Why IS LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES SO DIFFERENT TODAY?

[Anglinarcher]

The majority of the people are in the US still of some sort of Christian faith. Still the MAJORITY. Most polls I've seen still lean 60-80 Christian. I imagine that is the particular "religion" you are referring to when you say as much, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it is still a, if not the, most dominant religious force in the US today, in every day life as well as the government (separation of church and state? LOL).

Here's a couple of these polls/stats I am referring to in case you wanted sources:
The Pew Forum
CUNY survey
Wiki

Also, I fail to see how whether you are religious or not holds any bearing on the effectiveness of one's child rearing, but to insinuate that the lack of such as a downfall is pretty narrow-minded.

Yes, the US was conservative in the past more than it is right now, but we are talking about a completely different brand of conservatism vs the likes of the Right-leaning ranks that are pervasive today. Think Ron Paul vs George Bush brands of conservative.

I do agree that younger people in general feel more entitled while having put in less time than in the past but I would not be so quick to point at political or religious views as the culprit. Moral values should transcend all of these things, so I try to be better to my fellow man because its the right thing to do, and not because I am building up points or some book tells me to.

I think we have some disagreement here, but that is OK.

First, while "Christianity" may be the dominate faith in the US, Gisteppo was quite correct in his point that this mantel is placed on many vastly different beliefs. I am, as you deduced, a Christian, and yet most of you would probably disagree. Outside of this country, other religions ARE recognized for their various sects. This is one reason that Iraq is having such a difficult time uniting under one Government. That is not my point, my point is that all religions have some intrinsic value, they teach morals. Many religions have been corrupted, but taken at their base beliefs, they all have positive value. I also question the polls you have shown, but I hope that they are correct. I saw a poll just recently that indicated that the majority of people in the US are now agnostic, having no convictions in a higher power, but are unwilling to declare there is none.

So, lacking this source of moral teachings, the source of moral values, where does one get their direction? Do we get it from Government? Do we get it from Schools? Do we get it from TV, or Music, or Poets and Books? Please be careful in determining that we, as mankind, can develop our own moral brands. Maslow (a scientist, not a preacher) taught that there is a hierarchy of needs that we all must meet, and that we are biologically driven to satisfy that hierarchy of needs. In essence, it means that biology dictates that my needs out way your needs, and therefore my morals and ethics are situational at best. Or, in radical words, IT IS OK for me to kill you and your family to protect me and my family's interest. As you can see, taken to extremes, this can become the gangster mentality very quickly. I admire your desire to believe that "Moral values should transcend all of these things, so I try to be better to my fellow man because its the right thing to do, and not because I am building up points or some book tells me to", but in practice, I do not believe that you, or the majority of mankind, can live up to such lofty goals at this time.

Now, regarding conservatism, you have made my point for me, so I am not sure if I should argue or what. I made no reference to political parties, or to politics in general, and for a reason. What today is called conservative, was often once called liberal. For example, the conservatives of their day were the ones that were loyal to England, it was the liberals that fought the revolution that formed this country. And yet, the form of government, and the first 200 or so years, was considered extremely conservative by many, at least by todays standards. The Democrat most admired, and almost worshiped, JFK, is now considered by many to have been more conservative then either of the Bushs. I do not blame a political party for the problem, but for a shift in beliefs that the political parties are latching onto. Nevertheless, my examples of conservative standards in my previous post are, in my opinion, inarguable, and therefore I stand behind that claim.

Gisteppo, I don't think we totally disagree, but there are clearly shades of gray we need to discuss. I suspect that I struck a nerve in my support for the need for religion. First, let me make it clear that I believe that all men have the right to worship who or what they desire, but I believe that ll men worship something. Some worship a higher power, some worship nature, and some worship money. I hope that you and your family have found something to worship that enables you to make the right decisions. Nevertheless, as explained above, I do not believe that mankind can develop their own moral standards or brands by themselves, it is simply biologically impossible.

