Questions for our American friends

[vinceprince]

For many in the US religious belief hasn't really 'evolved' much since the 13th Century in fact
as far as they're concerned there is no such thing as evolution.

Of course it's 'not the norm' to marry a 12 year old these days it's simply child abuse.
　
16/17 year olds aren't really the issue it's more those under the age of legal consent that are the problem for marriage. If they aren't old enough to give consent for sex how can they be allowed to get married?

The Article refers to the last 15 years - Ancient History right?

Judicial approval from who exactly? Some local Christian fanatic judge who would rather have a child bride rape victim than say 'God forbid' a termination! If it was a local Muslim judge would that also be approved by Christian Americans.

Many states don't even require judicial consent, just parental. Judicial consent may only be required if parental consent is not obtained.
http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/s...sent-laws.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/o...e-problem.html

Do you believe the marriage of a 12 year old is justified in any circumstance not matter how rare? In fact it's almost impossible to know the full extent of it in certain communities - 10 states didn't even provide any information at all.
It's a loophole that's open to abuse in religious communities so it's simple just ban it at least until 16. Why can't you just admit it's wrong? Many US states rightly do so and have banned it.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

For many in the US religious belief hasn't really 'evolved' much since the 13th Century in fact
as far as they're concerned there is no such thing as evolution.

Religious belief at the time of the founding of the United States was quite moderate. Men like George Washington were deists a vague and pleasant sort of humanism that today you'd associate with the Unitarians, Episcopalians or the gentler flavor of Presbyterians and Methodists.

The crazy really begins in the 1820s with "the great awakening", giant revival meetings and an ever ratcheting upwards of religious frenzy.

Its an open question as to just why this happened in the US, but not nearly so much in other British colonies. It may be that the disestablishment of the Anglican Church created more space for more entrepreneurial religious expression.

Put another way, one of the advantages of the Church of England is that no one gets too excited about it . . .

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

For many in the US religious belief hasn't really 'evolved' much since the 13th Century in fact
as far as they're concerned there is no such thing as evolution.

Of course it's 'not the norm' to marry a 12 year old these days it's simply child abuse.
　
16/17 year olds aren't really the issue it's more those under the age of legal consent that are the problem for marriage. If they aren't old enough to give consent for sex how can they be allowed to get married?

The Article refers to the last 15 years - Ancient History right?

Judicial approval from who exactly? Some local Christian fanatic judge who would rather have a child bride rape victim than say 'God forbid' a termination! If it was a local Muslim judge would that also be approved by Christian Americans.

Many states don't even require judicial consent, just parental. Judicial consent may only be required if parental consent is not obtained.
http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/s...sent-laws.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/o...e-problem.html

Do you believe the marriage of a 12 year old is justified in any circumstance not matter how rare? In fact it's almost impossible to know the full extent of it in certain communities - 10 states didn't even provide any information at all.
It's a loophole that's open to abuse in religious communities so it's simple just ban it at least until 16. Why can't you just admit it's wrong? Many US states rightly do so and have banned it.

There is a real push to eliminate this practice carried over from an earlier age. The Roma still practice it. Likely some Muslim communities do so also, as well as fringe religious cults. Polygamy has also been illegal for over a century, but is still being practiced, too. Please remember that the United States has 5 times the population of the UK spread over an area more than 15 times greater.

In the United States one must learn to live with much that is disliked. You have my permission to keep Mr Trump whenever he alights in your country.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Religious belief at the time of the founding of the United States was quite moderate. Men like George Washington were deists a vague and pleasant sort of humanism that today you'd associate with the Unitarians, Episcopalians or the gentler flavor of Presbyterians and Methodists.

The crazy really begins in the 1820s with "the great awakening", giant revival meetings and an ever ratcheting upwards of religious frenzy.

Its an open question as to just why this happened in the US, but not nearly so much in other British colonies. It may be that the disestablishment of the Anglican Church created more space for more entrepreneurial religious expression.

Put another way, one of the advantages of the Church of England is that no one gets too excited about it . . .

I accept such beliefs persisted in the 1820s but now in the 21st Century with public schooling, TV and easy access to scientific information?

A survey found that 41% of Americans believe that Dinosaurs and humans co-existed at the same time.
https://ncse.com/library-resource/am...evolution-year
What possible grounds can you have for holding that belief? Apart from the Flintstones and that Raquel Welch film.

Must be a member here from that 41% who can explain it to us.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

I accept such beliefs persisted in the 1820s but now in the 21st Century with public schooling, TV and easy access to scientific information?

