Doug Erickson wrote:
Meta, according to the U.S. Census, the percentage of Americans self-identifying as Christian dropped 9% between 1990 and 2001, from 86% to 77%. Check out
U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004-2005 (pdf format).
Meta:
Thanks for that. Excellent stuff.
The data I culled reported general "Belief in God" and included "Non-practicing" Christians, or those whom follow the mindset of Judeo-Christian philosophy, yet do not practice it. However for the purposes of this conversation, I'll defer to the U.S. Census' data as you have pointed out.
Doug Erickson wrote:
When you say Christians want a theocracy, I assume you mean the far-right fringe.
Meta: Yes.
I perhaps erred by not mentioning the differing factions.
I should strive to avoid generalizations in this case.
Doug Erickson wrote:
My guess is that most Christians would just like to see our culture cleaned up a little.
Meta: Agreed.
Doug Erickson wrote:
In the past few decades, American society has grown markedly ruder, crasser, more violent, and more promiscuous.
Meta: I am not certain that the data would indicate an uptrend in violence, however since I cannot say for certain, I'd have to leave this portion open for now.
On the issue with ruder, crasser, and more promiscuous
This would appear to be personal preferences.
When you say "ruder and crasser", what specifically do you mean?
As for "more promiscuous, I'd ask that you'd also clarify this point, for I think there is perhaps a large variation of thought when it comes to individual people's idea of
"promiscuous."
Doug Erickson wrote:
and all those traits have been glorified in our popular culture.
Meta: Is your argument to say that the media is responsible for these, as you say "unsavory elements", or just bolsters them?
Doug Erickson wrote:
I think Christians would like to see those traits rolled back some.
Meta: Undoubtedly, but "rolled back" to what? Going back to
"The Good old days" may not be such a good thing. There was much more inequity in the "Good 'ol days" than now.
Doug Erickson wrote: and as an agnostic who recently had a baby who I'll be raising in this culture, I don't disagree with them.
Meta: Even if the world around you becomes a Utopia or Living hell, studies show that your child's personality will largely be determined by the first 3-5 years of life.
So for those who blame the T.V. (I am not including you at this point) I say, shut it off, and play, read, and teach with your child as much as possible, and I would say to the extent that you may have to sacrifice things such as T.V., Video games, music, reading for yourself, etc, the time spent with a child is an investment that society will ultimately reap the rewards of.
Doug Erickson wrote:
I'm wondering: are people of non-Christian faiths in America actually *offended* by Christmas and its attendant decorations and displays? I'm not offended by menorahs or other artifacts of various faiths' celebrations. What exactly is the big deal? I get the distinct feeling that the types that sue to have Nativity scenes taken down simply get off on being contrarian (I'm looking at you, ACLU).
Meta:
You are right. There are extremists both ways.
I have 100% NO issue with things like that, as long as:
1. It's on private property
2. No one is encroaching on my personal right NOT to have to be subject to it if I don't have to. (Ie, as long as I have the right to walk away when I get bored.)
Doug Erickson wrote:
I guess I'm just sort of annoyed by the apparent notion that any holiday or celebration observed by 1 or more Americans deserves equal time. If 77% of Americans are Christian, doesn't it make perfect sense that Christmas gets the lion's share of the attention?
Meta: Perhaps. However I am inclined to say that views held by the majority doesn't necessarily facilitate correctness.
Doug Erickson wrote:
I'm not sure I even have a point. But in case my political leanings are not prominent enough on my sleeve, I'll leave you with this article on CNN.com:
Tiptoeing Around 'Merry Christmas', er, 'Happy Holidays'
Number of times author uses the word "conservative" or "conservatives": 4
Number of times the author uses the word "liberal" or "liberals": 0 (the time the word "Liberal" appears in the title of a book s/he disparages doesn't count)
From the article:
Fanning the flames are conservative talk show personalities bemoaning the secularization of Christmas. Fox News anchor John Gibson chimed in with a book "The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday is Worse than You Thought."
~ snip ~
Bah humbug, said radio talk show host Bill Press, author of "How the Republicans Stole Christmas."
Notice how John Gibson is labeled as "conservative" and identified as a "Fox News anchor" (we all know what a bunch of wingnuts those Fox News personalities are, right?), while Bill Press, who's as liberal as Michael Moore, is simply a "radio talk show host..." not a "liberal", not a "Huffington Post blogger" or "left-wing talk radio host."
And this is just a generic Reuters article that CNN.com picked up; doesn't even have a byline. Nope, no liberal bias in the media. Please disperse; nothing to see here.
-Doug
Meta:
It's human nature.
We simply adore labeling things and people.
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.
