are there any atheist nations?

[fatherphil]

i mean it must be frustrating to live in a place where religious organizations get state benefits.

[Abacus]

I'd be happy to live in a secular nation.

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by fatherphil
i mean it must be frustrating to live in a place where religious organizations get state benefits.

Do you mean nations where religion is not allowed or nations where state and chruch are supposed to be separate?

If it's just state and church separate, then the term secular would be more appropriate.

[fatherphil]

i'd say a nation where religion is treated like any other hobby without getting special respect or consideration like tax exempt status. a nation where the majority population reject the notion or belief in the existence of God.

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by fatherphil
a nation where religion is treated like any other hobby without getting special respect or consideration like tax exempt status.

a nation where the majority population reject the notion or belief in the existence of God.

These can be two different places.

[keitht]

How about one of the communist countries: China, Cuba, North Korea (at least officially). Antarctica (although not actually a nation). Perhaps some island country in the Pacific.

Keith

[dangin]

I understand the Czech Republic is about as secular as they come.

[Happy Wonderer]

France (http://www.info-france-usa.org/atoz/secular.asp)

For over half a century, secularity has been a constitutional characteristic of the French Republic. It first made its appearance in the Constitution of the Fourth Republic (October 1946) and this was confirmed, twelve years later, with the inauguration of the Fifth Republic. Article 1 of the present Constitution, promulgated on 4 October 1958, says "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs."


Fair enough, it is not athiest, perhaps agnostic would be a better term. :)
hw

[fatherphil]

so should i assume that religious instituions do not get any state benefits in the nations listed thus far?

[scigirl]

In answer to your question, I'm not sure.

Here is one of my favorite web sites to peruse: it's the CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html). It has every country, and tons of updated statistics about each one, including major religions.

There was a country in Europe that was 30 to 40 % atheist, but for the life of me I can't remember which one it was.

scigirl

[scigirl]

I'll also add - I'm not at all against religions getting the same tax breaks as charities do, since they do a lot of charity for communities. Right now, they get BETTER tax breaks than secular or non-religous charities.

I just want them held accountable for all that money that the loving and giving christians of this country (yes I believe they exist!) donates. It makes me angry that people can get away with swindling the American public simply because they are a religious institution, and thus are not held to the same standards as say, the American Cancer Society. Read up about Benny Hinn Minsitries some time - and you might even agree with me...

scigirl

[fatherphil]

i'm against any theft within a charity whether it be mr. hinn or the american red cross. i just felt that if i was an atheist i'd really be annoyed at seeing churches get a break just for being a church.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
i just felt that if i was an atheist i'd really be annoyed at seeing churches get a break just for being a church.
Trying to think like an atheist, eh? That's a scary road you're going down, there. . . ;)

I'm not annoyed that churches get a break. I'm annoyed that they get more of a break than other groups who are just as committed to helping humanity.

Here are two examples.

1) Getting money from the NIH to do medical research. There was no budget for entertainment expenses. So if we wanted to go out to lunch or celebrate someone's birthday, we had to use our own money. Why? Because the government watches how we spend that money very closely, because it's supposed to be for research, not for birthday cakes. And while I agree with that to a point, I didn't think it was too much to ask to budget in a tiny tiny percentage of the overall grant for things to make employee's jobs better.

Church budgets, on the other hand, are not scrupulously watched by anyone. And they aren't taxed the same. If a priest wanted to spend the donation plate on prime rib, he could.

2) The Benny Hinn Ministries. He claims to be a faith healer (even though dateline has exposed him like 3 times). And because he uses the word "God" in his healing ministries, he is not subject to the same tax breaks that most of the rest of hardworking americans are. He doesn't even have to pay property tax on his million-dollar private residence on the Pacific Beach

Now, I consider myself a future "healer" if you will. And I'll make plenty of money. But it will be taxed at about 40 to 50 percent. And the big pretty house I will buy when I'm 80 years old and finally a real doctor - will have substantial property taxes. All because I don't say "god" when I heal people. Instead I say, "you might feel a little sting." Do you think that is fair?

scigirl

[cheetah]

Originally posted by scigirl
In answer to your question, I'm not sure.

Here is one of my favorite web sites to peruse: it's the CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html). It has every country, and tons of updated statistics about each one, including major religions.

There was a country in Europe that was 30 to 40 % atheist, but for the life of me I can't remember which one it was.

scigirl

scigirl, that website is facinating. Thanks for linking it.