As for taxes, you and are would be considered ultraconservative - we both want Exxon, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet to pay the same rates we do. Now that we are "coming out" of sorts on the WWW, we will be marked by the liberals for life (LOL). I personally support the FLAT or FAIR TAX concept that has been tossed around, but probably will never happen. I want everyone to pay exactly the same tax rate. I don't care if you make $100/year of $1,000,000,000/year, the percentage should be the same. We must all, as Biden said, have some skin in the game. Now, if we want to talk programs for the less fortunate, or disadvantaged, that is another discussion, and one I am not willing to argue right now.

G-Man, I know that overpopulation is a concern for you, and I think we have argued some about this before. So, for the record, I believe there are sufficient resources for far more population then we have on this planet, but greed and Government controls around the world create the problems. Other then that, we seem more in agreement then disagreement. Responsibility is a real issue right now, as is authority. For the most part, I defer to your comments regarding this subject.

[Gisteppo]

Im not so much offended as just like keeping the lines clear that religion isn't the be-all of morality. I think your theory of worship is close, but I wouldn't use the word itself. Something more along the lines of respect and understanding, but not so much worship of things like the land and sea. I have a little more faith in humans being able to negotiate morality without a guiding light, but I do agree a fair amount with your assessment.

After doing some research on taxation, I see why we have the tax law that we do. The benefits of the government with the tax changes they can make is the ability to stimulate or stifle a part of the economy at will is a powerful tool. I agree that flat taxes are a fantastic idea, but we would need to find a way for government to give incentives to small businesses, to support home ownership, etc etc. Where would you and I be without the deduction of taxable payments to our mortgage banks? Forbes made big waves with his flat tax idea, but after doing a little math with a few different finance guys, we would look at somewhere around 30% if a flat tax were instituted. His 13% accepted all income as taxable, and I can't see people paying tax on every source of income, so it would be a higher rate on a taxable income instead of a gross number. Id like to see a reform of tax law to isolate down to a family of less than 100 deductions, ones which have shown strong track records of benefiting the most people. like the interest deduction for mortgages.

I think we are pretty close together on this, just that we use different words and examples. Such is the case so often in politics

E

[Anglinarcher]

Im not so much offended as just like keeping the lines clear that religion isn't the be-all of morality. I think your theory of worship is close, but I wouldn't use the word itself. Something more along the lines of respect and understanding, but not so much worship of things like the land and sea. I have a little more faith in humans being able to negotiate morality without a guiding light, but I do agree a fair amount with your assessment.

After doing some research on taxation, I see why we have the tax law that we do. The benefits of the government with the tax changes they can make is the ability to stimulate or stifle a part of the economy at will is a powerful tool. I agree that flat taxes are a fantastic idea, but we would need to find a way for government to give incentives to small businesses, to support home ownership, etc etc. Where would you and I be without the deduction of taxable payments to our mortgage banks? Forbes made big waves with his flat tax idea, but after doing a little math with a few different finance guys, we would look at somewhere around 30% if a flat tax were instituted. His 13% accepted all income as taxable, and I can't see people paying tax on every source of income, so it would be a higher rate on a taxable income instead of a gross number. Id like to see a reform of tax law to isolate down to a family of less than 100 deductions, ones which have shown strong track records of benefiting the most people. like the interest deduction for mortgages.

I think we are pretty close together on this, just that we use different words and examples. Such is the case so often in politics

E

I believe the term FAIR tax is an attempt to deal with some of the flat tax draw backs, and I concur that there would be several key areas we would need to clear up. Nevertheless, consider this.

My Church (sorry for using a religion thing again, but it seemed so fitting) request 10% of your income to be paid as tithing, as in olden days. They do not pass a plate, they do not ask more or less from the rich or poor, just 10% from all. Even if the poor do not have means to pay for food, they are asked the same, but then food is given as assistance to them. This does, as Joe Biden who I seldom agree with stated, places skin from everyone in the game, but assists all those in need.

You stated that even with the flat tax that we would need to pay 30%, and yet you wanted Bill and Warren to pay the same 33% you are. So, with nothing changed, they would be paying what I presume you believe is more, and you would get a 3% reduction. Is this not the epitome of fair?

