactions?</>

Interesting how the topics of religion and respect seem to intertwine.

Robby

They avoid institutional formality (see deT quote above which begins "In an age of equality") and define themselves as seekers rather than traditionally devout or "religious." They might be open to "trying church" but are just as willing to sample Eastern religions, New Age spiritualism, or quasi-religious self-groups of the Recovery Movement. For them, spirituality is a means of individual expression, self-discovery, inner healing, and personal growth. They shop around, compare, and select religious "truths" and experiences with what one historian calls their "a la carte" spirituality.

Robby

Have any participants here seen changes in their neighborhoods?

Robby

Dave speaks of the Cuban population, Mexican Spanish-speaking folks and Viet Namese and Taiwanese citizens.

Cal speaks of Christian rock music, "contemporary" services with Christian "praise music".

On Sundays more than 1,000 Sikhs show up. They listen to religious leaders read from the scripture and join in a communal meal called langar. As steamed lentils are ladled out, an elderly man in white robes and a yellow turban walks among the worshipers, chanting, "God is wondrous. God is wondrous," a silver ceremonial sword tucked beneath his belt.

This is the type of religious service to which most Americans are not accustomed. Any activities in your area which show increasing religious diversity?

Sikhism, as described being practiced in New York City, is undoubtedly very different from what are usually called "mainline" churches. The one in Queens started in 1965.

Sikhism has about 19 million followers worldwide, most of thenm in the dusty state in India called the Punjab. It is a monotheistic religion founded in the 15th century by Nanak, the first Sikh guru. It is my understanding that it combines elements of Hinduism and Islam.

Anyone else here who is beginning to notice a diversity in religious practices, either in their own neighborhood, or elsewhere in America?

Robby

Female genital mutilation refers to the range of procedures performed on the genitalia of young women and girls. A ritual with cultural and traditional implications, it is largely practiced in countries throughout Africa and performed on young girls usually before reaching the age of puberty. Female genital mutilation (FGM) transcends cultures and religions. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and indigenous religions of Africa all practice this procedure without any basis of it in any religious texts. (Al-Deeb, 1994).

In the meantime, any thoughts here about Religious Diversity in or near your community?

Robby

Does this ring a bell in your community?

Dapphne says:--"I live in a building that has 160 apartments, with about 30 Russian Families....I have a Muslim Market down stairs, a number of Great Oriantal Markets around town, Italian, Indian, Thai, VietNamese, Greek, Irish, and the list goes on and on." Now that is diverse! What kinds of religions do you see being practiced, Dapphne?

Americans are going to be exposed to multiple ethnic and "Two-Thirds" world religions as never before. These traditions have never penetrated Main Street America. Americans will increasingly encounter Buddhist neighbors, Muslim colleagues, and Hindu businessmen. These "foreign" religions will no longer be simply descriptions in school textbooks or exotic movie subjects. Indeed, advocates of cultural pluralism hope that the new religions will become as much a part of the American Way as historically Protestant orthodoxy.

Are you seeing the change in your neck of the woods?

Robby

Any idea on the part of anyone here on how such balance comes about? And just how do we measure the balance? The number of people in each "denomination?" The power wielded by each religious group? The "cooperation" among the various religions?

Robby

How about the pace of introduction of various religious groups into America now? Too fast? Just right?

Did the churches do this no matter what religion the newcomers had? For example, those from India, or Southeast Asia? Were they as welcome? Consider, for example, the Sikhs I mentioned in an earlier posting. It is my understanding that there are many Sikhs in Canada.

The Scriptures specifically prohibit the eating of fish and meat, and the consumption of alcohol or any other intoxicant or drug.

Perhaps some others here may be more knowledgeable about these immigrants from India who are helping to widen the diversity of religions in America.

Robby

The Hindu ideas, practices, and teachers that have gained currency in America comprise something of an intercultural phenomenon, related to both American and south Asian contexts but the sole product of neither. Only certain aspects of Hinduism have been appropriated by Americans. Philosophic and mystical teachings and the fellowship of religious movements have had wider appeal in America than Hindu concepts of ritual and familial duties or Hindu customary practices and divine mythologies. Yes Hindu influences have made an impact on America's religious consciousness from the early nineteenth century (when deTocqueville was here) to the present.