[demoninho]

In answer to your question, I'm not sure. Here is one of my favorite web sites to peruse: it's the CIA World Factbook. It has every country, and tons of updated statistics about each one, including major religions. There was a country in Europe that was 30 to 40 % atheist, but for the life of me I can't remember which one it was. scigirl

Religions: Roman Catholic 31%, Protestant 21%, Muslim 4.4%, other 3.6%, unaffiliated 40% (1998)

I think it us :notworthy

But religions still get special benefits:mad:

[truelies]

Try North Korea

[scigirl]

Originally posted by truelies
Try North Korea

According to the factbook, (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html)

traditionally Buddhist and Confucianist, some Christian and syncretic Chondogyo (Religion of the Heavenly Way)
note: autonomous religious activities now almost nonexistent; government-sponsored religious groups exist to provide illusion of religious freedom
I think there is a difference between a government who says "you can't have a religion," and a country whose citizens voluntarily admit to having no religion.

scigirl

[truelies]

Originally posted by scigirl
According to the factbook, (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html)


I think there is a difference between a government who says "you can't have a religion," and a country whose citizens voluntarily admit to having no religion.

scigirl

Of course there is a difference, but that is not the question that was posed. IMHO atheism (pure and explicit) in the religious sphere is much like Libertarianism in the political/economic sphere- an idea which will simply never capture the minds of the general population anywhere. Both systems of thought seem to run counter to all that is natural in human mental developement. hardcore libertarians have actually talked about (in a semiserious beer and pretzels mode) migrating in a body to one of the less populous of the several states and building their 'Zion' there. I do believe that Montana is high on the list. i have never heard of a similar idea among those who are philsophically atheist. I think in either case establishing a viable society would be intensely difficult.

[Toto]

Originally posted by truelies
. . . simply never capture the minds of the general population anywhere. . . . seem to run counter to all that is natural in human mental developement. . . . .

That was what the various Communist regimes concluded, which is why they set up tame domesticated state approved churches for those who had to have them.

But that's a very 19th c. view. The current trend in Western Europe is the withering away of the churches. They don't seem to be the worse off for it.

[BigBlue2]

I think New Zealand's Prime Minister is an atheist, but I'm not sure what tax advantages churches get.

Australia has separation of church and state (Section 116 of our constitution) but, again, I don't know what, if any, tax breaks Australian churches get.

[Crix1313]

Originally posted by cheetah
scigirl, that website is facinating. Thanks for linking it.

I have some doubts about the accuracy of this website. I'm French and those statistics for my country :

Roman Catholic 83%-88%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 5%-10%, unaffiliated 4%

are totally ridiculous, catholics constitute less than 60% fo the population, and in 1996, 25% of French people declared themselves to be unaffiliated (for details see, in French, http://www.insee.fr/FR/FFC/DOCS_FFC/ip570.pdf
).

[truelies]

Originally posted by Toto
That was what the various Communist regimes concluded, which is why they set up tame domesticated state approved churches for those who had to have them.

But that's a very 19th c. view. The current trend in Western Europe is the withering away of the churches. They don't seem to be the worse off for it.

The historic European populations are also withering as their birth rate collapses. In a century perhaps much less Europe will be islamic (France & The Netherlands first) given current trends. In the next 20 - 30 years Europe will find out that the real Population Bomb is much different than some originally thought. A 100 or 500 years from now the withering of European Christianity may well be recognised as the beginning of a new Dark Age. The fact that the roof has not yet fallen in on the Europeans just yet should not be taken as an 'all is well'. Modern Europe for several generations has been living off the social capital of the past rather than current 'income' in that regard. Social terms take a long time to mature and I expect that when it becomes unmistakeable where Euriopean Civilisation is headed that most simply will not care. Afterall it will not happen in their lifetime, so why worry.

[StrictSeparationist]

Originally posted by truelies
The historic European populations are also withering as their birth rate collapses. In a century perhaps much less Europe will be islamic (France & The Netherlands first) given current trends. In the next 20 - 30 years Europe will find out that the real Population Bomb is much different than some originally thought. A 100 or 500 years from now the withering of European Christianity may well be recognised as the beginning of a new Dark Age. The fact that the roof has not yet fallen in on the Europeans just yet should not be taken as an 'all is well'. Modern Europe for several generations has been living off the social capital of the past rather than current 'income' in that regard. Social terms take a long time to mature and I expect that when it becomes unmistakeable where Euriopean Civilisation is headed that most simply will not care. Afterall it will not happen in their lifetime, so why worry.

So, you're saying that because Europe has become more secular over time, it will soon collapse? How about some facts to back that up, instead of clearly biased speculation?

[demoninho]

I think we actually do care and have cared about it for a long time but because of left wing politics any remarks about a supposed problems caused by immigrants was deemed as racist, fascist and stigmatising.

When Pim Fortuyn finally said something about it he got a huge following. Even after he was murdered shortly before the elections were held he got a huge amount of votes without even having an established political party (and he would have gotten more were he not murdered)

[demoninho]

Originally posted by StrictSeparationist
So, you're saying that because Europe has become more secular over time, it will soon collapse? How about some facts to back that up, instead of clearly biased speculation?

