Gallup uses the responses to a straightforward question that asks: "Is religion an important part of your daily life?"

I have a friend from Russia who once told us that in a matter of months everyone went from saying "Communism is great" to "God is the answer". She insisted that a vast majority were neither religious nor pro-communism. It was merely a matter of not wanting to offend people as the zeitgeist changed.

Random thoughts:

1) It's hard to overlook the correlation between high religiosity and being at the low end of the scale on all those social indicators - the most poverty, the worst standardized-test scores and graduation rates, all that.

2) Wasn't the widespread abuse of children by Catholic priests, and the Church hierarchy's efforts to conceal the problem, a big story back around 2002? And they're just starting to investigate the coverup now?? WTF?!

3) Joey the Rat's actions speak for themselves. I remember a time when I deeply respected the Roman Catholic Church. That time is long gone.

4) There's a Commandment that says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Focus on the Family's hiring of a frequent-flyer plagiarist says what they think of that.

I can't help but keep coming back to this thought: Christian evangelism is all about convincing people of the truth of something that can't be seen. If they lie about the things that we can check out, why should anyone believe them about the things we can't? Seems that bearing false witness is fundamentally at odds with what evangelical Christianity is, in theory, supposed to be about.

"Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops, including that of a Holocaust denier whose rehabilitation sparked outrage among Jewish groups. The four bishops were excommunicated 20 years ago after they were consecrated by the late ultraconservative Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre without papal consent -- a move the Vatican said at the time was an act of schism."

Ratzi the Nazi strikes again.

Remember the old joke that "a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged"?? Ratzi is the living embodiment of that. In the 1960s and early 70s, the guy was a very liberal member of that part of the church heirarchy that strongly supported Pope John XXIII. Then one evening he was walking across the campus and he got confronted by a couple of "radical students" who roughed him up until someone pulled them off and told them he was a "good priest." Practically overnight, poor little Ratzi had become his own version of a "9/11 conservative" and now he supports bringing in the Nazi-loving wing of the church.

The Catholic Church: actively opposing intelligence for 2,000 years.

I really don't give a shit anymore what insults jewish groups and what doesn't. I cannot believe that anyone should care whether anyone else does or does not believe in the holocaust, or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, for that matter.

Steve, could you put up some things here about more mature forms of spirituality, from groups like Unitarian Universalists (my outfit), the "new religious left" etc., and not just nutty rightist religionists versus the falsely presumed only alternative of strict humanist/atheist non participants. tx.

A California appeals court ruled this week that a private Christian high school can expel students based on nothing but sexual orientation.

It's very, very hard to convince the products of various Christian academies I run into that the formal and complete separation of Church and State is something of which they should be the biggest defenders.

Just like the guy making $28k who loves himself some flat tax, because after he hits the lottery, he'll benefit, they all believe that come the Revolution, their particular flavor of Protestant will be able to use the mechanism of the state to make sure everyone else is Doing It Right.

Not enough probability taught in the high schools, is my guess.

It's hard to overlook the correlation between high religiosity and being at the low end of the scale on all those social indicators - low-tech cyclist

Yesterday, one of Jack Cafferty's questions was where would you like most to live. At the point I went over there, there were 95 responses. Other than a few who said they would never move from where they live, there were only three who would choose to live in a red state. And those were Texas and Arizona.

I concur with Neil B.

Living on the southern end of the Denver metro area, we frequently get the noxious fumes from Colorado Springs when the wind is coming the wrong way. Between Ted Haggard, New Life Church, Focus on the Family and The Air Force Academy of Our Lord Jesus Christ, it gets pretty stinky sometimes. I believe that's what the local weather reports mean by "Red Air Quality."

Steve, could you put up some things here about more mature forms of spirituality, from groups like Unitarian Universalists (my outfit), the "new religious left" etc., and not just nutty rightist religionists versuse the falsely presumed only alternative of strict humanist/atheist non participants.

The false presumption is, I fear, yours -- where are you getting this either-or construct you accuse Steve of embracing?

As has been noted before, this is a political blog, so "This Week in God" examines the places where religion and politics/news overlap. If the UUs or other "more mature forms of spirituality" (nice self-congratulation there -- it's no more attractive or convincing when you play the "My religion rules!" game than when a fundamentalist of any religious ilk does it) do something that makes national news, no doubt Steve will include it. But this is not a comparative religion class. There are other venues for that.

Check out David Neiwert for details on the Society of St. Pius X that the formely ex-communicated Bishops are associated with.

Shortstop you have a point about waiting for whether the news relates to such and such per se - but made a common mistake in complaining about "self-congratulation" of those who deign their religion, philosophy, political approach or whatever to be better than others. Look, it's the very meaning of having a viewpoint; of being a liberal, a conservative, a Platonist or existentialist, not just Catholic or Muslim or UU - to think it's better, that's why you are that. Don't you think liberalism is "better" - if you didn't then why prefer that over conservatism?

And it need be no special horrible thing to claim a religion is better than another kind of religion or lack of, versus claiming primacy of a political orientation. First, even if you're one of those who thinks religious claims are vapid due to untestability and don't rate for justified belief, UUism is based on reality testing not faithful "revelation" - look it up. Second, political positions are hard to test too in a rigorous manner and much is a matter of taste and interpretation.

Humbleness PC is silly. I won't apologize for thinking that UU spirituality is better than traditional religions, or for thinking that progressive political approaches are better than what the Right has to offer.

