> The concept of God abounds in our Pledge of Allegiance, in our graduation ceremonies, in our political speeches--it is almost universally accepted and above question.

You probably know this already, but Yahweh's prominence on the coinage and in the Pledge of Allegiance is a relatively recent phenomenon. It wasn't until 1908 that 'In God We Trust' was mandated on the coinage, and 'under God' wasn't inserted into the Pledge until 1954, as part of a wider anti-communist reaction. The supposed areligiosity of the Founders is often overstated by modern-day atheists with an axe to grind. However, while you'd be hard pressed to find a more pompous and puritanical Christian than the likes of John Adams, even he was strongly supportive of the separation of church and state: "Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."

Yeah, I did (about the 'under God' in the pledge to disassociate ourselves from communists, not about the 'In God We Trust' on coinage actually) thanks to my father really, but that's an excellent point to bring up. Especially when you consider that most people /do not/ know that, and would be shocked or disbelieving if you told it to them.

As to the Founders, whether or not they were religious, the abuse of their legends has gotten old many times already. Many political factions (though the Tea Party are the worst culprits) have misinterpreted, misrepresented, and straight up lied (or worse, not actually known) about their history and beliefs, and used this confusion as a platform for their opinions. It's disgusting.

>"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."

Except perhaps religion meddling with the national government?

The specter still haunting many Americans in those days was the Anglican Church, a monarchical organ in a religious fascia. The aggressive meddling of the Roman Church in national affairs had largely abated and was a non-issue in the nascent United States. His emphasis must be understood in that context.

The /concept/ of God runs through a lot of European institutions too (for instance, the UK Queen is the head of the Church of England - no separation of church and state). However, in the US, the line gets blurred when people start to talk about /actual/ God.

The idea that someone can claim some benefit via allegiance to actual God in a political setting is pretty scary, IMHO.

Indeed. I remember recently when Asatru was recognized as a legitimate religion in Denmark. I remember thinking "Wow, religions need government approval in Denmark?"

I assume that anybody can invent their own religion in Denmark. Getting recognized by the state probably grants the religion some special privileges. i.e. No Taxes

In many countries it also has benefits like being able to perform legally valid weddings....

As an interesting aside, there's a strong negative correlation between GDP per capita and religion; the richer a country is the less religious it is. America is the exception that sticks out like a sore thumb on a graph.

Really? That's actually very interesting, if you have source material for that I'd love to see it. Though I wonder if it's biased by very religious middle eastern states lacking in natural resources other than oil (which benefits a very small group).

Here's a graph: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/137/religion-god-theology/...

Looking at it I noticed that I'm from one of the least religious countries in the world (Denmark).

I think GDP might be a proxy for education here. A graph of educational standards vs religion might be even more revealing

You also have to consider that there is a possible correlation between being poor and being religious. As bad as that may sound, religion brings hope to a lot of people who do not have many other sources of it.

But Karl, surely the masses can afford genuine opiates now that we have boosted the supply so effectively ?

And how might that graph look if you take each state in the union as a sovereign entity and map it accordingly? It might actually make it fall in line with the trend, as I think the fact that these disjointed states are taken as a group is what's making the USA stick out like a sore thumb.

Rare to find actively religious young people on the West Coast (at least Bay Area / Portland)

In your social circles, at least.

There seems to be a strong tendency to assume that erveyone is like the speaker. It's especially funny when friends of mine mention something like that (everyone is non-religious everyone is super liberal) not yet realizing that I don't fit the bill :-) Stanford actually has very strong religious student groups.

Very much not true if my experiences of living in Berkeley in the 90's are anything to go by (possibly my definition of "rare" is different since I'm from the UK).

I suspect it depends on who you hang out with :-)