I believe the actual percentage of people who believe in God is far lower than the percentage than people who say they do. It's easier to say yes than to go against family, tradition, community, etc. It's a big leap for some people. I think the actual believers are among those who say that God intervenes in earthly matters.
So many nuances that could be hidden in poll responses. I wonder how many non-Christians replied as not believing in God because they don't follow the Christian God. Similar polls have shown large percentages of 'spiritual' people that believe in something supernatural but not the transitional God. I know ministers that do not believe in the reality of God but believe in the need for the philosophical God and the value of the rites. I am an atheist. Similar polls put atheists at 3% to 11% of the population, but to your point, atheism isn't a socially easy thing to announce. The true number of atheists and agnostics may be much higher. And among believers, less than 30% regularly attend services.
Eric, thanks for posting Helen Schneyer's "Dwelling in Beulah Land"! It was always a favorite of mine on the old WFMT "Midnight Special". Roberts and Barrand were a perfect "band". I couldn't help but sing along in my car- I had it on a cassette tape (yes, they really existed!).
Faith-Morals-Beliefs... Trying to explain that God doesn't have to micromanage the world as if it we a lego set. Evil in the world doesn't mean there isn't a loving God present. Some people will listen, some people won't, some see it as some mystic imaginary friend or genie that people use as a crutch, others see a real meaningful connection. It's funny how republicans are identified as some church war-mongers - because those polls show drops in believe of God in democratic, liberal and youth. Their lack of believe - is one more identifier that conflicts with republicans to make the divide wider. "Has your religious..." I'd say it's had up and downs, matured. I'm less judge-y and don't decided what God will in the end determine as being right and wrong. YEARBOOKS - My question is - if everything racist is inappropriate, does that mean everything inappropriate is racist. Do we always have to take a negative and assume the worst case? Twitter seems to be the leader in judgement issues. Take the NY Posts shared Tweet "All women are bi... bipolar or bisexual." A twitter war between several news reporters placed the news publisher into the position to denounce the tweet and discipline the person who shared the tweet (not created it) as being sexist. "Build the Wall" by Bob the Builder - clever. Racist? If anything it was mocking racist actions. Bob the Builder represents immigrant stereotypes - or represents lego figures. (What does Thomas the Train represent?) MAYOR Defending safety or $5.5M revenue stream? Mayor Speed Cameras. Reminds me of the days of Mayor Parking Meters STARBUCKS. Cow milk is racist. Communism would state one cost for any starbuck's item. Costs are spread evenly - almond or cow milk costs the same. :P
re: god's plans. There's definitely a conflict between accepting whatever god's plans are and asking for specific interventions. I think the more profound spiritual thinkers (Spinoza, Jesus, Marcus Aurelius, Lao-Tse for example) would pray for alignment between what their gods created and what they personally can do. Their gods were superficially very different but I think can all be understood as the way things are, even if beyond our understanding. Nature, "Thy will", the Logos, and the Way are variations of this. It makes no sense in this view to pray for intervention in the ongoing of the Logos.
Of course there has been a lot of discussion about the place and activity of a "god" in this world. People have created words like "deism" "theism" and so forth to distinguish among all these schools of thought. I'm not going to settle any differences of opinion here, just wanted to point out it's a longstanding discussion among believers.
Yes, my religious outlook has changed. I used to believe there was something or someone out there in charge. But that changed in 2013 after a series of tragedies in my family including the death of my 18 month old niece and the way my mother died. She went to church regularly, was compassionate, kind, generous, and believed that the message of Christianity was loving other people. And she died a miserable death. Months of suffering, indignities and humiliation in the treatment for her illness. And I just couldn't believe anymore that there was a god of any kind who would allow her or anyone to suffer like that. And if there was a god who allowed suffering like that, I hated him/her. So I decided to stop believing. Otherwise I'd be gripped with bitterness and anger. I preferred to just be grief-stricken. When I look around at the miseries that so many people endure all over the world, it reinforces my conclusion that if this is the will of a god, that god is a monster. Still, I don't call myself an atheist. I'm an agnostic.
