 |
|
|
|
November 9th, 2012
05:00 AM ET
My Take: 7 Ways religious diversity played in the election
By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN “It’s demography, stupid!” is the new mantra for analyzing the 2012 election, in which African Americans, Asian Americans and Latinos cast their votes in overwhelming numbers for President Obama. But religious diversity was another key theme. How so? Let me count the ways. 1. The first Hindu in the House Thanks to Hawaii’s 2d congressional district, a Hindu has been elected for the first time to the House of Representatives. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat who was born in American Samoa, served in the Hawaii National Guard and was deployed to Baghdad and Kuwait, crushed Republican Kawaki Crowley with over three-quarters of the votes. Opinion: Moving on from elections as American rite Gabbard is a Vaishnava Hindu, which means she worships Vishnu. The key scripture in her Hindu tradition is the Bhagavad Gita, a meditation on duty in the face of war. 2. The first Buddhist in the Senate Democrat Mazie Hirono, who vacated the House seat in Hawaii that Gabbard just won, handily defeated Republican Linda Lingle to become the first Buddhist (and the first Asian-American woman) elected to the U.S. Senate. Hirono, who describes herself as a non-practicing Buddhist, and Hank Johnson (D-Georgia) became the first Buddhists in the U.S. House when they were sworn in in 2007. 3. Out with one atheist, in with another Pete Stark, who has served California’s 13th congressional district for 40 years, came out as an atheist in 2007 and since that time has been a standardbearer in Washington for secular Americans. He lost on Tuesday to Democrat Eric Swalwell, who criticized him during the campaign for voting against a bill that reaffirmed “In God We Trust” as our national motto. Election results raise questions about Christian right’s power In a very tight race in Arizona, however, Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat, appears poised to win by some 2000 votes over Republican Vernon Parker. If that result holds up, Sinema would become the first member of Congress to identify herself as bisexual. Sinema, who was raised a Mormon, also describes herself as a nontheist. It looks like she will replace Stark as the only openly atheist in Congress. 4. A successful (and relatively uneventful) "Mormon moment" As Mitt Romney started to home in on the Republican presidential nomination, many Mormons started to ask whether his run would be good for the LDS Church. The verdict right now seems to be yes. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter Although some voters on both the secular left and the Religious Right doubtless opposed his candidacy because of his faith, Romney’s Mormonism turned out to be far less of an issue than many suspected. In the end, 79 percent of white evangelicals (many of whom might have denounced Mormonism as a “cult” in prior years) cast their lot with Romney — the same portion that voted for George W. Bush in 2004. 5. Evangelicals draw the line Although it often seems to my friends in Boston and San Francisco that white evangelicals are a majority in U.S. politics, they, too, are a minority, accounting for 24% of the electorate. And though they voted overwhelmingly for Romney, they would not go as far as some on the right wanted to take them. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories Only a quarter of white evangelicals believe that abortion should always be illegal, and opposition of Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana to abortion even in cases of rape seem to have cut into their white evangelical base. According to Robert P. Jones of the Public Religion Research Institute, 57 % of white evangelicals supported Akin (20 points behind Romney’s 77 percent support there) while 69% of this group supported Mourdock (11 points behind Romney’s 80 percent). 6. Jewish support for Obama drops Of all the religious groups tracked by the Pew Forum, the Jewish vote showed the biggest change between 2008 and 2012. Whereas 78 percent of U.S. Jews supported Obama in 2008, that figure fell to just 69 percent in 2012. Tensions between the president and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over over settlements in Israel and Iran's nuclear threat likely account for at least some of that shift. 7. “Nones” on the Obama Bus According to the Pew Forum, religiously unaffiliated voters — “nones” in poll-speak — also went strongly for Obama, but their support was more tepid this year, down from 75% in 2008 to 70% in 2012. The longstanding preference of religiously unaffiliated voters for the Democrats may be moderating as the Democratic Party continues to walk away from its historical aversion to mixing church and state. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen Prothero. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's Note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of 
uhh..sorry, I was wrong. Boy do I feel like an idiot
Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things. Proof provided by loser name thief above
See proof of prayers power at prolapsed.net.
"Prayer changes things
Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things. Proof provided by loser name thief above"
"Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
"Salvatore" degenerates to:
"Douglas" degenerates to:
"truth be told" degenerates to:
"Thinker23" degenerates to:
"Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
"another repentant sinner" degenerates to:
"Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
"tina" degenerates to:
"captain america" degenerates to:
"Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
"Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
"just sayin" degenerates to:
"ImLook'nUp" degenerates to:
"Kindness" degenerates to:
"Chad" degenerates to
"Bob" degenerates to
"nope" degenerates to:
"2357" degenerates to:
"WOW" degenerates to:
"fred" degenerates to:
"!" degenerates to:
"pervert alert" is the degenerate.
This troll is not a christian.
MY PANTS
No, the GOP's problem is that they have abandoned their conservative roots. If they ever want the values voters to put them in office again, they'd better go back to the basics of morality and fiscal conservatism. Romney, as a moderate, failed on both accounts.
No the GOP's problem is that they try to appeal to people like you and therefore no sane person will vote for a Republican candidate.
Yes, the GOP has abandoned it's conservative roots.
But the roots of the conservative movement have NOTHING to do with religion.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." – Barry Goldwater
-----------------–
"I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." – Barry Goldwater
There's the voice of real conservative values for you.
Goldwater was a conservative, but he was not the only conservative, and he does not define conservatism. He was just another voice in the chorus.
