is faith genetic?

Very fascinating, but I don't think faith is genetic. Look at the numbers of people whose parents are religious, but they are not and vice versa.

And, faith isn't just a conservative/right attribute. Many on the left are religious. And there are many on the right who are not.

---

Oh, is that so?

"why the religious right is flourishing and secular liberals aren't: instinct."

"Granted, that's not very encouraging news for the secular left."

Maybe you should reread the article before you spout off.

---

i stand corrected (you can write this one down in your diary in special bright colors and then fold down the corner of the page so you never miss it). two whole other mentions within the first three paragraphs, and then? so you read that article and all you got out of it was a call to defend democrats? how spectacularly unsurprising.

---

Updated On: 2/12/05 at 03:20 PM

who's on the left? who's on the right? now you want to argue word semantics? i'm sorry, were you arguing the existence of large numbers of religious folk in the american communist party? no? are you then arguing that the term "the left" when used with regard to political issues, specifically when juxtaposed to the term "religious right" does not refer to democrats? if not then please tell me of whom you were speaking.

---

Updated On: 2/12/05 at 03:29 PM

answer the question, jrb. if the term "the felt" does not refer to democrats then who does it refer to?

---

the liberal. DGrant is on the left but he is not a Democrat.

Maybe it is YOU that sees everything as black or white.

---

thanks jrby!

---

why did you not say liberal then? even though the vast majority of those who would identify themselves as liberal would also identify themselves as democrats. if you meant a specific segment of society then you should have said that, rather than using an accepted term and then denying its meaning. do you mean just dgrant? can you find a term that you might employ here that expressses your meaning and does not confuse the issue? liberal thinking non-secular citizens who do not identify themselves as democrats, perhaps?

---

i think it's interesting that the way they put it in the article, iflit, is more about spirituality as opposed to any one diety.

looking at it from a place of survival, i mean the point about placebos is a good one. perhaps the brain is hardwired to look outside itself as kind of a sleight of hand to allow the body to work. i mean it's accepted that human beings only use about 10% of the capacity of the human brain. maybe we're not at a place yet where the rest of it would be beneficial to us as a species. so to access parts of that which is unused, the brain must invent a reason and an excuse, a miracle, whatever, to explain away the effectsd of accessing that area. man that sounds nuts.

---

keep twisting this until you win, papa. I brought it up in my first post to clarify the direction I thought the article was taking things--making it sound as if the right was the only side increasing its numbers through religious genetics.

Now, I'm done with this--I've said what I have to say. If you can't understand, tough t***y.

---

Updated On: 2/12/05 at 04:02 PM

well too damn bad. If that makes you feel better about yourself--mazel tov. If it wasn't an issue in the article, why did the writer mention it?

And, I believe I addressed the larger issue of the article in my first sentences. That I didn't agree that religion is genetic. SO SORRY if I spoke about multiple items in the article.

---

Didn't Time magazine have a cover story on this topic not too long ago? It even included a handy little quiz to test how naturally "spiritual" you were. I remember I scored zero.

As far as the political aspect, isn't it possible to have private religious beliefs and still to prefer a society based on secular principles?

Updated On: 2/13/05 at 05:24 PM