What ever happened to the loons who tried to test whether the IRS would revoke their tax exempt status for (even more) flagrantly endorsing specific candidates for public office?

Also, what about the fakers that Hon. Sen. Grassley had in his sights?

wished they had also asked "do you believe in fairy tales and talking snakes" and do you have a high school diploma?

A robust 65% of all Americans (across the entire U.S. population) reported in 2008 that religion was important in their daily lives.

They're lying.

I mean, seriously, just look around you. If this was even in the slightest degree true, would people do all the shit they do? Would the world look like this?

I guess stealing somebody's words doesn't count as actual "stealing" under the Ten Commandments.

On the other hand, since Fukus on the Family routinely bears false witness, the 10 Commandments don't mean much to them anyway.

Josh Dubois, UGH. That asshole recommended Warren as the invocation preacher AND was responsible for the Donnie "Pray Away Teh Ghey" McLurkin christofascist Obama love-fest. And now he gets to set the standards for "faith-based" charities?

What was all that we kept hearing about inclusion and hope and change? Why are we still pandering to mindless snakecharmers?

Stefan: I mean, seriously, just look around you. If this was even in the slightest degree true, would people do all the shit they do? Would the world look like this?

Well, sure. I mean, virtually all religions have ways to justify crappy behavior. A better means of testing the lie -- because you're right; they're lying -- is to ask people for their own measurements of religion in their daily lives and then see whether the reality syncs up with the self reporting. For instance, there have been studies showing that the incidence of actual church attendance is nowhere near what self-described churchgoers say it is (and to forestall unnecessary discussion on this point, yes, I know church attendance isn't synonymous with religiosity -- that's just an example).

On the Cal school... what if it runs federally-funded free/reduced price lunch program, Steve?

==

I'm with Keori on DuBois. But, remember, this was a campaign promise by B.O., to expand faith-based initiatives.

but made a common mistake in complaining about "self-congratulation" of those who deign their religion, philosophy, political approach or whatever to be better than others.

This is why I rarely read your posts, Neil; you're all over the map, the dishonest recasting of others' points for your own ends is tiresome and you're not at all good at it. I didn't say "religion, philosophy, political approach or whatever." I said "religion." Despite your efforts to conflate matters of faith with political practice, the two are not comparable. Political approaches have at least some measurable results; the practice of religion does not. Having been raised in a UU household, I have no need of "looking it up," but I would encourage you to visit as many UU communities as possible so that you may learn that each of these has a distinct character and that, because of a (in my opinion, laudable) lack of strong central authority or hierarchy, your characterization of all of UUism as "based on reality testing" is not remotely supportable.

You have every right to believe your religion is superior to that of what you call the "nutty rightist religionists." I have every right to tell you you're not impressing or convincing me. You can skip the posturing as a brave and unbowed defender of his religion -- I'm not asking you to apologize. I'm just rolling my eyes at you.

me: the practice of religion does not

I should have said "the practice of religion does not, except such results as can also be empirically observed and measured completely outside the parameters of religion." That is also true of much of political practice, but there are certain results that, at least within our system of government, can only be effected through the practice of politics, legislating and governing. I didn't go into the specific means of measuring results because I think that's pretty obvious to all.

First, even if you're one of those who thinks religious claims are vapid due to untestability and don't rate for justified belief, UUism is based on reality testing not faithful "revelation" - look it up.

If religion were based on facts it would be called science--and nobody would believe it.

Shortstop I rarely make accusations about others hear, other than the same conservatives you likely pick on so I don't know where you get your misguided notion that I either misframe other people's arguments to any significant degree or am "all over the map" - certainly not politically. Saying it is "tiresome" is so blatantly dishonest - to imply the frequency - I'm going to ask for some proof or concurrence about that (positions or misrepresentation), or admit you're being an immature blowhard who imagines extra dump on someone you get in a tiff with.

I meant to criticize the overall practice of griping about "self-congratulation", I did note you may have had a reason for picking religion to say that about. And most UUism is indeed based on reality testing, I have been around to other outfits than my own fellowship and haven't found doctrinaire believers (who consider some revelation to be authoritative.) There is some variation, but I have a right to consider the standard or norm as the defining description for comparison.

Colbert is wrong for two reasons. First, just referring to "religion" in the abstract when I specified UUism - UUism is so unlike other "religions" it may well not really count as one. Don't forget there are conflicting definitions based on substantive versus practice. Second, it is not so, that it would be science if based on facts. Science is a particular program applied to learning how the world works, there are other issues like the best way to live, ethics, reverence for all this, etc. that aren't science but (like say politics or ethics) are not superstition either.)

BTW I put in hard work this year registering voters, calling etc. to get Obama elected (as I have for Democrats in VA since 1992), did you?

Furthermore, any of you are going to tell us, that a "religion" that fully accepts scientific teaching and does not believe in imposing religious influence on government, is no better than/as bad as systems that think the Earth is a few thousand years old, Noah's Ark was real, and want their teachings incorporated into the government's programs? Oh really? That sounds awfully lacking in any discernment, it's the sort of crank militant's line that anything remotely related to the hated "other" is just as bad as all other such relations etc. Might as well hate the US Constitution since conservatives say (disingenuously, but that isn't the fault of its writers or others who care) that's what they're all about, etc.

Why are the most religious states the most Godforsaken?

so god set me down
in a little
town
after whirling me
round and round
he said to me
son
as if i was the
one
get lost so you
can get
found

Steve, it wasn't even sexual orientation but rumor of a sexual orientation.