Evangelicals only make up about 20% of the american electorate. Moving further to the right in order to embrace this group will only shrink the GOP's appeal to the country at large.
Barry Goldwater was a rare sane voice among a set of mostly loonies. The evangelicals represent the loonie subset, and they have hijacked an otherwise sane if questionable set of ideas. It's high time for America to push the evangelicals down. Way down. The crazy evangies are going to die off anyway in time, but the sooner their lunacy is pushed out of its excessive prominence, the better.
Sorry, Sue, but evangelicals comprise a good portion of the Republican base. When the base gets ticked off, elections are lost.
Then of course there is this gem:
"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass*. – Barry Goldwater.
* Apparently the original reference was 'nuts' but the anatomical reference was changed in print.
People like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley created the modern conservative movement. Without them Reagan's "morning in America" would not have happened. The American Taliban has perverted the GOP into a wannabe theocracy.
Nixon dated the religious right.
Reagan went steady with them.
Karl Rove presided over the marriage of the religious right with George W. Bush
Now that they 'have the ring' the religious right calls the shots in the GOP. (They wear the pants in this relationship.)
Look where it got them on Tuesday.
The GOP badly needs a divorce from the American Taliban.
Hmmm – so the fundiot nutters are not fucking batshit crazy enough? And that is why they lost?
Yeah – you guys go ahead and roll with that. I'm sure it all work out great in the next election.
So taking a more extreme position is going to get more voters on your side....let's see how that works for you
Romney didn't run as a moderate and in fact ran on a platform to the right of George W. Bush during his 2000 and 2004 wins. He may have been a moderate in the past but her certainly wasn't this election cycle. And in case you failed to notice, may I respectfully point out that Romney didn't win the independent vote. He won white seniors, white men and married white women.
Oh, give it up, Eva. You guys are history.
I hope the Republican party follows your advice. It will hasten it's exitinction and the marginalization of the religious right.
Evangiturd said "Sorry, Sue, but evangelicals comprise a good portion of the Republican base." Wrong!! The correct statement to make there is:
Evangelicals comprise a bad portion of the Republican base. And one that is diminishing in power fast.
There, fixed that for you, Evangiturd. Glad you lost the election, fantastic news. The Repubs would do well to drop your lot entirely and move on.
eva: when the supreme court strikes down the ban on gay marriage (as they will), and upholds the legal marijuana (which they will), what then will you inbred mother mounters have to complain about? oh yeah, abortion.....another losing battle.....welcome to the dung heap of history
bas tards, they left the muslims out again, corrupt Americans, deniers of truth absolute GAWD, goons.
Chill out on the Muslim chip on your shoulder. The first Muslim elected to Congress was Larry Ellis from Minnesota. So it's no longer a novel idea.
Actually his name is Keith Ellison, and I am proud to point out that our neighbors next door (and my home state) elected the first openly lesbian senator.
That's what the GOP 's problem is diversity you don't have be a christain to be an American...I went to high school with people I thought were friends but their racist & bigotry boiled to the surface on election night...I grew up in GA and just plain sad people still call the President ugly names just because he is black...Note to the Republicans the country is changing, therefore you will loose the next election as well;if you don't offer inclusion.
Prayer changeth things
See prayer heal at prolapsed.net.
So do you believe that prayer changes things or do you believe in predestination? They cannot both be true.
Hue, why not?
Whether you believe in predestination or not (that is you understand what it is to live outside of time) when you add Red to Blue it changes color, when you add 2 Hydrogen and one Oxygen together it changes.
Sooo, I guess the question is what do you think change and predestination mean?
"Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
"Salvatore" degenerates to:
"Douglas" degenerates to:
"truth be told" degenerates to:
"Thinker23" degenerates to:
"Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
"another repentant sinner" degenerates to:
"Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
"tina" degenerates to:
"captain america" degenerates to:
"Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
"Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
"just sayin" degenerates to:
"ImLook'nUp" degenerates to:
"Kindness" degenerates to:
"Chad" degenerates to
"Bob" degenerates to
"nope" degenerates to:
"2357" degenerates to:
"WOW" degenerates to:
"fred" degenerates to:
"!" degenerates to:
"pervert alert" is a degenerate.
This troll is not a christian.
Predestination – All events, from the cosmic scale to the quantum, proceed along a predetermined plan, or destiny if you will.
To change things – To change the outcome of an event.
If predestination is true the outcomes of all events are fixed and can never be altered. Thus prayer cannot change anything
Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs"
If predestination is true the outcomes of all events are fixed and can never be altered... not true predestination just knows the result of change
Can you see the difference from when they occurred? No we know this to be true. No matter how many times you watch game 6 of the 1986 world series, Bill Buckner is never going to come up with the ball. Nothing you can do can change that because we know the result, however, if there was extra infield practice taken ahead of time would the result be different. You Hue cannot know change *****as you do not have the before and after result*****. To make a determination like that you will need to consult with someone outside of time, yes God.
@huebert
Predestination speaks to people not events. Those God loves He predestined to be His. No where does it say everything is predestined, that is your own contrived falsehood. Accept you are wrong, learn from your error and move on.
Mike
If all outcomes are not fixed you are not working with predestination, you are working with, possibly inaccurate, foresight. Predestination implies that the final outcome is known. And for the final outcome to be known all preceding events must follow a specific path.
But I see you have retreated to the even more ridiculous position that God, who you say posses all knowledge and power, can be persuaded to change his grand design at the behest of certain carbon based lifeforms on a small planet in a backwater section of the Milky Way Galaxy. That makes a lot of sense.