I was raised as a Lutheran and attended Lutheran grade school. But I started to doubt it all as a teen, was agnostic in my 20's and an atheist in my 30's. I simply didn't see any evidence of a deity in daily life or the workings of the world, didn't see a need for a deity in explaining anything, and didn't see reason in the assertions of Gods actions. I am still an atheist, but I have also learned to respect the benefits that people find in religious belief. I also understand the desire to turn to a deity in times of crisis or personal peril. I think I will remain an atheist, but I can't be sure until I am on my death bed.
Yearbooks should be entirely anodyne and print nothing on any social or political topic. They should be strictly limited to photos of school sponsored clubs, teams and events without description or elaboration. My guess is that attempting to do this would also create a backlash among activists that felt they were being denied a platform. The faculty advisors might also feel that they were being limited in their ability to promote their preferred political and social agenda.
If speeding at 10 mph over the limit is ok, then why not just raise the speed limits? If the limit is appropriate and intended to get most people to comply, then what is wrong with an additional incentive to comply? And since 44% of the tickets went to people from outside of the city, why is that not useful and beneficial to the city? I agree that this debate is a useful political cudgel and that is certainly why it came up in the council just after the mayor's announcement on running. Finally, isn't it racist to assume that poor and non-white people are not sufficiently competent to adapt to traffic cameras?
After much thought, I came to the opinion that speeding should be a secondary offense, except in certain limits situations where it's really really important to keep the speed low and enforced.
Facebook is a consumer product that must tailor its product and its development investment on the things that will maximize the value of the product. Companies of all kinds also do their best to avoid anything that will attract government regulation (particularly conflicting international regulations) or bad publicity. No company is required to support the business of other companies or to serve any particular definition of public good. Maybe news media companies ought to get together and create an industry aggregating site that provides clear unbiased coverage with associated point/counterpoint commentary and subscriber comments. They could even use their entertainment/celebrity/animal antics reporting as a hook for those that spend most of their free time looking to be distracted.
I liked your Starbucks conclusion. No company 'eats' any cost. They have to recover all costs plus a margin in order to stay in business. Pricing, as you covered previously, is a customer relations issue with varying ideas on the benefit of fees and add-ons vs all-in pricing. I wonder if they will try offering alcohol, which many consumers like, as a coffee additive. And would making that 'free' also be a 'cause'? When did the notion emerge that options should be free? Would the activist be happy if Starbucks had reduced the price of black coffee and added a 10-cent charge for milk and a 20-cent charge for cream?
I am also encouraged by the outcome of a number of the primaries where non-Trump Republicans have won. It would be good for them to get a 'Trump-can't-win' whispering campaign going.
I'm sure many who say they believe in God, or other deity depending on their ethnic religion, do not believe their god is actively involved with humanity or changes the course of events. I think a better question would be "Do you believe in life after death, some sort of heaven or hell awaits us, with a god presiding?"
I consider myself agnostic, and do not believe we exist after death.
Steinberg's quote confused me. He thinks the Jan 6 committee is a waste of time and that the 'totalitarians' must be 'defeated'. What the heck does that mean? Particularly since his column lumps half of the country into the Trump worshippers that I assume are the totalitarians. He cries about the loss of democracy but apparently has no actual faith in the electorate. As in 2016, when similar commentary bemoaned the beginning of a fascist tyranny, I had faith and confidence in our institutions, the people in them, and the electorate. And as I recall, in 2020 President Biden and Democratic majorities were elected to both houses of Congress in free and fair elections. I have found the Jan 6 hearings inspiring because they have clearly shown that the people and institutions behaved exactly as they should and that Trump was unable to find more than a handful of Quislings, none in a position of authority or responsibility, to support him. Steve Chapman's column today was much better and much more on point. Chapman said responsible conservatives need to vote for Democrats running against Trumpers to ensure they lose. I would add Democrats need to vote for non-Trump Republicans, and stop funding Trumpers, for the same reason.
I haven’t listened to this week’s Rascals yet, but I’m looking forward to Laura Washington’s participation.
I believe the actual percentage of people who believe in God is far lower than the percentage than people who say they do. It's easier to say yes than to go against family, tradition, community, etc. It's a big leap for some people. I think the actual believers are among those who say that God intervenes in earthly matters.