A survey found that 41% of Americans believe that Dinosaurs and humans co-existed at the same time.
https://ncse.com/library-resource/am...evolution-year
What possible grounds can you have for holding that belief? Apart from the Flintstones and that Raquel Welch film.

Must be a member here from that 41% who can explain it to us.

I am not a member of the 41%, but there is a segment of our population that prefers to embrace ignorance, stupidity, and superstition to the hard and frustrating work of thinking. This group has gained the upper hand in some areas and is forcing schools to teach superstitious nonsense in place of science. You may have noticed that they have succeeded in electing like minded bozos into high political office and have even managed to get some appointed as Supreme Court justices. Pray that your nation is spared such embarrassment.

P.S. Our constitution allows these folks to stockpile firearms and ammunition, including military grade weapons. Surely, friend vinceprince, you are not planning to emigrate, are you?

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

I am not a member of the 41%, but there is a segment of our population that prefers to embrace ignorance, stupidity, and superstition to the hard and frustrating work of thinking. This group has gained the upper hand in some areas and is forcing schools to teach superstitious nonsense in place of science. You may have noticed that they have succeeded in electing like minded bozos into high political office and have even managed to get some appointed as Supreme Court justices. Pray that your nation is spared such embarrassment.

Oh we still have them and they are in coalition Gov't with the Tories. They're called the DUP. They are an embarrassment (outside of their Ulster sectarian base) even to their Tory coalition partners but so desperate are they just to stay in power. But their views represent a tiny % of the UK population especially on social and religious issues.

[seany65]

Is it true that The yank president is going to change the name of Washigton DC to Trumpton DC?

Is it also true that this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKgjYlL1anQ

Is to be the new National anthem?

I hope so.

[bombermouse]

Originally Posted by seany65

Is it true that The yank president is going to change the name of Washigton DC to Trumpton DC?

Is it also true that this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKgjYlL1anQ

Is to be the new National anthem?

I hope so.

Don't be silly! He's changing the capital's name to Donaldville and the new national anthem is going to be, "It's Money That I Love."

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

I accept such beliefs persisted in the 1820s but now in the 21st Century with public schooling, TV and easy access to scientific information?

I wish I had an answer for you . . . but I don't. Here's my best guess, but its only a guess:

As science and technology have advanced, authority has moved from "tradition" to "cognition"; and the folks whose authority was rooted in tradition resent this.

They get ever angrier. There will be no new "religion discovery" that cures breast cancer; but scientists -- probably foreign born-- are in labs working on exactly that. There's a resentment that comes from people saying "we know better" -- even if they _do_ know better.

So you have epidemiologists and pediatricians explain over and over "get your kid vaccinated" . . . and some boob with a Youtube channel thinks that they can challenge it.

So paradoxically, the more impressive science and technology are, the angrier the resistance to reason will become. I saw a sign on a church that I drive by . . . "who you are is more important than what you know" -- I got what I think they were getting at, that some ineffable moral quality beats the much more ordinary achievement of "being right".

That's Trump and climate change, for example. Trump doesn't know much of anything about anything-- he only knows that folks don't like being told things by university professors.

I _think_ its a generational and age issue, and that the bad actors are folks my age and older-- that younger generations will be more pragmatic.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

I wish I had an answer for you . . . but I don't. Here's my best guess, but its only a guess:

As science and technology have advanced, authority has moved from "tradition" to "cognition"; and the folks whose authority was rooted in tradition resent this.

They get ever angrier. There will be no new "religion discovery" that cures breast cancer; but scientists -- probably foreign born-- are in labs working on exactly that. There's a resentment that comes from people saying "we know better" -- even if they _do_ know better.

So you have epidemiologists and pediatricians explain over and over "get your kid vaccinated" . . . and some boob with a Youtube channel thinks that they can challenge it.

So paradoxically, the more impressive science and technology are, the angrier the resistance to reason will become. I saw a sign on a church that I drive by . . . "who you are is more important than what you know" -- I got what I think they were getting at, that some ineffable moral quality beats the much more ordinary achievement of "being right".

That's Trump and climate change, for example. Trump doesn't know much of anything about anything-- he only knows that folks don't like being told things by university professors.

I _think_ its a generational and age issue, and that the bad actors are folks my age and older-- that younger generations will be more pragmatic.

Thanks, that pretty much describes the DUP base in NI as well which also has been fed by the jingoistic sectarian conflict. The idea of 'cultural insecurity' for the older generations and 'we've had enough of experts' was also prominent in Brexit.