Is America becoming anti-religious? - with Glenn Loury (1994) | THINK TANK
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 янв 2025
- Original air date: May 20, 1994
Are we moving from a nation based on freedom of religion to one based on freedom from religion? Has the separation of church and state gone too far?
Host:
Ben Wattenberg - senior fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Panelists:
Father Robert Drinan - professor of law at Georgetown University
Glenn Loury - professor of economics at Boston University
Michael Novak - The George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute
Stephen Carter - professor of law at Yale University
"Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg" was a discussion program that aired on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) from 1994 to 2009, hosted by AEI Senior Fellow Ben Wattenberg. AEI offers uncut episodes of "Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg" as an academic resource that shows how American political thought has evolved on some issues and stayed the same on others.
"Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg" is licensed to AEI by Grace Creek Media, the successor of New River Media and BJW, Inc. "Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg" © Grace Creek Media
Subscribe to AEI's RUclips Channel
www.youtube.co...
Like us on Facebook
/ aeionline
Follow us on Twitter
/ aei
For more information
www.aei.org
Third-party photos, graphics, and/or video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music may have been edited in a way that does not alter the meaning of the third-party work(s). Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.
In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset.
The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials.
AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees.
More information on AEI research integrity can be found here: www.aei.org/about/
#aei #news #politics #government #education #religion #law #constitution
Separating Church and State is IN THE CONSTITUTION. Making the slightest, honestly half assed, attempt to enforce that is not anti-religion. Religion should have no place in politics and governance. Making a law or passing a law because of your religious beliefs is unconstitutional. If they are your personal beliefs, fine, so be it. But don’t quote god and religion IN THE SPEECH you give.
King Naga could you reference the location of the phrase in the Constitution
Man Glenn Loury is looking young!
23:50 quality.
Religious people bringing up morality in regards to teen pregnancy and crime is so funny to me when the most religiously influenced nations and states in America with the worst sex ed and secular education in general always have the highest teen pregnancy, crime and poverty rates. Alabama is a meme for a reason.
Overwhelmingly most people in prison in America are religious.
More education on how to have sex safely equals less teen pregnancy. This is very easily verifiable fact.
Less teen pregnancy equals less poor single mums struggling to raise kids who then go on to commit crimes to provide for themselves. No matter where you look in the world this is the truth. Throwing thou shalt not hanky panky to horny teenagers will definitely not stop a bunch of them from having sex anyway; even though they honestly have less sex now than the earlier generations did, way too many tech distractions. Teaching them safety is the only way to reduce numbers
I am an out and open atheist and I publicly refuse to conform to ANY religious dogma.
thebatmanover9000
I am an out and open aïst. I publicly refuse to conform to ANY dogma, whether it be religious, pseudo-religious, or non-religious.
But...do you want to impose that belief on others by taking away their religious beliefs for their own good through the law because you think Theists are primitive backwards idiots?
@@Awibrahor I am an out and open nihilist. I refuse to refuse to refuse to conform to ANY idea, whether it be an idea, or not an idea.
So you follow your own self-interested dogma. OK, we get it. You think you're brilliant. Moving on.
Ian Connel
You think YOU’RE brilliant, don’t you? You’re conflating ideas with dogmas. They are completely different things.
Ideas are for freethinkers, dogmas are for cattle.
Nihilism, in being an ism, is a dogma.
America is still one of the most religious developed countries on earth, no.
Perhaps, though it seems to be a large matter of convenience or perhaps a misunderstanding of what religion is. For instance Muslim and Jewish are often used as a describer of race, when those are religions.
Because of this many people treat instances revolving around them as a race issue when in reality you shouldn't. It is a religion and as such like Christianity or Buddhism or really anything else, they are open for critique. However the media tends to treat any criticism as racism, hence Islamophobia. Oh sure people like that exist, but often times the response isn't really targeted at those people, or even appropriate to the subject at hand.
I mean these are the same people that would use a passage in Leviticus to criticize Christians but if someone were to do the same with the Quran then obviously they are X,Y,Z as well as an Islamaphobe. Either all of it is ok, or none of it is ok. As many people like to say "you can't just pick and choose". Media in general however likes to do just that. It makes it easier to paint your enemy as a monster because then it isn't a question of fact, but moral outrage. Emotions lead the conversation and that never produces anything good or worthwhile.
Christians open to critique? Have you ever debated a Catholic or a Fundamentalist or a Dominionist?
Well this is a bit prophetic.
The religious love to think they're being opressed. .
I don't think it's oppression, but my entire religious group is constantly called pedos and homophobes.... I get that there are many who use god to do horrible things, but this is not on the religion, it is on those who pretend to follow it...
I sure hope we are! Christianity went too far. Start paying taxes now! Stay out of our politics and public schools. Leave us alone. We demand freedom from your bs.
It’s all voluntary prayer and bible readings bro.
And stop spreading your anti-religion rhetoric while your at it, now we don’t have any common values.
The “priest” is a moral fool. Doesn’t know up from down, and left from right. Literally every word out of his mouth was either false, misinformed, nonsense, or anti-truth.
Here's the inherent problem with allowing religious beliefs to be part of the debate on public policy in the state. You literally cannot prove your religious beliefs to be factual truth, like gravity or the economy.
It's not a belief brought in by observation of factual information like viewing scientific evidence on flying cars and their impact on infrastructure and the environment and deciding how you think we should regulate them based on that. Or even simpler murder is bad in the law not because God, god, g_d or the gods said so but because if we let people murder each other willy nilly there would be no right to life and security something we need to survive.
The fact you cannot objectively prove your religious beliefs means they hold no value to someone who doesn't believe them. And by bringing religious beliefs as consideration into public policy you are forcing your belief on that person because they exist in a public capacity. This is literally the main reason pilgrims came to America and it's literally one of the reasons America started a revolution against England.
Secondly as a result of the unobjective nature of religious beliefs to be a free and fair society to allow for public schools to organise religious prayers means that we would have to provide prayer options for EVERY SINGLE religious beliefs there are. Most people tend to think of religion as the big three Abrahamic religions but even within all three of those most of them can't agree on how to pray correctly, what to pray for, what you can use to pray, who leads prayer, when to pray and who to pray for. Each of the big three have numerous of denominations within each one and to allow for public prayer in schools or court rooms means to cater to every single one of them, hiring the right people to do it, having all the equipment. This is logistically impossible. Your religion isn't special to anyone but you.
And to the point of taxes being used to fund state policies you oppose for religious reasons. What about all the bhuddists and pacifists in America who don't believe the military should be funded so greatly or even at all for their matter. Do they not matter? You aren't special, your religion isn't special to anyone but you. If the majority of American supreme court has decided they are okay with abortions you have to follow the laws you have agreed to follow by taking on the freedoms that America has given you. That's your RESPONSIBILITY since one of the debators for religiousity in state brought it up. If God can't forgive you for being forced to contribute to that then you either move to a country where they agree with you or keep quiet.
The default state of any human having been born is irreligious. Religion is taught and there is no religion that's automatically inbuilt within people. The best and fairest way to run any public institution is as an irreligious entity.