So many nuances that could be hidden in poll responses. I wonder how many non-Christians replied as not believing in God because they don't follow the Christian God. Similar polls have shown large percentages of 'spiritual' people that believe in something supernatural but not the transitional God. I know ministers that do not believe in the reality of God but believe in the need for the philosophical God and the value of the rites. I am an atheist. Similar polls put atheists at 3% to 11% of the population, but to your point, atheism isn't a socially easy thing to announce. The true number of atheists and agnostics may be much higher. And among believers, less than 30% regularly attend services.
Eric, thanks for posting Helen Schneyer's "Dwelling in Beulah Land"! It was always a favorite of mine on the old WFMT "Midnight Special". Roberts and Barrand were a perfect "band". I couldn't help but sing along in my car- I had it on a cassette tape (yes, they really existed!).
Chuck Bagdade
Highwood, IL
Re. Beulahs... don't forget Beulah Bondi. Check out her credits on IMDB.com. Versatile actress.
Chuck Bagdade
Highwood, IL
Faith-Morals-Beliefs... Trying to explain that God doesn't have to micromanage the world as if it we a lego set. Evil in the world doesn't mean there isn't a loving God present. Some people will listen, some people won't, some see it as some mystic imaginary friend or genie that people use as a crutch, others see a real meaningful connection. It's funny how republicans are identified as some church war-mongers - because those polls show drops in believe of God in democratic, liberal and youth. Their lack of believe - is one more identifier that conflicts with republicans to make the divide wider. "Has your religious..." I'd say it's had up and downs, matured. I'm less judge-y and don't decided what God will in the end determine as being right and wrong. YEARBOOKS - My question is - if everything racist is inappropriate, does that mean everything inappropriate is racist. Do we always have to take a negative and assume the worst case? Twitter seems to be the leader in judgement issues. Take the NY Posts shared Tweet "All women are bi... bipolar or bisexual." A twitter war between several news reporters placed the news publisher into the position to denounce the tweet and discipline the person who shared the tweet (not created it) as being sexist. "Build the Wall" by Bob the Builder - clever. Racist? If anything it was mocking racist actions. Bob the Builder represents immigrant stereotypes - or represents lego figures. (What does Thomas the Train represent?) MAYOR Defending safety or $5.5M revenue stream? Mayor Speed Cameras. Reminds me of the days of Mayor Parking Meters STARBUCKS. Cow milk is racist. Communism would state one cost for any starbuck's item. Costs are spread evenly - almond or cow milk costs the same. :P
re: god's plans. There's definitely a conflict between accepting whatever god's plans are and asking for specific interventions. I think the more profound spiritual thinkers (Spinoza, Jesus, Marcus Aurelius, Lao-Tse for example) would pray for alignment between what their gods created and what they personally can do. Their gods were superficially very different but I think can all be understood as the way things are, even if beyond our understanding. Nature, "Thy will", the Logos, and the Way are variations of this. It makes no sense in this view to pray for intervention in the ongoing of the Logos.
Of course there has been a lot of discussion about the place and activity of a "god" in this world. People have created words like "deism" "theism" and so forth to distinguish among all these schools of thought. I'm not going to settle any differences of opinion here, just wanted to point out it's a longstanding discussion among believers.
Yes, my religious outlook has changed. I used to believe there was something or someone out there in charge. But that changed in 2013 after a series of tragedies in my family including the death of my 18 month old niece and the way my mother died. She went to church regularly, was compassionate, kind, generous, and believed that the message of Christianity was loving other people. And she died a miserable death. Months of suffering, indignities and humiliation in the treatment for her illness. And I just couldn't believe anymore that there was a god of any kind who would allow her or anyone to suffer like that. And if there was a god who allowed suffering like that, I hated him/her. So I decided to stop believing. Otherwise I'd be gripped with bitterness and anger. I preferred to just be grief-stricken. When I look around at the miseries that so many people endure all over the world, it reinforces my conclusion that if this is the will of a god, that god is a monster. Still, I don't call myself an atheist. I'm an agnostic.