TBT
Wow your position is even more ridiculous than Mike's. You are saying that at the beginning God selects certain souls he wants to be his and then, regardless of what those people do during life, he takes them back up into heaven when they die. And every other soul God creates knowing that, again regardless of their behavior during life, when they die he will send them to hell. Your version of God is a psychotic monster. I'm really glad he does not exist.
", can be persuaded to change his grand design "
Nobody said that. It is his grand design that we communicate through prayer. Don't twist the words to fit your beliefs.
there is no god. ALL religions are cults. christianity is a cult. cults are bad for you. they teach you to turn your brain off.
unclasp your hands. get up off your knees. think for yourself. go outside and put those hands to use helping your brothers and sisters.
congratulations - you're now a better person.
@footynbunk
nope
Doomsday beliefs like in The Jewish, Christian & Islamic cults are a danger to mankind & all life on this planet. The USA is one of the only nations formed around the concept that theocratic mysticism has no place in government. In 2012 Americans stood up for the 1st Amendment & individual freedom. Religious zealots can form their own nation or immigrate to a theocratic country. There are plenty of those.
"there is no god."
Great news, just can you please provide your evidence so we can be convinced of your beliefs? Please please don't play the "I can remain irresponsible and lazy as to not prove a negative game" for the reality is you are making a positive as.sertion
Mike
Using your logic I cannot as.sert that there are no underpants gnomes living two miles under the surface of the earth, but we both know that there are no underpants gnomes. So tell me why do I suddenly have to do the impossible and prove a negative when I say God instead of underpants gnomes?
The majority of athiests, satanists, witches, pagans and other "none" christians voted for obama -- evil attracted evil - but know that jesus is coming to chain your father the devil satan very soon - and kill you
Satan rules. Your God is a powerless, pu.ssy forward.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! What a "Nut Job"
@red: good bring him on. i have a few things i would like to thank that ass hole for.
1) the mentally, physically and emotionally abusive CHRISTIAN family i was born into. seeing it was god that gave me that family knowing what they would do to me.
2) for the CHRISTIAN ex-wife that fracking poisoned me
3) for putting a fracking tard like bush in office that sent me to iraq so i wake up at night in cold sweat from nightmares.
so yeah bring your god on.
" wanna know my secret? IM ALWAYS ANGRY".....................................thanks to the "loving" christians i've met in my life.
@red: good bring him on. i have a few things i would like to thank that ass hole for.
1) the mentally, physically and emotionally abusive CHRISTIAN family i was born into. seeing it was god that gave me that family knowing what they would do to me.
2) for the CHRISTIAN ex-wife that fracking poisoned me
3) for putting a fracking ass like bush in office that sent me to iraq so i wake up at night in cold sweat from nightmares.
so yeah bring your god on.
" wanna know my secret? IM ALWAYS ANGRY".....................................thanks to the "loving" christians i've met in my life.
You seem fun!
Please know that your supernaturalist's threats are providing great comedy for rationalists. Would YOU be frightened, for example, if someone told you that Zeus was really PO'd with you, and was sending Medusa to carry you across the Styx to Hades' underworld empire? A smile might cross your lips, but you would not actually be frightened, would you? Yet there is precisely as much evidence to support the Hellenic pantheon of gods and goddesses, spirits and demons and assorted fantastic beings, as there is to support your fear-inspired theology. This message board comment will surely not sway your theological beliefs, nor should it. But perhaps it will make someone, somewhere, THINK FOR THEMSELVES, and demand as much evidence – before turning over control of their lives to some preacher – as they would before they would sign a contract for a used car or a twenty-year-old house. Just a thought.
coo – koo for cocoa puffs
Now you know that is not true...I am christain and you don't have to be religous to live in this country...Note most of the founding fathers did not call themselves christain...That's why the revolutionary war was fought about freedom of religion; to break away from England...do your research before you post a fallacy!!!!
Translation of REDLIGHTING,
"My god is going to beat you up"
Grow the F up....
Atheist don't believe in Satan any more than we do in God.
I think that the GOP and their right wing fanatics need to realize that they're insulting Latino Catholics who feel they're just as religious and conservative as any evangelicals are.
What Latinos realize however is that the election is for President of the US...not for Pope of the US. We're electing someone to lead the country, to be commander-in-chief, to be a uniter. We realize that we're not the majority but we want someone who recognizes that we also have dreams and aspirations. We have a ferocious work ethic and want it to pay off with a better future for our children and grand children too. We too want our children to graduate from college. We want a leader who recognizes our strong family values but we certainly don't ask or expect him to follow us to our church.
We better all realize that this is more and more a melting pot of cultures, religions and races and that we had better do a better job of living together in harmony.
The GOP better wake up and soon!
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
In Reason We Trust
"Although it often seems to my friends in Boston and San Francisco that white evangelicals are a majority in U.S. politics, they, too, are a minority, accounting for 24% of the electorate. And though they voted overwhelmingly for Romney, they would not go as far as some on the right wanted to take them."
.
They are not strong enough to make a difference in voting but they are strong enough to weaken the GOP. Time for GOP to rethink its core values...remove Santa and its believers.
Santa belongs in the minds of those that believe in him, not our government
Believe it or not there are a lot of Agnostics and Atheists who believe in less government. However the Santa freaks in the GOP force us to leave. Enjoy losing in the future GOP if you continue to cater to the enemy of Freedom...christians
congrats on Tulsi Gabbard and Mazie Hirono
makes me as a pagan-Shintoist want to move to haweewee
but i love Cali to much, we in California always say are closest neighbors are to the west; by that we mean J@p@n but haweewee their to we just always forget
ps are beaches are better
Ya bro prolapsed.net is all about CA beaches, check it out!