Robby

Robby

Robbu

Lee, regarding your comment about the name, Singh. It is my understanding that the name, Singh, in India is similar to our name, Smith. We have "Smiths" all over America and as those from India continue to emigrate, we will undoubtedly have an increase of "Singhs" here.

1 - A burgeoning Asian immigrant population,
2 - Numerous native-born converts,
3 - Old-line Asian-American Buddhists.

Others here may know more about Buddhism and how it is contributing to the diversity of religions in America.

Robby

Any Buddhism in your area?

It is not for any of us to explain what others participants mean. Each person is capable of speaking for himself.

Robby

Perhaps someone here who has personal experience with practicing Buddhism can help us under it better.

Robby

Anyone here see similar increases of Buddhism in the United States?

Buddhism in Canada

BC
Yukon
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Nunavut
N Ontario
SW Ontario
Toronto-W
Toronto-N
Toronto-Centre
Toronto-E
E Ontario
Québec (F)
Québec (E)
PEI
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Newfoundland

Robby

"The Sherpa religion is a mixture of Buddhist traditions and animistic faith. The culture has evolved from centuries of myths, legends and the strong influence of religion. The name Khumbu comes the guardian deity Khumbila Tetsan Gelbu which, literally translated, means "Khumbu country god"."

Robby

It is not the responsibility of participants here to comment on whether others are abiding by the rules or not. This is the responsibility of the Discussion Leader.

If there are, indeed, as many Buddhists in America and Canada as indicated earlier, do you folks here see this "foreign" religion as beginning to make a change in democracies?

Robby

Robby

According to these Buddhists, this may have come into being during the era when the "Hare Krisna" group was very visible. Many Americans may have thought they were Buddhists. Tibetan Buddhists and others who are are living the life of a monk or priest do in fact wear religious robes. However, while Shinn Buddhist ministers do wear official robes during the service, the members of the temple simply wear casual clothes.

So that next person you see walking down the street in casual clothes may be a Buddhist.

I was really taken by surpirse to hear of a Buddhist Temple on a U.S. military installation! But then logic overcame me. Why not? For centuries, there have been Christian churches on military installations. Now with the increasing diversity of religions across America, there would naturally be an increasing diversity of religions within military circles.

Those of us who were in combat wore dogtags with our religious preference -- P, C, or H. I guess future (maybe present tags will have B or S or whatever. As we discuss here the relationship between Religion and Democracy, it is becoming evident (to me at least) that there is a great difference between freedom of religion in democracies from other forms of government.

Robby

Since the granting of self-government, somewhere between 100 and 150 new parishes and communities, most composed of faithful of many ethnic backgrounds using English exclusively in liturgical worship, have been formed.

Any such churches in your area?

Do you folks agree with this?

What makes America and some of the other democracies different in this respect? As Mahlia says, Americans are "fairly willing" to mingle with people of other religions, and terrorist acts against people of other religions are rare and make the news. In some of the hot spots of the world, this is not rare and is not news.

Is it our upbringing? Our schooling? Our belief in the Constitution? Our fear of the Law? Democratic mannerisms?

In the Balkans, for example, during their recent war, people who had lived alongside of each other for years and had mingled, suddenly began to kill each other. Would we do the same if the right context arose? What is the right context? What makes America and some other democracies different?

My understanding is that Shintoists believe in the sacredness of the whole universe and that man can be in tune with this sacredness. Every mountain, river, plant, beast, and all the diverse phenomena of heaven and earth have presiding spirits, or kami. Reverence is paid to the ancestors. Shinto has no creed, ethical doctrine, sacred book, philosophy, or theology of any kind. Its theory of human duty is follow your natural impulses and obey the laws of the state.

Again, an example of the diversity of religions in a democracy.

It is concerned with the full rehabilitation of man's innate spiritual self -- his capabilities, his awareness and his certainty of his own immortality. Its religious technology is new. What is achieved through Scientology enables man to live to improve his lot and increase his native spiritual abilities.