The problems are truelies lists are real and very difficult to solve, but we are not apathic towards these problems, it's just the politicians have been for a long time.

The unwillingness to deal with these problems I think is on of Hitler's final legacies to Europe.

[truelies]

Originally posted by StrictSeparationist
So, you're saying that because Europe has become more secular over time, it will soon collapse? How about some facts to back that up, instead of clearly biased speculation?

Of course I have biases. Each of us here does. If we all did not have that great liking for sharing those biases with others we would be off eyeing the babes or attending the opera or something else with greater social utility on a pleasant sunday afternoon.

Europe's demographic problems are I think beyond dispute. italy as one example is averaging about one live birth per woman over her reprodustive life time. That birthrate is approximately 50% that required to maintain population stability. The situation across most of Europe with the exception of Poland and a handful of other small states is much the same. Some very hard choices are looming in the next decades. Expect a rapid shift among European opinionmakers from advocating a right to die among the elderly and infirm to the advocacy and perhaps the explicit imposition of a duty to die for those whose lives are judge to be a burden on society. Already in Holland active euthansia by the Dutch medical profession takes more lives on a proportional basis than does the entire private legal and illegal firearms arsenal of the gun toteing USA. France combines a low native birthrate with a skyhigh level of islamic immigrantion coupled with a very high birthrate in that community and an impervious resistance to assimilation. In 50 years Secular France will be an islamic majority State given current trends.

Does a demographic collapse where massive euthansia campaigns seem the only way toavoid even worse social disorder coupled with the prospect of the heart of western civilisation yielding to islamic fundementalism look like 'Collpase' to me? Yep, sure does. Do I think the trend to Secularisation is speeding this trend. Affirmative.

[demoninho]

Originally posted by truelies
.

1) Expect a rapid shift among European opinionmakers from advocating a right to die among the elderly and infirm to the advocacy and perhaps the explicit imposition of a duty to die for those whose lives are judge to be a burden on society.


2) Already in Holland active euthansia by the Dutch medical profession takes more lives on a proportional basis than does the entire private legal and illegal firearms arsenal of the gun toteing USA.

1) :mad: This is a slippery slope argument it's a logical fallacy.

2)Everybody has to die we don't die at an early age from violent crime or gun related accidents, we get cardiovasvular diseases or cancers and many people with cancer choose euthenasia freely and gladly, I think when you would be a terminally ill cancer patient you would feel a lot more at rest knowing you had the option to opt out when the suffering gets to much.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by truelies
Of course I have biases. Each of us here does. If we all did not have that great liking for sharing those biases with others we would be off eyeing the babes or attending the opera or something else with greater social utility on a pleasant sunday afternoon.

Europe's demographic problems are I think beyond dispute. italy as one example is averaging about one live birth per woman over her reprodustive life time. That birthrate is approximately 50% that required to maintain population stability. The situation across most of Europe with the exception of Poland and a handful of other small states is much the same. Some very hard choices are looming in the next decades. Expect a rapid shift among European opinionmakers from advocating a right to die among the elderly and infirm to the advocacy and perhaps the explicit imposition of a duty to die for those whose lives are judge to be a burden on society. Already in Holland active euthansia by the Dutch medical profession takes more lives on a proportional basis than does the entire private legal and illegal firearms arsenal of the gun toteing USA. France combines a low native birthrate with a skyhigh level of islamic immigrantion coupled with a very high birthrate in that community and an impervious resistance to assimilation. In 50 years Secular France will be an islamic majority State given current trends.

Does a demographic collapse where massive euthansia campaigns seem the only way toavoid even worse social disorder coupled with the prospect of the heart of western civilisation yielding to islamic fundementalism look like 'Collpase' to me? Yep, sure does. Do I think the trend to Secularisation is speeding this trend. Affirmative.

But you made no connection between secularization and these trends. I don't disagree that the picture you paint above sounds like a problem, but why would that problem NOT occur if the people were fundamentalist Christians? Because they would be forced or encouraged to have more babies? That's the only thing I can think of and I think that would be very tenuous. You cannot say there is an absolute connection between Christianity and having more children. The reason the birth rate has decreased so much in the last century is because of wealth, less agrarian communities and more life choices for women. You cannot link it to Christianity solely. So, if Christianity never existed, or if it was still going strong, I think we would STILL see the decrease in the birth rate and the appearance of these issues. I don't see how secularization causes them.

[The Other Michael]

Other than both ending in death (as does every life) I don't see much in common between a severely ill patient requesting assistance in ending their life with some element of dignity, and having one's life "untimely ripped" from you buy some thug with a gun.

cheers,
Michael

[truelies]

Originally posted by demoninho
1) :mad: This is a slippery slope argument it's a logical fallacy.