@GOP,
Ah, but see, there's a problem. For instance, many Islamic nations have different codes of morality than we do. If we want to look at extremes, let's look at Afghanistan under the regime of the Taliban, versus, say, Canada. What is "moral" is completely different. Under the Taliban's morals, a woman should be covered head to toe versus Canada, where there are regions where women can be to.pl.ess in public.
So, once again, we ask, whose morals do we follow?
Ignore this. Posting fail.
But if you've ever lived among or worked with American Muslims, you would know that what is expected of them under their religious beliefs is NOT expected of non-believers. As a teacher in a Muslim school where all women wore hijab, I was not expected to cover my head or eschew skirts that exposed my legs or follow any particular religious practices that my colleagues followed. American Muslim tolerance for the beliefs of others is very strong - much stronger than that of evangelicals in the South where I also taught.
Good morning, everyone!
Making abortion illegal is not going to make the problem go away....A women should have ever right to do with her body as she wishes... Pro-lifers are really just pro-birthers... They care about the unborn but once the unborn is born they (pro-lifers) turn their backs and refuse to support any aid to that child's mother. At the same-time I do not see pro-lifers getting in line to adopt unwanted children.
The religious right needs to keep their beliefs and religious dogma out of politics as well as the public sphere.
This is the 21st century not the Dark Ages.
"At the same-time I do not see pro-lifers getting in line to adopt unwanted children." This is not true, there is a long line of Pro-lifers who are signed up for adoptions, it's just that they are on the "under 6 month old white baby" list...
When every child up for adoption is adopted then we might talk.
A women should have ever right to do with her body as she wishes
Right on if she goes out in public naked how dare they press public indecency charges.
If she spreads her own legs for money, how dare they go not only after her but also the person that paid good money, I mean it is her own body
How dare they.... oh wait on second though maybe your comment doesn't really make sense.
----–
As far as adoption, there have been people wanting to adopt and on the list for over 2 years. Adoption is really tricky because of the psychological and emotional battles the kids are facing that families may not be prepared for. Then there is the legal battle of after have fostered two kids for nearly a year, grandma from Alabama comes and claims "legal" rights to the children. Tearing apart the foster home, and environment.. Have experience before you claim to know this issue.
The religious right needs to keep their beliefs and religious dogma out of politics as well as the public sphere.
But yet you fail to keep your beliefs and dogma out of the public sphere.... way to go hypocrite.
Dear SB,
In India, I see political parties use the brainless Indians for votes by bringing forth really stupid religion based issues, and I just sit back and laugh bcoz this is India – and trust me, half of the people I know are really dumb. They deserve what they get. But in the past few days, looking at the brohaha around the US elections, I have come to realize that US is no better! I mean, SERIOUSLY!!! Are these even issues? Right extremists want to decide what I can do with my body and my life? And mindless people, who can't even control their own lives want to judge how mine will go... Grow up!
@mike:
1) not forcing anyone to get an abortion, just admitting that women have the right to choose.
2) you don't believe in abortion, fine don't get one...............but don't think you can force YOUR BELIEFS on others.
3) pay to play, could be permitted if religious nutters would get off their high horses and relax.
a) each female would have a license from the state to practice such actions.
b) each female gets tested monthly for any STD's
c) each male has to have an up to date STD screen clearing them before playing
d) each male must prove they are unmarried, thus eliminating the whole "infidelity" thing; thus no getting sued for married man in pay to play establishment.
e) regular drug screens for all working there
f) money is electronic only, thus no cash for the place to be robbed of...........plus a nice little paper trail if the male is married.
g) as long as contreceptives are properly used only minimal risk of pregnancy. if any at all.
"proper use of contriceptives" means condom,pill, disphram or sponge used together.
so as you can see many things conservatives "deem" improper or wrong can be done safely if you just put you mind to it; but what good would it be to use something your "god" gave you. lmfao
Thank you. It reminds me of a cartton I saw that pictured exactly what you said..... A pregnant woman, w/ protesters surrounding her w/ signs stating " Pro-Life" "Abortion is wrong" etc.. Next caption.... she is holding the baby and asking for help and those same people who were marching around her months before, were passing her by.
My grandma aways said "A man can put on a clean shirt, and no one will ever know his business, it's the woman that always gets noticed and judged"
@mbc: that is sad but true. they don't understand what they are doing to others until they are wearing that person's shoes.
for a people "supposibly" taught to be compassinate, understanding and peaceful..................they fail at it so well.
The one thing I agree with is that changing the law won't make the problem go away. The rest of this post is stereotyping nonsense. I am pro-Life, in favor of helping the poor, and have adopted 3 children. You have a right to your opinions about a woman's rights, but please don't ignore the rights of the little body on the inside. A child's worth is not dependent on if he is "wanted" by his parents or if he lives in an orphanage any more than your worth is dependent on how many people agree with your opinions.
Wasp you did not address the public nudity laws.
And let me address points 1 and 2
1) not forcing anyone to get commit murder, just admitting that women have the right to do so
2) you don't believe in murder, fine don't murder...............but don't think you can force YOUR BELIEFS on others. [ but yet we have murder laws on the books]
hopefully you can see how that does not work and how you are now required to stand for others lest they be subject to murder.
f) money is electronic only, thus no cash for the place to be robbed of...........plus a nice little paper trail if the male is married.