Anyone with contact with this religion?

Robby

But I still continue to wonder. Why is it that while in this imperfect democracy that we have, religions still manage to live side by side without killing each other any where near the scope of the genicides that exist in other nations. Yes, we have some awful "hate" crimes here related to people's religion but not in the hundreds of thousands.

What is keeping us in check here?

Robby

Logic tells us it should be the opposite. I am baffled!!

Robby

Aren't people all the time doing things to jeopardize freedom? Prior to the war in Bosnia, a democracy of sorts existed there. In the former Yugoslavia, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Islam all existed together in the same nation. People of different religions lived next to each other as neighbors. Sometimes they inter-married. Their children went to school together.

Then the war started with nationalistic overtones and neighbors "told" on each other and, in the dead of night, set fire to each other's houses. How could they have changed overnight? And in a quick moment of history, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims set about killing each other.

Could that happen here? And if not, what is stopping us?

Robby

But why do we follow the Law? There was law in the Balkan states and in various nations of Africa but the people ignored it and tribes with different religions began to massacre each other.

Robby

Jews have given of themselves in peace time with their civilian contributions in all spheres of American life. They have played a major role in America in helping it become the number one nation in the world.

I understand what you are saying, Dave, and I appreciate the zeal our Founders felt. But what is it that is keeping our zeal going 225 years later to the point where (quoting Voltaire) -- "I disagree vehemently with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Why is my neighbor's religious belief (or lack thereof) so important to me?

Robby

All of you are stating what IS. I am asking WHY such acceptance is taking place in America and not in certain other nations. WHY is it we are not killing our neighbors and the neighbors in other nations are?

You are giving me a discription of what Democracy IS or SHOULD be. I am asking WHY it is that the tenets of Democracy seem to be stronger than my own biases to the point where in America or Canada or New Zealand or Australia or England, there has never been a case of our military getting out of hand and killing off five thousand Roman Catholics or five thousand Orthodox Christians.

Let me put the question more simply. How is it that, considering the great diversity of religions here, Democracy is working?

But what is that difference? Why do we not go as far to prove our own belief is right?

Robby

In a number of other nations they understand this but they don't follow it. Why do we practice our understanding?

Robby

At this conference, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of Britain, said: "Look at the conflict zones in today's world and you will see that they coincide almost exactly with zones of religious tension." The Dalai Lama could not attend due to the objection by China but he wrote a letter saying: "We need to embrace the spirit of pluralism in the field of religions."

What was really accomplished bya the conference -- according to the sponsors -- was to allow people of diverse religious backgrounds to meet and talk with each other. But we have this right here in America all the time. Is the answer as Mary says:--"Most of us are of "mixed" blood. That is to say, we may be English, Scots, Welsh, Irish, German, French and Native American! These people want to keep their blood, language, religion, politics, EVERYTHING, "pure" and just the way they have always been."

Are we saying, in effect, that Democracy works because of its citizens' "lack of purity?"

Robby

America has been often described, not as a melting pot, but a salad bowl. The lettuce and tomatoes and celery and whatever are constantly being "tossed." Just this past January, for example, the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, after more than three decades of debate, inaugurated an alliance that allows them to share clergy members, churches and missionary work. It represents a combined membership of 7.7 million people and culminated in a festive procession into Washington National Cathedral.

This accord stops short of a merger because each church will retain its own structure and worship style (the lettuce and the tomatoes each retain their own identity.)

Robby

Keeping in mind that our current sub-topic is Religion and Democracy, what are some of our challenging ideologies? Are we insisting on new laws regarding religious practices? What do you folks think are the "forces" necessary to sustain Democracy?

Robby

This change has spread from talk shows and recovery groups to creative writing classes and television entertainment. The notion of second chances and new beginnings is not new. It is one of the founding principles of America -- the new frontier that was supposed to offer immigrants a chance to start over. By the late 19th century, figures like Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, were equating salvation and healing, laying the groundwork for today's recovery movement. New Age spiritualism is often combined with traditional evangelical ideals, describing addiction and recovery in terms that sound a lot like sin and redemption.