2)Everybody has to die we don't die at an early age from violent crime or gun related accidents, we get cardiovasvular diseases or cancers and many people with cancer choose euthenasia freely and gladly, I think when you would be a terminally ill cancer patient you would feel a lot more at rest knowing you had the option to opt out when the suffering gets to much.

Hardly a slippery slope argument. It is well documented that the Dutch medical establishment indulges in involuntary euthanasia on a routine basis. People are not being given an option. They are being killed because someone else with the power to do so wants them dead.

[Mageth]

They are being killed because someone else with the power to do so wants them dead.

Geez, that sounds like the Old Testament. Must be biblical, then.

[truelies]

Originally posted by cheetah
But you made no connection between secularization and these trends. I don't disagree that the picture you paint above sounds like a problem, but why would that problem NOT occur if the people were fundamentalist Christians? Because they would be forced or encouraged to have more babies? That's the only thing I can think of and I think that would be very tenuous. You cannot say there is an absolute connection between Christianity and having more children. The reason the birth rate has decreased so much in the last century is because of wealth, less agrarian communities and more life choices for women. You cannot link it to Christianity solely. So, if Christianity never existed, or if it was still going strong, I think we would STILL see the decrease in the birth rate and the appearance of these issues. I don't see how secularization causes them.

If I were to show you for example that in self-identified Christian households in the USA with an income of say $75K/yr that the average woman bears 3 children during her lifetime and that in a freethinker household the number would be less than 1 would you accept that as evidence of a connection? If not perhaps you would care to explain exactly what sort of parameters you would accept as evidence.

In my own community the gap in birthrates between those who are serious about Christianity (or Islam for that matter) and those who hold to a Secular worldview is fairly easy to observe. On other occassions I have sat down and made exhaustive lists of acquaintances and their religious outlook. That birthrate gap is real. People who believe in God tend to have more babies.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by truelies
If I were to show you for example that in self-identified Christian households in the USA with an income of say $75K/yr that the average woman bears 3 children during her lifetime and that in a freethinker household the number would be less than 1 would you accept that as evidence of a connection? If not perhaps you would care to explain exactly what sort of parameters you would accept as evidence.



Even if that IS true consistently (to me it sounds like you are talking from your own personal experience as opposed to any data you have), I am not the one who defines good science. Also, keep in mind that 3 children is still a lot less than the 8-10 people were having a century ago. IS that because your Christians are less Christian than the Christians of a century ago? My point is, you are attributing (poorly, I might add) one single cause to a phenomenon which is much more complex than that, has many causes, one of which might perhaps maybe in some way be contributed to by secularization, which is unproven.

It's ok for you to say that you believe that is why it occurs, but to state it as fact is disingenuous and, at this point, unproven.

[Sinista Trollsham]

Denmark would seem a pretty good choice.

Here religion has no place in daily life, and while most Danes are members of the Lutheran State Church, only 5% attends church service regularly (Sundays).

And as I wrote once “the concept of Heaven and hell, sin and resurrection is considered old-fashioned babble”

Things to be aware of:
We have a couple of ‘door-knockers’ (that would be Jehovah’s Witnesses, a very entertaining people) and a drunk who claims to have seen Jesus once and therefore changed his name to Moses, and something called ‘inner mission’ a tiny bunch of Whacko’s who resides by the coast and keeps out of trouble.
Other religious weirdo’s would be some $cientology loonies and black metal Satanists. :D

The only hardcore religious fanatics in Denmark are a part of the Muslim minority. They have a movement with the aims of destroying Israel, overthrowing the heathen Danish rule and establishing a Sharia state. Nice guys :rolleyes:

Regards
Sinista Trollsham

[demoninho]

Originally posted by truelies
Hardly a slippery slope argument. It is well documented that the Dutch medical establishment indulges in involuntary euthanasia on a routine basis. People are not being given an option. They are being killed because someone else with the power to do so wants them dead.

Well if it's a well documented fact perhaps you could show me some of those facts!

The dutch euthenasie policy goverment site (http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=MBZ257609&x=147&y=23)

[keitht]

In my own community the gap in birthrates between those who are serious about Christianity (or Islam for that matter) and those who hold to a Secular worldview is fairly easy to observe. On other occassions I have sat down and made exhaustive lists of acquaintances and their religious outlook. That birthrate gap is real. People who believe in God tend to have more babies.

And people who tend to be religious, also tend to be poor and less educated. Poverty leads to higher birth rates because the it takes less resources to raise a child in poverty than in wealth. You don't even have to leave the US to find that out. Conversely, to raise a child in (relative) wealth takes more resources, so those families tend to have less children. Poverty and religion: a formula for overpopulation built right in.

Keith

[VonEvilstein]

Originally posted by truelies
Try North Korea

No thanks. The Cult of the Infallible Leader seems like just another religion to me.

Oh, and please do give us the documentation on the massive state-sponsored murder you claim our ethanasia legislation is allowing.

