Secular Americans More Moral than Christian Americans

"As I reported several months ago, American Christians are far more likely to support torture than "secular" Americans. I’m not sure what “secular” means, but it surely includes atheists and agnostics, given how the term tends to be used in surveys.

This creates the curious situation in which atheists and agnostics are less likely to support obviously evil actions than Christians who might otherwise suppose that their religion is necessary for morality and moral behavior. What would explain this? Do similar differences exist elsewhere in the world or is it unique to America?
According to a survey posted on the National Catholic Reporter.

Here are the percentages of people who say that torture is never justified:

26% Catholics
31% White Protestant
31% White evangelical
41% Secular
32% Overall Population

Here are the numbers who think that torture is often justified:

21% Catholics
15% White Protestant
13% White evangelical
10% Secular
15% Overall Population

It would appear, then, that we atheists are far more likely than Christians, or even the whole population, to say that torture is never justified. We atheists are far less likely than Christians, or even the whole population, to think that torture is often justified (same is true for “sometimes justified”).

In America, then, Christians are far more likely to support moral evil than atheists or agnostics. No wonder Christian citizens and Christian politicians have been so supportive of Christian President Bush's efforts to authorize torture and abuse of suspects detained in the War on Terror. Why?

Atheism and agnosticism are not ideologies, religions, or belief systems and as such cannot be credited with necessarily making a person more moral. Atheism doesn't teach a person to be good or bad, kind or cruel. Perhaps the answer lies in Christianity — and specifically American Christianity — rather than atheism or agnosticism. Perhaps there is something about American Christianity which dulls people's ability to treat others decently, especially when the "others" are unlike them and living in another country.

This obviously isn't true about all Christians in America, but those for whom it isn't true need to address this issue."

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/09/28/secular-americans-more-moral-than-christian-americans.htm

Hey, thanks for this thread. You have been having a lot of interesting threads. And I feel like I should apologise. Not sure why except that I have been feeling almost human here lately. I really like what is worded on the side of the trailer in picture. I have a lot of Atheist friends with very good principles. Personally what one Atheist friend told me has done me a lot of good at my job and meetings. He told me to save myself when I offered to save him. I used to take that as something bad but in actuality it really makes a lot of sense. It is the basic survival instinct as I see it. Another thing one Atheist friend told me is that there no absolutes. It was something I needed to hear. One thing that has fascinated here lately is the concept of a "Christian Atheist". That is really something that must come off as an ultimate contradiction. But I have been dealing with a multitude of contradictions here lately. Have you ever had one those phases where your mood swings are like a roller coaster ride?

there is only one absolute...and that is the existence of yourself to yourself because everything else could be a delusion ..especially God

it is impossible for you to prove to yourself that you yourself do not exist and it's impossible to doubt that you yourself do exist because the ability to do either only proves that you exist

and this is why to seek truth everything must be measure on the same level as your existence to yourself is measured

My view of how religious doctrine can ‘morally’, substantiate torture and limits the capacity of its followers to think about their morals or develop an individual moral and ethical code.

A PEW survey conducted in 2007 includes a representative sample of more than 35,000 adults in the U.S., with additional over-samples of Eastern Orthodox Christians, Buddhists and Hindus.

Overall the data collected through these interviews indicates that
The data was collected and extrapolated to provide basic statistics and no conclusions, other than the quote above were drawn from the extrapolated data. In other words the extrapolation of data collected has been represented in the report without bias.

However, it is typical for such data to lend itself to questions that can be converted to hypotheses for future study.

For example:

Questions that might arise from that data:
Why do so many, under the age of 30 choose not to form religious affiliations?

Possible answers:
They don’t want to add further commitments of their time to the social aspects of another group affiliation.
(but what does that say about their commitment to any particular doctrine?)

Perhaps the majority may not have been exposed to a religious affilation.
(but the survey does not reflect that instead:

Many may not want to restrict their moral and ethical growth to limited doctrines of secular religious groups.
(this is the idea I would personally select to form a hypothesis from which to conduct a new survey)

In my opinion, many factors contribute to both, the fluid exchange of one religious affiliation for another, and the lack of religious affiliation among the young. There is dissatisfaction with religious doctrine among adherents which causes religious exchange and there is dissatisfaction with secular doctrine due to its restrictions that inhibit self-developed moral and ethical growth.

There may be further reluctance to affiliate with any religious doctrine based on personal experience or observations of the religious community as a whole to cause biased division between people and society because of doctrinal commitment.

One conclusion may be that in the past our education was limited, opportunity and access to diverse views and cultural exchange where limited and harsher lifestyles created the need for a support group through which the hard of questions of life and living were answered – all at the price of commitment or adherence to a moral doctrine.

It is much easier to believe that there is a greater power in control of the universe, and that our mission in life is contingent on meeting the expectations of that controlling power. If we meet with the expectations all will be made right in the end – but what are the expectations and how can behavior be modified to meet those expectations.

The purpose of religious doctrine is to reduce the need of thought processes, and reduce chances of error in our behavior which could affect the desired ultimate outcome which only occurs when expectations are met.

But when we reduce an individual’s capacity to examine personal experiences with reference to a current subjective view of reality, the individual is denied the freedom to develop a self-actualizing ethical and moral code.

There is a reason why we are experiencing such great division between the so-called religious right and the rest of society. There is a heightened level of fear and urgency within that religious sector. The urgency stems from the changes in laws that will make it more difficult for committed doctrinal members to live up to the policies derived through thoughtless doctrine.

One example is the dilemma that new laws requiring equal treatment of the LGBT community present. These laws diminish the ability of individuals, affiliated with certain religious doctrines, to go about their daily life without THINKING about how their behavior affects the outcome of their ultimate goal – meeting the doctrinal expectations to gain rewards.

It’s easy to discriminate on the bases of religious doctrine, because many of our laws had developed through a past cultural norm in which the Christian majority was favored. It’s easier to adhere to religious doctrine when societal norms and laws seem to uphold basic tenants in the religious doctrines of the majority. In other words, if the law reflects a limited moral characteristic of a religious doctrine, people are SAVED from having to THINK about the moral implications of their behavior toward the rest of society.

When laws change to reflect a higher and more ethical social standard of morals, the so-called religious-right faces the dilemma of having to accept one moral standard, the social one, and living in accordance with another moral standard, their religious doctrine.

To accomplish this, proponents of the limiting religious doctrine must ‘acknowledge’ and ‘accept’ that their doctrine discriminates against others, that living up to their doctrine makes the individual prosecutor, jury, and judge of other peoples actions. This creates direct conflict of the majority of Christian doctrine.

That means that those particular Christians must THINK about what guides their moral behavior.

In my view, that is how religious doctrine can ‘morally’, substantiate torture because it limits the capacity of its followers to think about their morals or develop an individual moral and ethical code.

Cool. The golden rule in my book only modified. I can accept that. When the "unknown" factor becomes "known" it is not "unknown" any longer. Mathematically speaking we then know what "x" is equal to. In other words Aristotlically speaking "A" is equal to "A". It doesn't necessarily mean that "A" is "A" but just that "A" is equal to "A". My mathematical perceptual acceptance of a higher power. Anyway a lot of ex stoners can relate with that I have found. I have a lot of ex stoner friends that just can buy into the "God" trip. It is like, "Dude, what have you been smoking?" I tell them that I am doing God. You should try some. It can really get you high.

I try to encourage sanity. It is just easier to deal with sane people when it comes to communication. Too many realities can be hard to deal with all at once. Otherwise they can become like just inanimate objects.