Your thoughts, please?

Robby

Is it a foregone conclusion, then, that as the decades and centuries pass in America, that between religions there will be less understanding and cooperation and more animosity? Is that the direction that Religion will ultimately take in America?

Robby

Can there any longer be any doubt, at least in this forum if not across America, that hundreds of religions live side by side in this great Democracy?

Robby

The United Methodist church was formed in 1968 by a merger of the Methodist church, the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, and The Evangelical Association. The Church of God in Christ is a Pentecostal body, perhaps the nation's largest black denomination, and was formed in 1897 when it severed ties with the Baptists. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America was formed in 1987 by a merger of three Lutheran bodies: The Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, the Luteran Church in America, and The American Lutheran Church.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) was formed in 1983 as a result of re-union beteen the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (the so-called southern branch) and the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (so-calld northern branch). The National Baptist Convention of America is a different group from the National Baptist Convention, U.S.A. and is sometimes referred to as the "unincorporated" Convention.

Look at the dates and please note how recent these separations and mergers occurred. Diversity is occurring even as we speak!!! And these are only those religions with which most American are acquainted -- not mentioning those "foreign" religions which are rapidly entering our shores.

Comments, please?

Robby

We know when we have a good thing going (if it works, don't fix it) and when there is a religious dispute, we stop at the point where we suddenly realize we might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Robby

You say, Lee, that "there is a specific, and well found reason as to why religious leaders are coming together to form a one world religion."

I don't recall in previous postings by anyone here that anyone believes a "one world religion" is being formed. Secondly, what I am hearing here is "diversity" not "coming together." Thirdly, the comments here have pointed out what is taking place in America, and is NOT taking place in many other nations.

Regarding Lee's thought that "when we here in this forum speak of a religion (what ever it may be) we should (IMO) discuss what, and why they believe as they do. This will get to the root of any question regarding any of their faiths."

Discussion groups (under the Religion and Spirituality folder) exist in Senior Net for specifically that purpose. It is not our intention here to "get to the root" of any specific religion. (That was pointed out in Post #2 as this sub-topic began.) In this forum we discuss "religion" per se and its influence on "democracy" or vice versa, and compare what we see with what deTocqueville saw.

Roman Catholic Mexican, Anglo, and Vietnamese Americans, for example, are beginning to celebrate a common Mass together in some parts of the nation. Muslims of different sects are sharing mosque space in major cities.African Americans wearing sufi hats are singing Southern Baptist hymns in Chicago churches (with portraits of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela gracing the walls).

In sum, these young, thriving and growing immigrant communities are introducing a whole new kind of religious pluralism into 21st-century America. The real impact of immigrant communities remains to be seen, but religion in America promiss to be more complex and diverse in the coming years than ever.

Robby

Robby

Robby

Robby

We have given two examples that illustrate the pluralistic nature of American religion as the 21st century begins:--

1 - The "baby boomer" generation of Spiritual Seekers, and
2 - The growth of non-European, ethnic-religious communities.

Another area in which the diversity of contemporary American religion manifests itself is in the escalating battles fought in the courts over religious practice in the "public square." Most legal battles over religion center around interpretations of the First Amendment's religion clause. The issues commonly raised, thus, concern questions about the "separation of church and state" (especially as violated by traditionally privileged Protestantism) and the free exercise of religion (especially as sought by minority traditions.) Litigation and disputes over the First Amendment have increased dramatically since the 1970's and continue unabated today.

Historically the courts have been loathe to rule on disputes within religious groups, questions concerning what constitutes "religion," and the legitimacy of personal religious practices. Concerning the free exercise of religion, however, the courts have intervened when traditional welfare questions or "common good" policies are involved.

A reminder that while it would be tempting to get into comments about political ideals and theories and naming political names, there are other excellent discussion groups where this is more apropos. Here, we continue to take the broad approach, taking into account the diversity of religions. We look at democracy now. We look at democracy in deTocqueville's time. We look at other nations. And we compare.