[Jack the Bodiless]

There seem to be two trends at work throughout Western Europe:

1. The ongoing collapse of organized religion.

2. Immigration.

...However, it appears that many immigrant Muslim parents are becoming worried about the secularization of their own children, many of whom are "going native". The UK is already a "Muslim nation" if church/mosque attendance is the yardstick (more people go to mosques than churches), but it's far from being a "Muslim nation" in actuality.

I think that secularization will happen faster than the demographic shift. The authority of authoritarian religions becomes fatally undermined when it becomes socially acceptable to simply "opt out" of the religion and openly reject that authority: this is apparently not the case (yet) in much of the US, but it IS the case in much of Europe, where atheists are unlikely to encounter discrimination.

European Christianity has been holed below the waterline, and this is the metaphorical ship that the Muslims are also sitting in.

[Buffman]

truelies

Already in Holland active euthansia by the Dutch medical profession takes more lives on a proportional basis than does the entire private legal and illegal firearms arsenal of the gun toteing USA.

Please provide the verifiable evidence for that absurd claim.---In case you are too busy to do any research, please note that the Dutch live longer than Americans. Additionally, their infant mortality rate is lower.

http://www.geographyiq.com/countries/nl/Netherlands_rankings.htm

http://www.geographyiq.com/countries/us/United_States_rankings.htm

It is well documented that the Dutch medical establishment indulges in involuntary euthanasia on a routine basis. People are not being given an option. They are being killed because someone else with the power to do so wants them dead.

That is one of the most outrageous and uninformed remarks I have seen posted in these forums in a long time...and I have seen some truly ignorant ones. The next URL is fairly current and is the most negative one I can find with any credibility. Even if the annual reported figure is double, it is still less than 5,000 annually.

http://www.worldrtd.org/EuthDeclineReported.html

Do you ever check any of the claims you make in your posts? You may "win debates" with the people in your own circle, but you are not acquitting yourself very well with those in these forums. Most of those here have heard your kind of BS many times before; but when we ask for the evidenceto support your claims, we seldom get anything other than more unsupported propaganda...or silence.

[Bloop]

Originally posted by Abacus
I'd be happy to live in a secular nation.

Sweden is about as secular as they come. We erected a wall between church and state at the the turn of the millenium and no-one gave a shit. The statistics say that 90 % (CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html#People) ) or so of the population are Lutherans but the churches are almost empty all over the nation on Sundays and the average age of people going to church on a regular basis is at least 200.

We do have a conservative christian party represented in our parliament but they never mention the bible or Jesus but rather talk about ethics and morals and family values (watered down versions of what the bible says though). The leader of the party had to downplay his belief in Jesus and his miracles or suffer some very bad PR of the "what a silly person, to believe something like that in this day and age" variety.

Christianity and churches plays a very small (read: almost non-existant) role in politics, media and everyday life. People may or may not have a godbelief of the more lukewarm sort but you wouldn't know unless you asked. Religion on a personal level is a non-issue.

Bloop

[RalphyS]

I do not think that Western Europe will become islamic.

Ofcourse there is a rising number of muslims, but not because people are massively converting to the islam, but merely because the birthrate among people of islamic decent, coupled to the fact that a vast number of them still have their wives brought in from the islamic countries of their decent.

Fortuyn was the living icon for the fears that non-islamic Dutch developped towards the growing (fundamentalist) islamic population and now there are laws being made towards restrictions of immigration in order to save the Dutch culture.

I think the thread of islamic religion in The Netherlands is not as great as the thread of Christian fundamentalists in the USA, who have much more political power and much more vast numbers of followers.


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Crix1313
I have some doubts about the accuracy of this website. I'm French and those statistics for my country :

Roman Catholic 83%-88%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 5%-10%, unaffiliated 4%

are totally ridiculous, catholics constitute less than 60% fo the population, and in 1996, 25% of French people declared themselves to be unaffiliated (for details see, in French, http://www.insee.fr/FR/FFC/DOCS_FFC/ip570.pdf
).
But if you are baptised in a Catholic church the church considers you a Catholic for life even if you never go to church again, and the government relies on the church for accurate counts of believers.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by truelies
If I were to show you for example that in self-identified Christian households in the USA with an income of say $75K/yr that the average woman bears 3 children during her lifetime
I would actually love to see those statistics. Is this really the annual income for a Christian household, for a 3-baby household, or both?

My suspicions is that the ave. income for people who have lots of babies, is, unfortunately much lower than that.

scigirl

[truelies]

Originally posted by scigirl
I would actually love to see those statistics. Is this really the annual income for a Christian household, for a 3-baby household, or both?