I was raised as a Lutheran and attended Lutheran grade school. But I started to doubt it all as a teen, was agnostic in my 20's and an atheist in my 30's. I simply didn't see any evidence of a deity in daily life or the workings of the world, didn't see a need for a deity in explaining anything, and didn't see reason in the assertions of Gods actions. I am still an atheist, but I have also learned to respect the benefits that people find in religious belief. I also understand the desire to turn to a deity in times of crisis or personal peril. I think I will remain an atheist, but I can't be sure until I am on my death bed.
Yearbooks should be entirely anodyne and print nothing on any social or political topic. They should be strictly limited to photos of school sponsored clubs, teams and events without description or elaboration. My guess is that attempting to do this would also create a backlash among activists that felt they were being denied a platform. The faculty advisors might also feel that they were being limited in their ability to promote their preferred political and social agenda.
My horoscope yesterday said, 'Words will come easily to you today.' and I won my game of 'Words with Friends'. Coincidence?
If speeding at 10 mph over the limit is ok, then why not just raise the speed limits? If the limit is appropriate and intended to get most people to comply, then what is wrong with an additional incentive to comply? And since 44% of the tickets went to people from outside of the city, why is that not useful and beneficial to the city? I agree that this debate is a useful political cudgel and that is certainly why it came up in the council just after the mayor's announcement on running. Finally, isn't it racist to assume that poor and non-white people are not sufficiently competent to adapt to traffic cameras?
After much thought, I came to the opinion that speeding should be a secondary offense, except in certain limits situations where it's really really important to keep the speed low and enforced.
Facebook is a consumer product that must tailor its product and its development investment on the things that will maximize the value of the product. Companies of all kinds also do their best to avoid anything that will attract government regulation (particularly conflicting international regulations) or bad publicity. No company is required to support the business of other companies or to serve any particular definition of public good. Maybe news media companies ought to get together and create an industry aggregating site that provides clear unbiased coverage with associated point/counterpoint commentary and subscriber comments. They could even use their entertainment/celebrity/animal antics reporting as a hook for those that spend most of their free time looking to be distracted.
I liked your Starbucks conclusion. No company 'eats' any cost. They have to recover all costs plus a margin in order to stay in business. Pricing, as you covered previously, is a customer relations issue with varying ideas on the benefit of fees and add-ons vs all-in pricing. I wonder if they will try offering alcohol, which many consumers like, as a coffee additive. And would making that 'free' also be a 'cause'? When did the notion emerge that options should be free? Would the activist be happy if Starbucks had reduced the price of black coffee and added a 10-cent charge for milk and a 20-cent charge for cream?
I am also encouraged by the outcome of a number of the primaries where non-Trump Republicans have won. It would be good for them to get a 'Trump-can't-win' whispering campaign going.
I'm sure many who say they believe in God, or other deity depending on their ethnic religion, do not believe their god is actively involved with humanity or changes the course of events. I think a better question would be "Do you believe in life after death, some sort of heaven or hell awaits us, with a god presiding?"
I consider myself agnostic, and do not believe we exist after death.
Steinberg's quote confused me. He thinks the Jan 6 committee is a waste of time and that the 'totalitarians' must be 'defeated'. What the heck does that mean? Particularly since his column lumps half of the country into the Trump worshippers that I assume are the totalitarians. He cries about the loss of democracy but apparently has no actual faith in the electorate. As in 2016, when similar commentary bemoaned the beginning of a fascist tyranny, I had faith and confidence in our institutions, the people in them, and the electorate. And as I recall, in 2020 President Biden and Democratic majorities were elected to both houses of Congress in free and fair elections. I have found the Jan 6 hearings inspiring because they have clearly shown that the people and institutions behaved exactly as they should and that Trump was unable to find more than a handful of Quislings, none in a position of authority or responsibility, to support him. Steve Chapman's column today was much better and much more on point. Chapman said responsible conservatives need to vote for Democrats running against Trumpers to ensure they lose. I would add Democrats need to vote for non-Trump Republicans, and stop funding Trumpers, for the same reason.
I took Steinberg's call to be for voting the rascals out.