Religious influence on politics

[Pannonian]

I want to talk about something i found on Trumps Twitter. Mind you, this is not so much about Trump, as i think you can see this from more or less any US president (Bush 2 comes to mind). It's about the national prayer day:

First of, it seems kind of silly to have a prayer-day. I can understand a day of mourning, but isn't prayer-day already talking sides?

In the statement he also asks for gods blessing and guidance.

And last but not least "the year of the lord 2017"????


Don't get me wrong, this is not about religion per se, but more about how it has influence on politics.

In my country no president would ever write something like that, and IF, the backlash would be enormous. Urging all the people to pray to god (the single one, as in: only monotheistic)?

I'm kind of curious: Is this normal for american people? A release like that i would expect form Khomeni in Iran or Erdogan in Turkey, not from the leader of a secular western country.

[Xarkan]

I want to talk about something i found on Trumps Twitter. Mind you, this is not so much about Trump, as i think you can see this from more or less any US president (Bush 2 comes to mind). It's about the national prayer day:

First of, it seems kind of silly to have a prayer-day. I can understand a day of mourning, but isn't prayer-day already talking sides?

In the statement he also asks for gods blessing and guidance.

And last but not least "the year of the lord 2017"????


Don't get me wrong, this is not about religion per se, but more about how it has influence on politics.

In my country no president would ever write something like that, and IF, the backlash would be enormous. Urging all the people to pray to god (the single one, as in: only monotheistic)?

I'm kind of curious: Is this normal for american people? A release like that i would expect form Khomeni in Iran or Erdogan in Turkey, not from the leader of a secular western country.

Anno Domini 2017? 2017 AD? It seems a common way to phrase it

The rest of it may be american but..

[Very Tired]

Yes it's quite normal. Many politicians run and get elected on the appeal of their religious views.

Even others in the Senate who don't run on the basis of religion still have a religion themselves. Christianity for all of them, IIRC.

[Pannonian]

Anno Domini 2017? 2017 AD? It seems a common way to phrase it

The rest of it may be american but..

That's more or less my question: Why this kind of wording? Why write year of the lord 2017, if 2017 AD would work as well, and why even to begin with? I think we are all aware this is about 2017 AD not 2017 BC. Just wondering why this "year of the lord" is chosen - that something a priest might say, not a politician - at least not the ones i know.

[Xarkan]

That's more or less my question: Why this kind of wording? Why write year of the lord 2017, if 2017 AD would work as well, and why even to begin with? I think we are all aware this is about 2017 AD not 2017 BC. Just wondering why this "year of the lord" is chosen - that something a priest might say, not a politician - at least not the ones i know.

Maybe it is me

But to me it really does not change what you are saying if you say it in latin or say it in english, you still say it. [meant if you add the AD]

Edit: Actually it does change something.. i might not understand it in latin (very likely even, i do not speak latin) but if i understood it it is the same message

[schwarzkopf]

Anno Domini 2017? 2017 AD? It seems a common way to phrase it

Most countries have moved past that idea, these days it is BCE and CE (Before Current Era and Current Era).

[Xarkan]

Most countries have moved past that idea, these days it is BCE and CE (Before Current Era and Current Era).

I do not believe i have seen that in english

I mean i have in danish but in english?

[Pannonian]

I do not believe i have seen that in english

I mean i have in danish but in english?

It is growing. In the scientific field of course, but also England/Wales use it in their schools textbooks since 2006. But what "bothers" me more than AD, is just the fact that it's completely written out.

Secularism as i understand it, is that religion/church has no influence on politics, but that's not the only thing: It also means the government doesn't promote a specific religion.

Now while this text wants to unite all believers of all confessions, the used words contradict it. Especially by referring to a single god (which only counts for the monotheistic religions) and also using the phrase "the year of the lord" - that's one very specific religion. And i find that curious as in my opinion there is no reason to use AD, because its quite obvious he isn't talking about a prayer day in the dorian days. So why use this kind of wording in the first place?

[schwarzkopf]

I do not believe i have seen that in english

I see BCE all the time in English, especially in documentaries and stuff.

Admittedly been driven by the irrational left P.C. brigade.

If we want to rid ourselves of the meanings of every word in our language we are in for a long and painful process

[Gestopft]

Yes it's quite normal. Many politicians run and get elected on the appeal of their religious views.

The current Alabama Senate primary is absolutely frightening in this regard.

Even others in the Senate who don't run on the basis of religion still have a religion themselves. Christianity for all of them, IIRC.

Most senators. 6 are of the Mormon flavor, 8 are Jewish, 1 Buddhist, 3 non-affiliated or undeclared.

Yes religion is still hugely important in our politics. Us non-religious types (over a fifth of the country now) are the most underrepresented group in the county.

[Pannonian]

I see BCE all the time in English, especially in documentaries and stuff.

Admittedly been driven by the irrational left P.C. brigade.

So, maybe this is hard for the irrational alt-right to grasp, but most scientist prefer the measurements to be not influenced by religion. This is not PC, left, SJW or whatever you can fish out of your buzzword box, this is about science and it being neutral.

I will even agree that C.E./B.C.E is problematic, as it is too similar, and i have a very easy solution for that: Change the definition of A.D. (in scientific context), to something like "after date" - no one has to rewrite anything, and we don't have to use religious measurements in science.

Why do you want to force your cultural references on everyone else? If china gets world power number 1, are you okay if all your dates are replaced by references to chinese dynasties?