"Common good" policies have led the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against the sacramental use of peyote by Oregon Indians. Protecting antidrug laws is considered abosolutely necessary (e.g. banning certain drugs no matter what their usage) for the larger "common good" of the nation.

What is your reaction to this?

Robby

I wonder, at this point -- what is our responsibility as long-time citizens of this nation? How much time and effort should be put toward learning about their customs so that we realize why they are doing what they are doing? What is the responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in this respect? How "strict" should we be when we learn that they are involved in religious practices which are against the Law? Does all the responsibility lie with them?

In 1993 Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to require "strict scrutiny" of any state or federal law that conflicts with the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court struck down this act in 1997 (in a case involving city zoning laws and a cnurch's renovation plans) asserting that Congress had overstepped its authority and that the act violated the separation of powers in the federal government. Since then several states have passed or introduced bills for state religious freedom restoration laws.

Robby

Robby

Robby

Both bible reading and prayer that are directed by the school have been banned from public school since the early 1960's> Despite ongoing efforts to appeal these laws (and most recently to replace prayer time with a "moment of silence"), the courts have not changed their stance. Legislation to include creationism along side teachings on evolution in the schools has been continually sruck down. In 1992, clergy prayers were abolished at high school graduations (although student prayers are allowed).

What reactions do you folks have to all these actions?

Robby

What is your view? What do you folks think?

Robby

Robby

Would you agree that democracies are changing in terms of religious practice? And do you see this as beneficial or not?

In relation to deTocqueville's remark above which begins "In an age of equality..." do any of you folks believe that democracy has had an effect on people worshipping "in public" (in a church for example) as compared to their worshipping privately?

Robby

A profound statement! Is it possible that the constant exposure that Democracy forces upon us (in any area whatsoever) is one factor causing the diversity in religion?

I am not usually bothered by these things. However when I go into a store like Walgreens or Winn Dixie grocery and can't get help because I can't find someone that speaks English I do get a little annoyed. There was a time, expecially during the Mariel boat lift when store owners put signs in their windows: "Se Habla Español." I feel that now it would be helpful to know if English is spoken.

Yesterday as I was driving to the grocery store I passed an intersection that had a dead chicken in the middle of it. This intersection seems to be a favorite for this sort of thing.

Would you folks say that religion is a matter primrily of belief (believing certain things about a transcendent being)? -- a practice (doing certain activities, following certain rules)? -- or experience (feeling certain emotions, having a spiritual encounter)?

What do you folks think?

After the changes have been made, Senior Net will be even BETTER, if that is at all possible!

Robby

Will you expand a bit, Idris, on what you mean by the use of those terms?

Robby

I don't exactly consider the EU to be a model for us. There are many thorns among the roses there, and we in the Americas have much more diversified cultures and the attendant problems, national pride being one. Perhaps the whole free trade conception is lacking.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that on a net basis, unions lost 200,000 members last year, partly because of layoffs, retirements and factory closings.

Robby

Companies are also generous with annual bonuses to their chief executives, which rose 20 percent over the last year, to an average of $2 million. Salaries, once the bulk of executive compensation, now account for just 10 percent of pay packages.

Robby

1 - Business decision-making linked to ethical values
2 - Compliance with legal requirements and
3 - Respect for people, communities and the environment.

It is operating a business in a manner that meets or exceeds the ethical, legal, commercial and public expectations that society has of business.

What expectations do you have of business?

Robby

"We, the democratically elected Heads of State and Government of the Americas, have met in Quebec City at our third summit, to renew our commitment of hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people. We have adopted a Plan of Action to strengthen representative democracy, promote good governance and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.

"We seek to create greater prosperity and expand economic opportunities while fostering social justice and the realization of human potential."

Are corporations becoming dominant over governments? If so, is that good or bad?

Robby

Robby

Is NAFTA perhaps good for us?

Robby

Robby

Recognizing the importance of small business to our nation’s economy, every U.S. president for 38 years has issued an annual proclamation marking Small Business Week. Small Business Advocates are also honored. These awards recognize individuals who have been advocates of minority-owned, women-owned, and veteran-owned small businesses. In addition, awards go to a small business journalist and accounting and financial services representatives who contribute to small business development.