How dare you tell someone they can't be adulterous and have a right to privacy, it's their right [according to you]
.they fail at it so well.
And all this time I thought you didn't believe the Bible. I am glad to see that you finally agree with the Bible
Yahoo Headline right now
Breaking news: Gen. Petraeus resigns from CIA, citing extra-marital affair
How dare they tell him and the other woman they can't have their affair. How dare the public and his employer pass judgement on him.... yeah still doesn't work
“It’s demography, stupid!” Yes, Mr. Prothero, it certainly is. Take a look in Russia. By 2050, ethnic Russians will be largely extinct. Why? Because they have stopped reproducing. In Moscow alone, there are approximately 50,000 abortions per year. In america, white people are doing the same. One day the pro-choice white folks will wake up and have that "Duh !" moment when they find themselves an irrelevant minority. Admittedly, a pregnant woman has more immediate concerns than demographics. In Origin of Species, Darwin pointed out that a species will multiply until it is checked by some other force. Humans aren't faced with that so much now that science has made huge strides in medicine. So it looks like some participants in diversity are controlling their own numbers by self-aborting.
Why is it important that white people remain the majority demographic group in america?
Because scared racists like prime are insecure around other ethnic groups. Don't worry Prime, old white money will be ok, no matter the political climate.
Quality world leadership since 1066.
TNC
More like quality world oppression since 1066. Or are you going to try to argue that the Columbus and Cortez were somehow beneficial to the native peoples they encountered?
Why not. Do you have any first hand knowledge that they were not?
You mean besides the fact that most of them died as a result of Europeans finding the Americas?
All people die, what is your point?
TNC
Cortez killed all of the Aztecs. Pizarro is responsible for the slaughter of over eighty thousand Inca. Columbus killed over 80% of the native islanders he encountered with the introduction of small pox, and he enslaved the rest. So on the whole, I would have to say that no they were not beneficial to the people they conquered.
White people came to America and people died . Before white people came to America, people died. People died of disease before and after also. By that reasoning should we blame ho. mo. se. xuals for the AIDS epidemic?
I'm calling Poe on this one.
@hubert
You have no 1st hand knowledge of any of that. You have the biased opinion of one person or faction that has interpreted history possibly to suit their own agenda. I was just listening to a descendant of the Aztecs talking about their heritage, you just said by your report they were wiped out. Again by your reasoning if I catch a cold there is someone else to blame. Do you accept moral responsibility for the disease you spread? As to numbers, again the opinion or guess of someone relying on their own personal bias. Prove what you say.
truth never changes
White people came to America and people died
-----–
Right, because those whites came and took lands that didn't belong to them, subjugated and killed the native people who dared stand up to them. That's just a normal, natural occurence?
TNC
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
@madtown
Prove your statement please.
truth never changes
Prove your statement please.
----
Skipped history class, huh?
"Right, because those whites came and took lands that didn't belong to them, subjugated and killed the native people who dared stand up to them. That's just a normal, natural occurence?"
At the risk of sounding like a terrible person, isn't that the concept of survival of the fittest? A group who was physically superior eliminated others who were competing for the same resources. Animals do it all of the time.
TOG
If you want to go with that perspective then you should have no problem with genocide in Rwanda or the Holocaust. Nature is cruel, humans do not have to be.
For the most part, Native Americans welcomed the Europeans and assisted them, many peoples forming alliances and trading blocks with the newcomers. There was never a united front opposing the Europeans and what passed for hostility was few and far between. Most Native groups prospered under the arrangement. Not as dramatic as liberal history but then the Truth does not have an ax to grind.
TNC
Do you really believe what you are say? Have you ever taken a history class that wasn't taught by a white supremacist?
Excellent point, Hubert! I love the line "Nature is cruel; humans do not have to be." So what we are talking about is a moral imperative.
Now, whose moral imperative do we use? Christians? Atheists? Muslims? Society's? Jews? Hindus?
@TNC,
BS. Here's your first reading assignment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip's_War
@That One Guy,
the "moral imperative" of which you speak is (by definition) the consensus view of society, so in effect *all* of the groups you list. It is not a question of picking one.
@GOP,
Ah, but see, there's a problem. For instance, many Islamic nations have different codes of morality than we do. If we want to look at extremes, let's look at Afghanistan under the regime of the Taliban, versus, say, Canada. What is "moral" is completely different. Under the Taliban's morals, a woman should be covered head to toe versus Canada, where there are regions where women can be to.pl.ess in public.
So, once again, we ask, whose morals do we follow?
@That One Guy,
we don't live in an Islamic nation now do we? And nor do we control Islamic nations.
Our opportunity there is to set an example of what a secular society can bring. The Arab spring would illustrate that approach is working – slowly and very imperfectly but working.
Our morals are our societal consensus on right and wrong.
@truth never/ be told: so natives of the ameircas "prospered" under christian european rule?
hmmmm i know my family has a bit of a different take on history seeing WE ARE NATIVE!
my family is lacota, from the same region of the USA as the apachi and souix. we,unlike our cherokee cousins fought the encroachment of settlers into our lands, we fought against their treaty breaking;their land stealing;their tribe enslaving fracktards.
they slaughtered most every native they ran upon, millions died on "the trail of tears" as we were marched across our own land at gun point, forced to leave our dead behind without proper burial rites.
on top of that, some drunk fracking italian ass hole working for the spanish called us INDIANS!