I propose that deductions are tools for politicians to control us, not to reward monetary sectors. Nevertheless, I have room in my paradigm for adjustment. I also have some concerns with the motives for stifling or stimulating parts of the economy. In principle, it makes since, but in practice, it seems to give the ruling party incentive to control the economy to their own advantage, i.e., corruption. For example, if it is true that Republicans are the party of the well to do (I don't concur, but lets assume for the sake of argument), then would it not be the advantage of the Republicans to make the majority rich. On the other hand, the same argument could be made for the Democrats - the party of the poor and oppressed. Would it therefore not be to the advantage to keep the poor and oppressed downtrodden, all the while telling them how they will lift them up against those evil devils that are rich? In reality, I would suggest that many would argument that indeed both statements are, at least in part, true. Personally, I think that is why the founding fathers developed the separation of powers in this country, and I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that stated that a two party system would be the downfall of this country.

But, as you have stated, "I think we are pretty close together on this, just that we use different words and examples. Such is the case so often in politics".

[kantill]

My brother just sent me this email and I think it hits the nails on the head sorry abit long the title was how old is grandpa?:
Stay with this -- the answer is at the end. It will blow you away.
One evening a grandson was talking to his grandfather about current events.
The grandson asked his grandfather what he thought about the shootings at schools, the computer age, and just things in general.

The Grandfather replied, 'Well, let me think a minute, I was born before:

' television

' penicillin

' polio shots

' frozen foods

Xerox

' contact lenses

' Frisbees and

' the pill

There were no:

' credit cards

' laser beams or

' ball-point pens

Man had not invented:

' pantyhose

' air conditioners

' dishwashers

' clothes dryers

' and the clothes were hung out to dry in the fresh air and

' man hadn't yet walked on the moon


Your Grandmother and I got married first, . . . And then lived together.

Every family had a father and a mother.

Until I was 25, I called every man older than me, 'Sir'.
And after I turned 25, I still called policemen and every man with a title, 'Sir.'

We were before gay-rights, computer- dating, dual careers, daycare centers, and group therapy.

Our lives were governed by the Ten Commandments, good judgment, and common sense.

We were taught to know the difference between right and wrong and to stand up and take responsibility for our actions.

Serving your country was a privilege; living in this country was a bigger privilege.

We thought fast food was what people ate during Lent..

Having a meaningful relationship meant getting along with your cousins.

Draft dodgers were those who closed front doors as the evening breeze started.

Time-sharing meant time the family spent together in the evenings and weekends-not purchasing condominiums.



We never heard of FM radios, tape decks, CDs, electric typewriters, yogurt, or guys wearing earrings.

We listened to Big Bands, Jack Benny, and the President's speeches on our radios.

And I don't ever remember any kid blowing his brains out listening to Tommy Dorsey.

If you saw anything with 'Made in Japan ' on it, it was junk

The term 'making out' referred to how you did on your school exam.

Pizza Hut, McDonald's, and instant coffee were unheard of.

We had 5 &10-cent stores where you could actually buy things for 5 and 10 cents.

Ice-cream cones, phone calls, rides on a streetcar, and a Pepsi were all a nickel.

And if you didn't want to splurge, you could spend your nickel on enough stamps to mail 1 letter and 2 postcards.

You could buy a new Chevy Coupe for $600, . . . But who could afford one?
Too bad, because gas was 11 cents a gallon.

In my day:

' 'grass' was mowed,

' 'coke' was a cold drink,

' 'pot' was something your mother cooked in and

' 'rock music' was your grandmother's lullaby.

' 'Aids' were helpers in the Principal's office,

' ' chip' meant a piece of wood,

' 'hardware' was found in a hardware store and
' &nb sp;'software' wasn't even a word.



And we were the last generation to actually believe that a lady needed a husband to have a baby.

No wonder people call us 'old and confused' and say there is a generation gap. And how old do you think I am?

I bet you have this old man in mind...you are in for a shock!

Read on to see -- pretty scary if you think about it and pretty sad at the same time.

Are you ready ?????



This man would be only 69 years old.

[bpm2000]

I think we have some disagreement here, but that is OK.

Certainly.

First, while "Christianity" may be the dominate faith in the US, Gisteppo was quite correct in his point that this mantel is placed on many vastly different beliefs. I am, as you deduced, a Christian, and yet most of you would probably disagree. Outside of this country, other religions ARE recognized for their various sects. This is one reason that Iraq is having such a difficult time uniting under one Government. That is not my point, my point is that all religions have some intrinsic value, they teach morals. Many religions have been corrupted, but taken at their base beliefs, they all have positive value. I also question the polls you have shown, but I hope that they are correct. I saw a poll just recently that indicated that the majority of people in the US are now agnostic, having no convictions in a higher power, but are unwilling to declare there is none.