My suspicions is that the ave. income for people who have lots of babies, is, unfortunately much lower than that.

scigirl

The stats could certainly be gathered though with a considerable research effort. I have not found any census data that can readily be parsed to link completed family size to rligious affiliation. I recall a study that the National Right to Life Committee did in the 1980's which made the point that devout Christians have larger families than do committed secularists.

At the Church the DW and I attend most of the Heads of Household are professionals of one sort or another with a nedian income of around 75K. Usually that 75K is a single income. Most of the women stay at home once the babies start to come, though this should in no way be taken to indicated that they are less well educated than the men. Home Schooling is very common and most kids not home schooled attempt non Government schools. Less than 3 or 4 kids for couples at or past the age where child bearing tapers off (say past age 40 for the woman) is rare. 5,6, or even 7 kids is not a rareity.

I expect that if you sat down and did a tally of people you know ell enough to have some idea of their worldview and private life you would end up coming to the same conclusion- that there is a negative connection between birthrate and intensity of secular attitudes held in a population and a positive connection in the case of devout Christians.

[scigirl]

truelies - I"m not disputing the number of children, I'm disputing the average income. I've read studies that suggest that there is a negative correlation between religion and income. I also remember reading that self-proclaimed athiests tend to be more educated.

Anyway, I don't see how having more babies makes a country stronger. If countries like the netherlands are having militant muslim problems, it seems that the best solution for that is to have stricter immigration laws, or other such laws re-enforcing church/state separation.

If every baby born in America became a productive member of society, instead of a welfare drain, or a homeless child, or a criminal, than I would say we could become an even stronger nation despite having a decline in birth rate. We could presumably raise the same amount of tax dollars while reducing the need for some social programs (because all the children are wanted, and all the children become a productive member of society). The current religious right is adamently oppsed to many forms of birth control, including emergency contraception. Apparently they think that all sperms need a name. I feel that this philosophy, more than any other, is causing the decline of many civilizations and countries.

But - I am one of those damned liberals, so what the hell do I know, right? :)

scigirl

[scigirl]

Here's a couple of studies that addressed the issue of childlessness and religion/income.

Normative and microeconomic models of voluntary childlessness. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12339938&dopt=Abstract)

The findings indicate that husband's income is directly related to the first birth, and that wife's education (and opportunity costs) reduces the chances of a first birth. . . Study findings indicate that 1) marital duration greater than 15 years is the only significant demographic control variable, 2) normative variables generally meet expectations; only the coefficient for Catholicism is significant, and 3) financial satisfaction is positively associated with childlessness; husband's income is the only significant variable.

Age patterns of childbearing: a canonical analysis. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12261173&dopt=Abstract)

The 1st pattern - high early fertility and particularly teen-age childbearing - is identified with the poorest areas of the city.
...
The 2nd dimension - birthrates of women ages 25-34 - identifies another distinctive group of areas. Many low income women at this age continue to bear children at moderate rates; middle income women bear the children they postponed having in the earlier years. The late childbearing group seems best understood as attributable to religious and ethnically related differences among areas. The 1st dimension is the most important for the perspective of the impact on population growth.
In other words, although religion did play a role in the later-childbearing group, the group of females that were mostly contributing to the birth rates were the low income teenage mothers.


The characteristics and prior contraceptive use of U.S. abortion patients. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3243346&dopt=Abstract)
Nonuse of a method of birth control among abortion patients is greatest for those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.
This study was predominantly about abortion, but this statement was telling, I think.

Timing of the decision to remain voluntarily childless: evidence for continuous socialization. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12336876&dopt=Abstract)
95% of the early articulators and 97% of the postponers were employed. 53% of the early articulators and 50% of the postponers had more than 4 years of college education. 58% of the early articulators and 50% of the postponers had no religion.
It looks like from this study, there was a much higher correlation between women who chose not to have children, and their employment status, than their religion, although religion did play a role.

An analysis of factors affecting traditional family expectations and perceptions of ideal fertility. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12265629&dopt=Abstract)

Thus, the 2 strongest predictors of sex-role orientation are age and education.

A predominant theme I see emerging from these studies are that level of education was a big factor in women deciding not to have children. So if truelies wants to claim that atheists are more likely to remain childless, doesn't he also have to admit that, then, atheists are likely to be more educated?

scigirl

[truelies]

Originally posted by scigirl


A predominant theme I see emerging from these studies are that level of education was a big factor in women deciding not to have children. So if truelies wants to claim that atheists are more likely to remain childless, doesn't he also have to admit that, then, atheists are likely to be more educated?

scigirl [/B]

It may well be that a higher proportion of those holding an atheistic worldview hold a University Degree than those who do not. However given the quality of what passes for Higher Education these days in Diciplines outside of the hard Sciences and Engineering I would seriously doubt that all that 'education' accomplishes much in the way of cultivating wisdom. It would seem that the bulk of those higher ed credits are acquired in learning by heart the dogmas of the political Left rather than in developing genuine wisdom. IMHO of course.