DO WE LOOK FRACKING INDIAN? NO! WE DON'T.
now jump to present day, we are on concentration camps...............opps i meant "reservations". so yeah we natives got the better of that deal, thanks frack wipe!
nature is logical, humans are cruel.
do you see animals conducting war? nope
how about developing newer deadlier weapons? nope
do you see them denying equal rights to each other? nope
do you see animals placing material things over the life of one of their own? nope
so i don't see the issue with nature. a dog i trust, a human i only trust as far as i can throw them. 🙂
@That One Guy,
we don't live in an Islamic nation now do we? And nor do we control Islamic nations.
Our opportunity there is to set an example of what a secular society can bring. The Arab spring would illustrate that approach is working – slowly and very imperfectly but working.
Our morals are our societal consensus on right and wrong.
---
The question is not whether or not we live in an Islamic country. As many atheists are fond of saying (and I don't necessarily disagree with), morals have nothing to do with religion. My point is, morality is different for everyone, especially when you are speaking of coming from different cultures. But what I am hearing from you is that secular, American values are "right", which would mean, anyone else who disagrees with them is "wrong."
What this boils down to is, right and wrong are subjective to many different people. For instance, a Jewish person may feel that it is "wrong" to work on Saturday because it is the Sabbath, but how many people work on Saturdays because they have no moral compulsion against it? Who is right? Who is wrong? Is anyone right or wrong?
Therein lies the question. Whose standard do we use?
@TOG
It's not so much that secular "values" are right, it's that values agreed upon on secular principals and justifications are the most likely to be sensitive to the rights of everyone to still practice their religious traditions while not imposing any particular sects version on eveeryone else. It's just the best option for cooperative societies.
TOG
It's not a moral imperative, it is a choice of actions that we as humans can make. Humans are intelligent enough to be ethical creatures.
Seems odd to me (in regard to your assertion that white people will no longer be producing) that the average number of children per white household is still 2.
@That One Guy,
You said: "My point is, morality is different for everyone, especially when you are speaking of coming from different cultures"
No. This not accurate. You are conflating morality with individual conscience.
Individual conscience (your own definiton of right and wrong) is slightly different for everyone. Morality is the societal consensus of conscience – for everyone.
There are some things where it is easy to come to consensus – killing, lying, stealing etc. There are some topics where consensus is much harder, like reproductive choice. Nevertheless, morality is a common set of definitions for right and wrong. It is relative to a society and changes over time.
@wasp
If you are a native I am a hot-en-tot. You can't even spell the names correctly. Real Native Americans prospered in trade and goods as their descendants prosper in casinos today. A few chose a military or criminal option but those were hunted down and dealt with in large part by members of their own tribes.
@hawaii – you stated, "It's not so much that secular "values" are right, it's that values agreed upon on secular principals and justifications are the most likely to be sensitive to the rights of everyone to still practice their religious traditions while not imposing any particular sects version on eveeryone else. It's just the best option for cooperative societies."
As we clearly see, even amongst secular people, they don't agree on principles are not agreed upon. For instance, I highly doubt every secular person is pro-life or pro-life (without opening up that can of worms, I am just using it as an example). So there is no consensus there even amongst the secular!
Further, here is the problem: "...while not imposing any particular sects version on eveeryone else. It's just the best option for cooperative societies." But that decision alone is imposing the morals of the secular on those who do not wish to have secular beliefs and then they call it "for the greater good."
The way I see it, in morality (and I may be looking at this from a black and white perspective), there are things that are moral and there are things that are immoral. One is right and the other is wrong. Something is either moral or it is immoral. If something is morally grey, that seems to me that it is immoral with a hint of moral in there. Or it is immoral with an attempted justification.
Let's discuss a morally grey area. A white lie. "Oh, yes, honey that dress looks fabulous on you" when you think it looks terrible. Basically, you are lying to your significant other about your opinion to avoid hurting her feelings and/or getting yourself in trouble. White lies happen all of the time, but most of us would agree that lying is wrong. Except when it gets you something and you can avoid being caught (as most politicians prove on a yearly basis 🙂 )
You said: "My point is, morality is different for everyone, especially when you are speaking of coming from different cultures"
No. This not accurate. You are conflating morality with individual conscience.
Individual conscience (your own definiton of right and wrong) is slightly different for everyone. Morality is the societal consensus of conscience – for everyone.
There are some things where it is easy to come to consensus – killing, lying, stealing etc. There are some topics where consensus is much harder, like reproductive choice. Nevertheless, morality is a common set of definitions for right and wrong. It is relative to a society and changes over time.
---
So then morality is never set! For instance, in the 1800s, it was perfectly acceptable to own slaves according to societal norms and morals. In the early 1900s, you couldn't own slaves, but you could denegrade African-Americans and seperate them. Then in the 1980s, you gotta hire more of them to give them a leg up in society. And in the 2000s, racism is absolutely not ok. In the span of 200 years, we went from "It's ok to lock them up and force them to toil on your farms" to "You should treat them like everyone else." How can we put any stock in something that changes so quickly? How can we say anything is right or wrong when society's opinions change so quickly (relatively speaking)? What if in 100 years, driving gas powered cars that pollute the environment is considered an abomination? Assuming you've driven a car, are you then an immoral person?
This is the crux of the issue. Can societal norms be counted on to dictate morality? Can societal opinions be counted for anything or than a minute personal perspective?
@Hubert –
You stated "It's not a moral imperative, it is a choice of actions that we as humans can make. Humans are intelligent enough to be ethical creatures."