Again, no other religion (here) gets the distinction between sects, beliefs, philosophies either so no real reason to try to claim Christianity as a blanket statement either. I could argue that Iraq having trouble with the government could be a myrid as of other issues, not pertaining to religion, but that isn't really the discussion here.
Yes, I do find that many religions, the underlying message they preach, are positive ones. I am not blind to faith or church, I have attended various churches of various sects for at least 15 years of my life. And it is precisely the corruption of these "base beliefs" that has me cringe when I see someone claiming that the lack-of is the reason they need moral readjustment. If you want to cast a blind eye towards the governmental corruption for a second, then one could easily make the claim it was religion that led to the Iraqi situation just as easily.
And if you want to question a university-led or non-advocacy/partisan Pew Forum survey, then again I must ask that you provide the ones you have been looking at that show the majority of the US people are agnositc.

So, lacking this source of moral teachings, the source of moral values, where does one get their direction? Do we get it from Government? Do we get it from Schools? Do we get it from TV, or Music, or Poets and Books? Please be careful in determining that we, as mankind, can develop our own moral brands. Maslow (a scientist, not a preacher) taught that there is a hierarchy of needs that we all must meet, and that we are biologically driven to satisfy that hierarchy of needs. In essence, it means that biology dictates that my needs out way your needs, and therefore my morals and ethics are situational at best. Or, in radical words, IT IS OK for me to kill you and your family to protect me and my family's interest. As you can see, taken to extremes, this can become the gangster mentality very quickly. I admire your desire to believe that "Moral values should transcend all of these things, so I try to be better to my fellow man because its the right thing to do, and not because I am building up points or some book tells me to", but in practice, I do not believe that you, or the majority of mankind, can live up to such lofty goals at this time.

I am vaguely familiar with Maslow's theory, and don't really think it applies to the general US population. Quoting an extreme hierarchical D-need to be fulfilled vs the terms of the general US bread-and-butter morality need? Or are you claiming your "interest" that might cause you to kill someone to protect, is actually something higher than food, water, air, sleep, safety etc on Maslow's lower rungs? My contention is that most of the "needs" for people are already filled in the US with its mostly high standard of living. My needs for food, excretion, family, esteem, etc are fufilled and does allow me to objectively think about my actions and their consequences. If you're at a point where you are contemplating worship of deities and gods then you are already at the spiritual rung anyways according to his theory. I don't even fully agree with the theory in the first place so that's a whole 'nother story, but correct me if I'm getting it wrong, since I haven't seen that one come up in years.

Now, regarding conservatism, you have made my point for me, so I am not sure if I should argue or what. I made no reference to political parties, or to politics in general, and for a reason. What today is called conservative, was often once called liberal. For example, the conservatives of their day were the ones that were loyal to England, it was the liberals that fought the revolution that formed this country. And yet, the form of government, and the first 200 or so years, was considered extremely conservative by many, at least by todays standards. The Democrat most admired, and almost worshiped, JFK, is now considered by many to have been more conservative then either of the Bushs. I do not blame a political party for the problem, but for a shift in beliefs that the political parties are latching onto. Nevertheless, my examples of conservative standards in my previous post are, in my opinion, inarguable, and therefore I stand behind that claim.

I am aware of the differences, which I hoped my post was making clear.

Your quote:

In the past, the US was more Conservative. It was a common belief that all we needed to do as individuals to improve ourselves was to work, get a little lucky, come up with a better mouse trap.
Now we have become far more liberal and we believe that our problem is that the rich don't pay their fair share of things. Back to the entitlement thing that was brought up. Now my success depends on the rich paying me my fair share for me doing nothing to earn it. That does not create any drive in my part to improve myself, or my surroundings.

All I was saying was conservative then does not equal conservative now, so breaking out of the "liberal" mindset that plagues you today isn't going to take us back to the conservative of the yesteryears. I think we pretty much had the same idea there.