[schwarzkopf]

So, maybe this is hard for the irrational alt-right to grasp, but most scientist prefer the measurements to be not influenced by religion

There is no influence - the terms AD and BC are just terms. Half the English language is influenced by religion, the history of language is diverse ... we can't practically start changing every term that has an 'evil' history.

I mean - the words master and slave are used in electronics, should we change those too ?

[Pannonian]

There is no influence - the terms AD and BC are just terms. Half the English language is influenced by religion, the history of language is diverse ... we can't practically start changing every term that has an 'evil' history.

I mean - the words master and slave are used in electronics, should we change those too ?

Ehm, they are terms with a religious undertone. A.D. as pointed out in this thread is Anno Domini. Year after the lord (christ). There is only one religion seeing this person as "the lord".

All i want to do is change on line in the abbreviation page any scientific paper contains. Instead of A.D. - Anno Domini, just write A.D - After Date. See, no problem? Though, let's face it, there is rarely anyone using AD in scientific context. I just don't like BCE/CE and would prefer to switch back to AD/BC with a new definition, as it makes reading easier and prevents misunderstandings.

And it is important as we live in a globalized world, so regional references don't make any sense. If you want to stick by your year of the lord, maybe a lot of scientists want to live in the year 1385 after the prophet? Some maybe want to live in the year 28 of the Hesei era. I mean, i don't want to deny anyone how they call their year - but it's hard to work with dozens of different measurements. I like one measurement anyone on this planet can use, and in this case i would prefer to get rid of religious notions, not only because its a bit pretentious to make everyone using it, it also would be more accepted if it doesn't force anyone to call any year a year of the lord who you don't perceive as the lord.

Oh and btw. please explain how this were leftists P.C. SJWs:

"In Germany, Jews in Berlin seem to have already been using "(Before the) Common Era" in the 18th century, while others like Moses Mendelssohn opposed this usage as it would hinder the integration of Jews into German society. The formulation seems to have persisted among German Jews in the 19th century in forms like vor der gewöhnlichen Zeitrechnung (before the common chronology).

In 1938 Nazi Germany, the use of this convention was also prescribed by the National Socialist Teachers League. However, it was soon discovered that many German Jews had been using the convention ever since the 18th century, and they found it ironic to see "Aryans following Jewish example nearly 200 years later".

So german jews in the 18th century were PC SJWs?
@master/Slave: Yeah, i prefer what MediaWiki suggests master/replica.

Words change over time, they also change in meaning. Ignoring that isn't only irrational, it kills languages - or at least branches of dead languages, like Latine.

[Lynarii]

In all honesty, I find debating over AD being a bit nitpicky, since the majority of people who use it in the US are not thinking along religious terms when they're using it. So while it does have it's roots in the Christian faith, popular usage has effectively secularized it.

That being said, religion has extraordinary power over US politicians at all levels of government. While there is technically supposed to be a separation of church and state, it really took me moving to another country to really be able to look back and understand how critical Christianity is to the US. Easiest way to make the point. There are more non-Jews in the Israeli Knesset than there are non-Christians in the US senate. For all that Article 6 of the US Constitution expressly forbids any form of religious test for any governmental office (including President), Obama was forced to repeatedly defend against attacks suggesting that he wasn't Christian enough to lead the US.

[Dmitro]

Most countries have moved past that idea, these days it is BCE and CE (Before Current Era and Current Era).

lmao, so pathetic, its denies the actual meaning of this calendar and its origins, the culture that made it global ( european one obviously)

- - - Updated - - -

its like if our glorious revolution 1776 was just called "creation of the country" ( which is factually correct but denigrates the historical cause)

[Pannonian]

In all honesty, I find debating over AD being a bit nitpicky, since the majority of people who use it in the US are not thinking along religious terms when they're using it. So while it does have it's roots in the Christian faith, popular usage has effectively secularized it.

That being said, religion has extraordinary power over US politicians at all levels of government. While there is technically supposed to be a separation of church and state, it really took me moving to another country to really be able to look back and understand how critical Christianity is to the US. Easiest way to make the point. There are more non-Jews in the Israeli Knesset than there are non-Christians in the US senate. For all that Article 6 of the US Constitution expressly forbids any form of religious test for any governmental office (including President), Obama was forced to repeatedly defend against attacks suggesting that he wasn't Christian enough to lead the US.

Yeah it is nit-picky, that's why i prefer this easy solution, which doesn't change anything, but removes the grounds for this discussion, but i should probably not derail my own thread.

The rest: Yeah, that's more or less what i feel about it. Don't get me wrong, this is not nation bashing, but in my perception the US isn't secular at all. I don't know if this still holds true but afaik a candidate proclaiming to be an atheist wouldn't even be able to enter the primaries? Contrary if the president in my country would publicly declare we should pray and claim that he is a devout christian - this would get a lot of criticism, and i live by no means in an atheist country. Austria is still a very catholic country. On the other hand, our president right now is an atheist, and when some fringe groups tried to attack him because of that, no one cared - people just shook their heads at these "crazies".

This has always wondered me about the U.S. - which in many ways is a paragon for a modern secular democracy.

[ranzino]

...
This has always wondered me about the U.S. - which in many ways is a paragon for a modern secular democracy.

a nation which prints and engraves "in god we trust" on its money and coins is never secular. you better leave such statements to the Status Civitatis Vaticanae.

[Deleted]

America is a very religious country.

[Felya]

America is a very religious country.

There is just a vocal minority...

[Machismo]

Religion does not belong in politics. It's nothing more than a way for people to force archaic beliefs onto others, and hide behind a book written and rewritten hundreds of years ago. If you want religion in politics, don't complain when another religion takes over, and forces you to follow theirs.