Are they? I would suggest that human history of all nations would say the exact opposite.
@TOG
You are indeed looking at this in a completely black and white fashion. You are seeing things in terms that no matter what, morals are being imposed, and you are equating values and morals. I was speaking purely on values, secular values mainly deal with the right to act according to your conscious, while at the same time protecting the rights of others from you. For instance, proper secular government would protect the rights of the Catholics to teach their doctrines as they see fit, but they would protect the rights of non-catholics to not adhere to those doctrines.
TOG
The very fact that ethical humans exist proves that humans are capable of being ethical creatures. We can also be cruel creatures but that was not my point. We absolutely have the necessary intelligence required for ethics, weather or not we use said intelligence is another matter.
@That One Guy,
Your illustration of changing opinions toward slavery are a great example that morality is in fact relative and not absolute. You want it to be absolute but it just isn't.
It changes with time and culture and in some areas quickly. Soon there will be overwhelming support for marriage equality. Why? Because it is fundamentally fair. Fairness is the basis for morality.
Some things never change. Killing, stealing and lying are always wrong.
Is PrimeNumbers trying to suggest that only White people are human? Or that any government should force breed a specific race? The human race is endangering this planet by it's overpopulation & excessive breeding. Your kind isn't very concernthanked only 600,000 pure blooded Alaskans, Hawaiians & Indigenous American
Indians are left. Humans have various
skin pigment to absorb the nutrients essential to live. In colder climates where humans must block the sunlight along with the cold, skin is paler so the small areas exposed will absorb maximum sunlight, vitamin D, etc... Even you racists get basic biology. Or didn't you make it to the 9th grade?
What conservatives don't realize is this. God's candidate did win. Mormons aren't christians. Amazing how many Americans betrayed their faith.
The christian god does not exist.
It depends on how you define "Christian". If you define it as believing Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God who died and was resurrected that all man by live again and atoned for the sins of mankind, then yes, Mormons are Christian. If you define it as believing in the Nicene Creed which was a politically motivated compromise and contradicts many teaching from the original twelve apostles then no, Mormons are not Christian. Maybe it's the Nicene Creed that isn't Christian.
I always find it rather amusing that people's God is all powerful, yet seems to need people to go out and do the work for him. Most people say "Well, that's because God wants us to have free will." But that doesn't jive, because the Devil is aware of God and chooses to defy him. 🙂
@rund: yeah the whole "all-powerful" and "free-will" never mesh, never have and never will.....................................however only in the minds of religious people can the thought of supreme power over someone equal free will, dumb founds the hell out of me how logic doesn't apply in their minds.
@rundvelt
that's called free will derpa derp
@WASP "however only in the minds of religious people can the thought of supreme power over someone equal free will, dumb founds the hell out of me how logic doesn't apply in their minds." Had you kept thinking you might have realized this: HAVING supreme power and actually EXERCISING it are two different things. By not exercising supreme power, God allows free will.
You all are just putting up a front right? I mean no one can be as ignorant of spiritual things as you all let on.
Or, or....just hear me out here....God doesn't exist. That pretty much answers your questions on Gods convenient absence...from everything of relevance in the last 3000 years. Just a thought that fits, unlike any religious explanation. Keep grasping at straws "faithful" folk. As science progresses your God and religion are a shrinking
@jud...
nope
And do not forget the cop-out excuses offered by religious folks in a foolish attempt to defend this god.
@prime: appearantly we are having a failure to communicate. lmfao always wanted to say that.
if your god is ALL POWERFUL, that means a single stray thought and POOF it's all over
if your god is ALL KNOWING, that means there is nothing you will ever do that he wouldn't know thus nothing you do can be of your own choosing.
if your god was ALL CARING, then how could he stand by and allow his children to be hurt and die; threaten with eternal torture and do nothing to stop it. as a parent myself i couldn't ever permit my child to come to harm, nor threaten them with torture for the rest of their lives if they failed to do exactly as i said. being a parent is accepting your children and loving your children REGARDLESS of what they do or whom they love.............it use to be called UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. trust me when i tell you this, if you can't accept your child for whom they are regardless of them being gay or forgive them for their mistakes....................then you don't love them unconditionally.
i grew up in a christian family and understand conditional love. i did as they asked they were proud of me, i didn't........well let's just say i don't see them anymore.
You don't understand free will at all!! Any Christian will tell you – whenever a man does something evil or when something terrible happens, that is because God has granted us free will, and we have chosen to do evil. However, whenever a doctor saves a life, or a hero pulls of a miraculous rescue, we all know that free will had NOTHING to do with it, it was all God's plan.
@Christ
You don't understand free will at all!! Any Christian will tell you – whenever a man does something evil or when something terrible happens, that is because it was all God's plan and he made him choose to do evil. However, whenever a doctor saves a life, or a hero pulls of a miraculous rescue, we all know that God has granted us free will.
see how that works? ROFLMFAO. XD
Again, "prof" P misses the real reason for BO's win as diversity continues to shrink because of the continued increase in the Immoral Majority who has members from all religions, non-religious and races.
Only for the new members of this blog:
Why the Christian Right no longer matters in presidential elections:
Once again, all the conservative votes in the country "ain't" going to help a "pro-life" presidential candidate, i.e Mitt Romney, in 2012 as the "Immoral Majority" rules the country and will be doing so for awhile. The "Immoral Majority" you ask?
The fastest growing USA voting bloc: In 2008, the 70+ million "Roe vs. Wade mothers and fathers" of aborted womb-babies" whose ranks grow by two million per year i.e. 78+ million "IM" voters in 2012.