Gisteppo, I don't think we totally disagree, but there are clearly shades of gray we need to discuss. I suspect that I struck a nerve in my support for the need for religion. First, let me make it clear that I believe that all men have the right to worship who or what they desire, but I believe that ll men worship something. Some worship a higher power, some worship nature, and some worship money. I hope that you and your family have found something to worship that enables you to make the right decisions. Nevertheless, as explained above, I do not believe that mankind can develop their own moral standards or brands by themselves, it is simply biologically impossible.

I agree all persons should have the right to worship what they please. However, you must understand that the some would not find themselves worshiping anything, and just as I can understand that you actually do believe in God, I don't think he, she, or any like it exists. There is no shade of grey on that ground for someone in my shoes. Like Gisteppo said, it is possible to have a strong respect, awe, even love for something without the need for worship. Critical/free thought, individual choice, etc drive my day to day, believe it or not.

Now how impressionable/misled the mind can be, how malleable, there you'll get no argument from me.

[Gisteppo]

You stated that even with the flat tax that we would need to pay 30%, and yet you wanted Bill and Warren to pay the same 33% you are. So, with nothing changed, they would be paying what I presume you believe is more, and you would get a 3% reduction. Is this not the epitome of fair?

No argument in the least. Just evidencing that Forbes numbers were skewed. Had no bearing on the flat/fair tax concept.

AA, the tithe is the worlds oldest tax. Its been around far longer than any other pay-for-benefit system, and is a decent analogy to taxes. Though I do believe that the tithe was horribly abused by Catholicism in the dark ages, and should be less, only enough to develop the place and the requisite needs of worship, nothing more.

BP:

I am vaguely familiar with Maslow's theory, and don't really think it applies to the general US population. Quoting an extreme hierarchical D-need to be fulfilled vs the terms of the general US bread-and-butter morality need? Or are you claiming your "interest" that might cause you to kill someone to protect, is actually something higher than food, water, air, sleep, safety etc on Maslow's lower rungs? My contention is that most of the "needs" for people are already filled in the US with its mostly high standard of living.

Having been in MANY homes where Maslow reigns supreme, Id have to say his postulates were spot-on. Its not that humans are beyond their needs when they reach spirituality, its that they have allowed spiritualism to become far more important than things like sustenance. I can think of 3 households off the top of my head that have spent more on religious paraphernalia and donations than they do on their daily food and shelter needs. This doesn't disprove Maslow, it just shows how malleable the brain can be.

E

[Marc Martyn]

Great discussion. Perhaps that is why I spend a lot of time on Washingtonlakes.com rather than watch the cown dung that is on my 165 channels of T.V.

[Marc Martyn]

One thing that was touched on that caught my attention. We are living in an instant gratification society. We want it now, we want it fast, and we want it cheap.
I see it in my line of work. I would much rather work in an old victorian home than a newly built $750,000.00 house. There does not seem to be any pride in the workmanship like there was in the old "craftsman" built home of the past. Many contractors that are building these huge homes are in it just for the big bucks. Get it done fast, maybe the homeowners won't notice that the walls aren't plumb or square. There isn't any pride in their work. All segments of the house are farmed out. Mistakes? Leave it for the finish guy! Well, I'm the finish guy.
The old fashioned concept of working your way up is gone. "I want to start at the top". When I started a family, I lived in a 2 bedroom 750 s.f. house with a payment I could afford if things got tough. My first boat was a Selvor raft. I drove a 10 year old Volkswagen. Take out a second mortgage, forget it!
I heard today on NPR that the American homeowner has been using their house like an ATM card. As the value went up, they would borrow against it. It was a great way to get money to take that trip to Asia or Europe. Another avenue to get that big "Cool" boat. The concept of acquiring belongings over time is gone. They must have it now. My wife who is an elementary school principal has to explain to the parents that their 10 year old child doesn't need a cell phone in class!!
Perhaps, what we are going through now in this financial mess will be a wake up call to this nation and a good thing for many. For the High Rollers that are having to "make do" now, they will learn a lesson many of us learned years ago. Live within your means and the most important thing in life is your family, not your income.

[Gisteppo]

Took it outa the park on that one Marc!