[Anti-Creedance Front]

JAPANNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Though with all the weird, sick crap they do there, it wouldn't be a good example of us. Oh well *packs his bags*

[ohwilleke]

The numbers on church attendance in the Church of England show a dramatic drop in the past generation, most of Protestant Europe has very low church attendance, and attendance is quite low in France and many other parts of Catholic Europe.

I predict a large minority, perhaps even a plurality of non-religious people in Europe, a similarly large group which is nominally Christian in the local established religion (or formerly established religion) but doesn't practice, and then a remaining component of actively religious people split between a variety of Christian and non-Christian religions.

I think it is clear that Islam is gong to be the main minority religion of Europe. Judaism and Eastern religions are less common in Europe than in the U.S.

Islam, indeed, seems likely to overtake minority Christian religions which are weak in any case in most of Europe. It is where immigration in Europe seems to be coming from.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by truelies

In my own community the gap in birthrates between those who are serious about Christianity (or Islam for that matter) and those who hold to a Secular worldview is fairly easy to observe. On other occassions I have sat down and made exhaustive lists of acquaintances and their religious outlook. That birthrate gap is real. People who believe in God tend to have more babies.
There are a number of confounds I can think of that would account for a discrepancy in childbirth for a sample such as yours. Do you have any hypotheses regarding particular causes of the discrepancy?

[keitht]

I expect that if you sat down and did a tally of people you know ell enough to have some idea of their worldview and private life you would end up coming to the same conclusion- that there is a negative connection between birthrate and intensity of secular attitudes held in a population and a positive connection in the case of devout Christians.

I will never understand this idea that pumping out endless streams of children is some kind of virtue. The zealous, ignorant and poor will inherit the earth, and it won't be a very pleasent place to live.

Keith

[truelies]

Originally posted by Philosoft
There are a number of confounds I can think of that would account for a discrepancy in childbirth for a sample such as yours. Do you have any hypotheses regarding particular causes of the discrepancy?

I expect that in either case Christian or Secularist the couple are simply conforming for the most part to the norms of their Community. Wanting to fit in is a powerful motivator for most people. I will say though in the case of the stay-at-home Christian mothers there does seem to be a genuine sense of satisfaction in having done a valueable and worthwhile thing in life when age 45 or so rolls around that I do not see in their opposite numbers in the Secularist camp. Of course the feelings of unhappiness are blamed on the patriarchy or some other external factor. That is also a very human thing - to hind from oirselves that finding the source of most unhappiness in our lives involves a look in the mirror.

BTW , it should not be thought that I am making a value judgement here. I fully support the right of the Secular community to not bear children and encourage them in their choice.

[truelies]

Originally posted by keitht
I will never understand this idea that pumping out endless streams of children is some kind of virtue. The zealous, ignorant and poor will inherit the earth, and it won't be a very pleasent place to live.

Keith

If you will read what I actually wrote you will note that no value judgement was made, only an observation of a perceived fact.

[keitht]

If you will read what I actually wrote you will note that no value judgement was made, only an observation of a perceived fact.

I, however, was making a judgment.

Keith

[RalphyS]

It is true that the islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe (and the world), but I think that the secularisation process that has happened in the western christian/judean culture is a process that will also develop (more) in islamic culture.

I think the secularisation process of the west is a logical development of the growing education and education increases when the wealth of the population increases. Indeed islamic youths growing up in Western Europe will tend more to church/state separation as those growing up in traditional islamic countries for example. The current trend to move towards fundamentalists is a result of the enemy view that the west has developped towards the islam.

The anger of the traditional islamic countries towards America is more an anger towards the bad distribution of wealth in the world than it tends to be anger about our godlessness, otherwise Europe would be more of a target.

[demoninho]

Originally posted by RalphyS
It is true that the islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe (and the world), but I think that the secularisation process that has happened in the western christian/judean culture is a process that will also develop (more) in islamic culture.

I think the secularisation process of the west is a logical development of the growing education and education increases when the wealth of the population increases. Indeed islamic youths growing up in Western Europe will tend more to church/state separation as those growing up in traditional islamic countries for example. The current trend to move towards fundamentalists is a result of the enemy view that the west has developped towards the islam.

The anger of the traditional islamic countries towards America is more an anger towards the bad distribution of wealth in the world than it tends to be anger about our godlessness, otherwise Europe would be more of a target.

I think especially amongst marocans there is a lot of resentment for not being able to climb the social economic ladder and they are turning more and more toward islam in a response.

I think the muslim way of thinking is completely different from ours and any adversity the blame on the godless west with an ever growing frustration.