2008 Presidential popular vote results:
69,456,897 for pro-abortion/choice BO, 59,934,814 for "pro-life" JM.
And the irony:
And all because many women fail to take the Pill once a day or men fail to use a condom even though in most cases these men have them in their pockets. (maybe they should be called the "Stupid Majority"?)
The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and S-TDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or condoms properly and/or use other safer birth control methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and STDs.
i.e. IF THE PILL AND MALE CONDOMS WERE USED PROPERLY, ABORTION WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE AND OBAMA WOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT.
Tis the reason why BO and Axelrod ran their pro-choice/abortion ads 24/7 the last two weeks before the election.
@non-real: the only people making pro-choice and birth control an issue is all you religious jesus ass kissing freaks.
why should you give two craps what another human does with their body? answer you shouldn't.
abortion is a choice, a very painful choice in most cases that only a female can make. none of you religious freaks seem to get that.
just because legislation gives women the right to choose, doesn't mean females have to have an abortion. it's the same as alcohol is legal, but it doesn't mean you have to drink; america just gives you the choice to drink or not.
as far as contriception if you had a family member that needed it to help regulate their estrogen levels then you would have a different stance on them having to pay for a life saving medicine when males are covered by insurance companies to have viagra even though having erectial disfunction isn't life threatening.
oh and companies covering E.D. are adding to STD'S AND ABORTIONS because otherwise these males couldn't "GET IT UP" to get a woman pregnant nor pass on a disease.
Maybe if the religious right supported the use of the pill and condoms it would not be an issue.
WASP, Slender and all others who need some wake-up reality!!
The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from an agnostic guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-
Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...
The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:
: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.
Added information before making your next move:
from the CDC-2006
"Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
And from:
Consumer Reports, January, 2012
"Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-
Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.
"Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)
Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.
The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":
– (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
– (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)
Followed by:
One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)
Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).
The interesting thing about "pro-life" being part of the republic platform is that it actually runs counter to the most important goal of the party, with that goal being economic conservatism.
Consider the fact that the vast majority of abortions are performed by poor women unable to support or care for their child. If abortion was illegal, all of these children that are born as a consequence would just perpetuate a cycle of poverty. As future poor people, each child would be a future vote for the democratic party.
Therefore, abortion is actually a good thing for Republicans. Every time an abortion occurs, it's less votes for future democrats!
Ryonite,
Please support your comments using reliable references.
Prayer changes things
@things: and we thank you for praying to your god to elect president obama back into office............truly we do. lmfao
The only prayer that might have been answered would have been one for divine judgment to be applied to America as poor leadership is Gods curse on a nation.
@things be told nope: then YOUR god failed to answer your prayers because we have a man in office that has a plan and even better than that he can explain his plan to the rest of us; unlike a certain other failure we denied into power. lmfao
obama is no clinton, but he has done everything he could to help this country, even saved the auto industry, unlike what your failure.........opps i mean romney, not your failure you call god.
I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module, the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent truths is: "TOTAL FAIL".
I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book can help you:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
by the Alzheimer's Disease Society
All aboard ! Don't make me count to potato !
"Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
"Salvatore" degenerates to:
"Douglas" degenerates to:
"truth be told" degenerates to:
"Thinker23" degenerates to:
"Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
"another repentant sinner" degenerates to:
"Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
"tina" degenerates to:
"captain america" degenerates to:
"Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
"Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
"just sayin" degenerates to:
"ImLook'nUp" degenerates to:
"Kindness" degenerates to:
"Chad" degenerates to
"Bob" degenerates to
"nope" degenerates to:
"2357" degenerates to:
"WOW" degenerates to:
"fred" degenerates to:
"!" degenerates to:
"pervert alert" is the degenerate.
This troll is not a christian.
@wus...p
nope
nope is false
and
nope is a dope
Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs`
snopes is wrong
Prayers change things? Really? I have yet to see an amputee's missing limb spontaneously regrow after a prayer has been said.......Oh!!!!! Right the God works in mysterious ways excuse.
Tell that to the crew of a B-24 bomber in WW2, the "Lady Be Good," lost in the Lybian desert. Read the diary entries of the two crewman who wrote about their prayer (that changed nothing). The diaries were found on their bodies twelve years later. Explain to them why they and their fellow crewmen had to suffer so tremendously from exposure and fatal dehydration while their God remained silent and unhelpful.
And they weren't the only ones...Tell them how prayer changes things...
True, atheism is not good for children. If you find out that your child is an atheist, please take him to the center of the town and STONE him to death, just like the Bible tells you to do. Otherwise you are just being an irresponsible parent.
Why is it good to have religious diversity in government? I don't think it's good to have any religion in government, as we have witnessed in the past decade, or so, w/the Religious Right & the Teavangelical influence! However, the diversity might remind politicans that there are many religions in the world & 1 isn't more "right" than the other & None have any business in the policy process! Separation of church & state! It's there for a reason: to be able to tackle issues w/logic & reason, not religious "rhetoric"!!
@fernace,
arguably a 'representative' democracy, should represent all of the people. Since we are a diverse country, a diverse set of representatives seems appropriate, no?
Religious doctrine should not determine secular law. Increased diversity helps this.
Since one's religious belief is inextricably linked to one's ethical and moral beliefs,it is always good to have a diversity of religious belief involved in lawmaking. That way no one set of beliefs can impose itself upon others. Issues can be discussed under a wide umbrella of ethical and moral choices.