Ex: Microsoft. OK the king who rose to power is kind and generous, when he leaves, in comes the princes who were ready to fill in his shoes and take over the kingdom.

Do any of the rest of you see the Industry Barons as "Democratic Aristocrats?"

Robby

In an email to his employees he said:--"It saddens me to do so, and yet I do so with my heart at peace, my conscience clear and high hopes for the paper's future -- and mine as well." In a letter to his employer he said he was stepping down in the hope that his action would cause them "to closely examine the wisdom" of corporate profit targets.

Robby

Robby

Robby

But if I remember history correctly, wasn't it the Industry Barons in England, the West India Company and others who, in the name of trade, located the Western Hemiphere and ended up founding the United States? And wasn't it their power that created the tobacco industry that brought so much wealth to the colonies?

Aren't we today benefiting from the Industry Barons of those times? If the answer is "yes," then aren't today's titans of industry strengthenng our lives in one way or another?

It works closely with governments and business to improve the African continent's trade and raise the profile of Africa in the U.S. business community.

Do you think that this emphasizes deTocqueville's remark (above) which begins "No people...?"

Robby

Eloise quotes deTocqueville:--"If we renounce in giving every citizen ideas and sentiments which first prepares them for freedom, and then allow them their usage, there will be independence for no one."

Just how do we prepare every citizen for freedom? How do we allow them to use it? Are we currently prohibiting them from using it?

An ever-larger part of union organizing is in government and in the service sector, including hotels and nursing homes. In contrast, organizing has been sluggish in the manufacturing sector, partly because of the fear that companies might close operations if they are unionized.

Has the power of the "working person" disappeared?

Robby

The company also said it will respect the wishes of school administrators who want to limit the hours and places where soft drinks are sold. Said the president:--"We've always been committed to promoting a learning environment that does not become commercialized."

Was Coolidge correct when he said "the chief business of America is business?"

What do you see as the relationship, if any, between business and religion or morals?

Robby

Eloise says:--"I believe that the Protestant religion is an extremely important factor in the rise of the economic, political and social supremacy of the United States."How do the rest of you feel about this relationship? And what about her comment that "church attendance dwindled and since WW2 they are getting practically empty?" Are you seeing this in your area? If so, are you seeing a corresponding increase in business activity? What about businesses, formerly closed on Sunday, which are now open all day Sunday?

Cathy says:--"I blush with shame at our national obsession with profit."

Is this the way that America has always been? Is "profit" a bad word? Relating to an earlier posting which indicated that the search for profit sent ships around the world ending up in the founding of new nations, including the United States, is commerce necessarily something of which one should be ashamed?

What do you folks think?

Robby

Robby

I understand the concept and get as upset as the next person but I keep wondering -- how does one decide what amount profit one is entitled to and how does one measure this so that we all know when the profit is too much? And whose morals are we talking about?

Robby

There are also funds for Catholics, Lutherans and Seventh-Day Adventists. One mutual fund will invest only in companies tht support gay and lesbian rights; another shuns such companies.

Whose morals are we talking about?

Robby

More firms are seeking out companies that fit their ideals. The Domini fund family of New York favors companies that have good relations with unions, generous retirement benefits and strong pollution-prevention programs.

Salomon Smith Barney, owned by Citigroup, even runs a fund for animal lovers, disdaining companies that do not meet Humane Society standards for testing that uses animals, that make hunting and trapping equipment and that sell meat and other animal products. And most such funds avoid tobacco companies.

The arrangements play on the vulnerabilities of schools where budgets are stretched thin. Schools can become beholden to the bottlers. In Colorado springs in 1998, a district official sent all teachers a letter suggesting that they make sure vending machines were turned off only for the half-hour before and after breakfast, to meet the Coke-imposed sales minimum of 70,000 cases a year.