Id also have to add that you and I and many others here can say that something happened when they are done at work. I like being able to point at something and say "yes, I did that today" instead of having a stock price change or a piece of paper as evidence that I did my job.

2 kinds of people in this world:

The ones that shower before work, and the ones that shower after work.....

E

[Rollin with Rolland]

Great insight everyone. What a great thread to read from old to young. whatever the reasons, one fact remains...

the times, they are a changin'.


Change Happens. WHY?? many many reasons. Appreciate the past (some of us were never there... ), but embrace the future.

Believe me, change will stop for no one....jump on board or get outta the way.....

I appreciate all of those sharing the past, some of us young'ens need that perspective...

[Marc Martyn]

the times, they are a changin'.

Believe me, change will stop for no one....jump on board or get outta the way.....

Perhaps that is the reason why when I am entering a store behind someone they let the door slam in front of me instead of taking a moment and holding it for me. They are on a mission and don't have time to be courteous.

It is funny that you mention Bob Dylan's song. I remember when that song was written. That song is is just as true today as it was nearly 50 years ago. With the financial and government corruption that we have today, it is a very appropriate song to be singing.

Yes, the times they will be changing............

[BassinBomber]

It used 2 be said "It takes a Neighborhood 2 raise a child",..when I was growing up in the mid 60's we used to have 2 be in the house before the "Street-Lights" came on,..and all the neighbors knew who you were and who your parents were,..doing something wrong was quickly noted and our parents were informed. Now,..with 2 parents working 2 make ends meet,..the child raises himself/herself,..no one is home when the child is done with school,..Mom was always home 2 greet us through the door,..you don't have that anymore,..these times have changed and although I don't blame the parents,..I do blame the "Life-Style",..with both parents or gaurdians working who raises the child and keeps them sheltered from the things that would compromise their integrity? Teachers don't make nearly enough money and should be the "Highest Paid" profession in the country,..after all the Future is in their hands,..and with more "Single Parents" in the home this becomes more prevelant. The Family-Unit has been undermined in our Country and this adds 2 the values of our children,..or lack thereof,..divorce is out-of-control and children need a stable home in order 2 become decent members of society,..role models for our children are very important and if the parents aren't there for them 2 look at,..who then? JM2cents!

BB

[Rich McVey]

Good Point BB!

I was a daycare after school kid, mom worked. But... when I was in 5th grade mom lost her job, got remarried, finished her education and went back to work... at my school.

She changed jobs in the district to stay at the same school my sister and I attended. Talk about mom knowing what your doing durring the day. All the teachers knew, and so did all the kids.

Mom wasnt June Cleaver but she was active in our lives. After she got married we moved into one of her husbands old child hood houses. He already knew all the neighbors so it was kinda like having 4 sets of parents on our own lil culdasack.

Come to think about it, I dont know my sons friends parents hardley at all.

[clam man]

Gisteppo,

some people shower before and after work. You are ignoring this important part of society! shame on your myopic world view!

I never could find that local rep's name...I think he was from out of my district...but he was still a tool.

I do hope this website doesn't get mired down in too much politics...I fish to avoid those things.

[Gisteppo]

Clam, you make a very compelling point....

E

[HillbillyGeek]

Very interesting posts here. Politics and religion are volatile topics which frequently expose harmful and illogical stereotypes.

Few things in life are black-and-white...

[SAPIplate]

I tend to believe the moral and social decay of the United States began during the "Hippie" revolution of the 1960's. Everything was peachy before that. Why can't it come back?

[Anglinarcher]

.....................

I do hope this website doesn't get mired down in too much politics...I fish to avoid those things.

LOL, that is why we took this to the Non-Fishing Discussions section.

[Anglinarcher]

Very interesting posts here. Politics and religion are volatile topics which frequently expose harmful and illogical stereotypes.

Few things in life are black-and-white...

This is indeed a true point, religion, politics, poetry, philosophy are all black and white, while we live in shades of gray.

[Anglinarcher]

I tend to believe the moral and social decay of the United States began during the "Hippie" revolution of the 1960's. Everything was peachy before that. Why can't it come back?

I think that those living in the Roaring 20's might disagree, as well as those living in the 1850s, as well as ..............

All things said, the pendulum keeps swinging, one time right, one time left, but always spending more time in the middle section then on either side.