Robby

Colonial elites were impatient with the commercial constraints imposed by ties with Britain. They raised the rallying cry of Democracy to recruit an army of farmers, artisans and the urban poor. According to one historian, "Faith ran high that a better world than any that had ever been known could be built where authority was distrusted and and held in constant scrutiny." We hear this cry constantly today as corporations ask the government to "get off their backs."

Yes, we question the ethics and morals of various businessmen. We compare the motives of people who spend 20 million dollars to take a space joy ride with our own ethics which would have led us to spending the entire 20 million dollars on helping the disadvantaged (would we really do that if tomorrow the lottery gave us that amount of money)? In this discussion group about deTocqueville's book we are talking about Democracy -- freedom -- liberty -- the right to be without morals if we wished. We do not live in Singapore where, if I understand correctly, citizens receive harsh lashes for defacing someone else's car. In nations with different forms of government, the same discussion on ethics could be held ("bad" people exist everywhere) but the attitude of the government would be different in a non-democratic nation.

Should we "good" people not be thankful that we live in this free society even if it allows our neighbor to be greedy?

Just what is the relationship between Commerce and Democracy?

Robby

Could someone name any country which is less susceptible to greed than us? When there is an earthquake in indonesia, or floods in Bangladesh, or famine in Ethiopia, or other tragedy anywhere in this world, who is first to send aid? Yes, even some corporations get involved. But when Davenport, Iowa, is partly inundated be flood, or California suffers a devastating earthquake, how many countries send aid to us? (And there are some richer countries than us!) I wonder what deT would think of present day America?

I continue to wonder how we measure these things. Who determines what is "outrageous?" Just what is a "high salary?" How do we determine the worth of an individual? As Lou again points out, it is the public "who attends events and purchases the sponsor's products. It is the public which supports these corporations that leads to the high salaries paid to individuals." Does this not say that we think they are worth it?

Despite our constant hue and cry that we place teachers high on our list of "worthy" individuals, local school districts constantly turn down school budgets which would raise teachers' salaries. Does this not say that Democracy is working exactly as it is supposed to be working and that most of us, despite our protestations to the contrary, are "business" people who place the "bottom line" first?

"Fifty years ago," he says, "it would have been considered very natural for a CEO, if his plant burned down, to rebuild it and to worry about his people and his community and city." Today, he contends, business leaders have lost their allegiance to their workers and communities and remain loyal only to the shareholder -- all in the name of short-term profits.

For Feuerstein, a devout Jew, a driving force in his life has been a 2,000-year-old saying from the Jewish tradition that his father taught him. It says, in essence: When everything is moral chaos, try your hardest to be a "mensch," or man of highest principles. Now, the mills are running at full capacity. The firms's employees are back at work. Thousands of letters poured in from well-wishers. Five universities awarded him honorary doctorate degrees.

Robby

Is it "bad" to be an entrepreneur?

Robby

Is Eloise being negative or pragmatic? Is a certain amount of pollution to be accepted?

Idris, you misunderstand me. I didn't mean that no help has been sent to America, just that any aid (in response to natural disasters) was in the main, token. The rescue of the doctor would not be considered as aid as such. It was more of a humanitarian mission, carried out by those who happened to be in the right spot at that time. Almost anyone of any country would have done the same under similar circumstances. What I was referring to was massive aid, such as the U.S. has been sending during disasters all over the world. The efforts of others have, by and large, few and far between. I wasn't including Canada, but some of the European and Middle Eastern countries.

I recognize your sensitivity on behalf of Canada but as you, yourself, have pointed out numerous time, we are the big elephant and you are the small mouse (your words). But if I remember the fable correctly, the elephant had to be reminded from time to time that he might trod on the mouse. He forgot how big he was.

Robby

Companies have experienced a range of bottom-line benefits, including:

1 - Improved financial performance
2 - Reduced operating costs
3 - Enhanced brand image and reputation
4 - Increased sales and customer loyalty
5 - Increased productivity and quality
6 - Increased ability to attract and retain employees
7 - Reduced regulatory oversight
8 - Access to capital.

Our title above asks: "What is a democracy?"

Just what is capitalism? And what is its relationship to democracy?

Robby

The term "capitalism" also describes an ideology which favors the existence of capitalists (individuals who accumulate capital which then becomes available for investment in financial or industrial enterprises.)

The title of this discussion group asks: "What is America?" Is this the answer?

Robby

Robinson Crusoe is a bourgeois Puritan, but on his island his preoccupations -- labor, raw materials, the processes of production, colonialism (and implicit Imperialism), shrewdness, self-discipline, and profit -- are those of the proto-capitalist.

Are not shrewdness and self-discipline also good traits to further Democracy?Robby

The problem with democracy's image, he adds, is that romantics believe that democracy should consist of egalitarianism and avid civic participation when, in fact, democracy will always be chaotic, unequal, and marked by apathy. It offers reasonable freedom and security but not political paradise. To idealize democracy is to undermine it.

In this discussion group, are we idealizing Democracy?

Do you folks here think that the government(s) are truly confining the accumulation of wealth? Did deTocqueville see danger arising when he said (above) "Democracy favors the growth, etc.?"

To low-power advocates, radio deserves special government protection because it is or ought to be the ultimate grass-roots medium. Radio still remains the cheapest way to be heard by your friends and neighbors. You can start a pirate station if you have the $800 to buy a simple transmitter, an antenna and the cable to connect them. Some could offer commnity news and special programming that small towns and ethnic enclaves would otherwise not get.

Major broadcasters, joined by National Public Radio, argued that the new stations would interfere with existing signals and in December Congress dealt its blow to the plan by setting new technical standards.

Is this capitalism in action? Is this Democracy in action? Are the people benefiting?

Robby

1 - A 1999 study, cited in Business and Society Review, showed that 300 large corporations found that companies which made a public commitment to rely on their ethics codes outperformed companies that did not do so by two to three times.
2 - A 1997 DePaul University study found that companies with a defined corporate commitment to ethical principles do better financially (based on annual sales/revenues) than companies that do not.
3 - A recent longitudinal Harvard University study found that "stakeholder-balanced" companies showed four times the growth rate and eight times the employment growth when comparied to companies that are shareholder-only focused.
4 - A study by the university of Southwestern Louisiana entitled "The Effect of Published Reports of Unethical Conduct on Stock Prices" showed that publicity about unethical corporate behavior lowers stock prices for a minimum of six months.

Do you folks here see a relationship between true Democratic principles and Commerce?

Cipla, the Bombay-based generic drug manufacturer, which a few weeks ago offered to sell triple therapy at $600 a year to poor nations, has now said it will ask South Africa for a license to sell eight antiretrovirals there. In addition, Hetero Drugs, another Indian generic drug maker, has announced that it will offer triple therapy for $350 a year.

Just nine months ago, people in the third world could expect to pay the same $10,000 for triple theapy that Americans pay. Now, thanks to the competition from generics and the pharmaceutical companies' need to repair a public image as AIDS profiteers, every African government will soon be able to buy brand-name triple therapy for $1,200 a year, or a generic version for half to a third of that.

Considering the importance of public image, can it be said here that the people rule?

Robby

The Declaration of Quebec City given by the Summit of the Americas declared:

Robby

Do you see the various corporations taking over those duties?

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

This is what our president said approximately 140 years ago.

"The manufacturing aristocracy of our age first impoverishes and debases the men who serve it, and then abandons them to be supported by the charity of the public."

This is what Alexis deTocqueville said 170 years ago.

So what's new?

Robby

Just who is running this Democracy?

Even after commercial broadcasting gained a foothold in the late 1920's with the founding of CBS and NBC, there was a srong movement, joined by organized labor, religious and civil liberties groups, to reserve a significant part of the radio spectrum for non-commercial broadcasting.

By the mid-1930's the broadcasters had powerful allies in Congress. The new industry tried hard to erase the notion that there had ever been an alternative.

In 1937, William S. Paley, president of CBS, declared of broadcasting that "he who attacks the American system attacks democracy itself."

Interesting how the concept of capitalism gradually intrudes itself into the concept of Democracy.

Robby

Aside from the media, any thoughts here as to other types of corporations that you think are removing our freedom of information?