I see you live in the south up north I see more and more women wearing a veil in the streets, especially those really big ones, a few years ago I never saw them and remember the 2 "dutch " marocans who went on "holidays" in India and were shot by the police for terrorist activity? Death threads to Hirshi Ali. incidents sure but they are a signal, even our security service says islamic fundamentalism is on the rise in Holland.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by truelies
I expect that in either case Christian or Secularist the couple are simply conforming for the most part to the norms of their Community. Wanting to fit in is a powerful motivator for most people. I will say though in the case of the stay-at-home Christian mothers there does seem to be a genuine sense of satisfaction in having done a valueable and worthwhile thing in life when age 45 or so rolls around that I do not see in their opposite numbers in the Secularist camp. Of course the feelings of unhappiness are blamed on the patriarchy or some other external factor. That is also a very human thing - to hind from oirselves that finding the source of most unhappiness in our lives involves a look in the mirror.
Understood. Now, when you contrast "Christians" and "secularists," are you judging only couples or do you include individuals? It seems to me there might be an age/marriage discrepancy, as self-identifying secularists tend to have a smaller range of ages and a lower mean age.
BTW , it should not be thought that I am making a value judgement here. I fully support the right of the Secular community to not bear children and encourage them in their choice.
Very well. I hadn't planned on jumping to any conclusions, but thanks.

[truelies]

Originally posted by Philosoft

Understood. Now, when you contrast "Christians" and "secularists," are you judging only couples or do you include individuals? It seems to me there might be an age/marriage discrepancy, as self-identifying secularists tend to have a smaller range of ages and a lower mean age.

[/B]

I look at the individual women, regardless of Maritial status. Though of course the vast majority of the Christian women are married. As to age mostly the 40 somethings where the family is most likely completed.

[azazel]

Roman Catholic 83%, Protestant 9%, Muslim 5%, Buddhist and other 3%

That just sucks. Though I think there are WAY more protestants than that 9%, considering my countrymen's fascination for shiny american missionaries, not the mention the endless hordes of televangelists who pratcially rule late-night programming on local stations (And yes, dear countrymen, I find Kuya Germs a bit preachy on his show at times. Then again, it might just be lack of sleep and alcohol).

It's bad enough that our congress is a century behind and daylight plunder is still an issue, they empulate American 'democracy'. Like that's a role model!

To add insult to injury, Church and State Separation is a joke. In a likelihood, even the communuists holed up in the mountains pray.Divorce legislation is at least half a century away, abortion another century, and so long as the national IQ is below 90, my classes will always start and end with "Live Jesus in our hearts, Forever".

Kind of makes you wish we could do what the Soviets did. I have a printout hanging on my wall of Red Army troops demolishing an orthodox cathedral. I just look at it and console myself in the thought that somewhere, there are (or at least were) those who gave the damned corpse-worshipping cannibals a taste of their inquisition. Or at least put them down.

[Worldtraveller]

Originally posted by truelies
It may well be that a higher proportion of those holding an atheistic worldview hold a University Degree than those who do not. However given the quality of what passes for Higher Education these days in Diciplines outside of the hard Sciences and Engineering I would seriously doubt that all that 'education' accomplishes much in the way of cultivating wisdom. It would seem that the bulk of those higher ed credits are acquired in learning by heart the dogmas of the political Left rather than in developing genuine wisdom. IMHO of course.

Hrmm....and what, pray tell, would you define as "genuine wisdom"?

We may have to move this to another thread and continue this discussion...

[VonEvilstein]

trulies still hasn't backed up the claim that the Dutch government is murdering thousands of its own citizens.

Is anyone else not surprised?

[truelies]

Originally posted by Worldtraveler
Hrmm....and what, pray tell, would you define as "genuine wisdom"?

We may have to move this to another thread and continue this discussion...

Well obviously the dogmas of the political Left don't qualify.

[truelies]

Originally posted by VonEvilstein
trulies still hasn't backed up the claim that the Dutch government is murdering thousands of its own citizens.

Is anyone else not surprised?

Given that no one has as yet ASKED for any supporting data, there is little point in providing it. When I am asked i will gladly provide, but since my source will not be the Nation or the NY Times it will be dismissed out of hand without consideration anyway.

[demoninho]

Originally posted by demoninho
Well if it's a well documented fact perhaps you could show me some of those facts!

The dutch euthenasie policy goverment site (http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=MBZ257609&x=147&y=23)

[scigirl]

Originally posted by truelies
Given that no one has as yet ASKED for any supporting data, there is little point in providing it.
Um, you were asked, actually. Three times. By three different people. Two people even said "please."
demoninho:
Well if it's a well documented fact perhaps you could show me some of those facts!
demoninho then went on to supply a web site that refuted your claim. This web site was not the New York Times, or the Nation (what is that anyway)? It was simply an information site about the Netherlands.
VonEvilstein:
Oh, and please do give us the documentation on the massive state-sponsored murder you claim our ethanasia legislation is allowing.
Buffman:
Please provide the verifiable evidence for that absurd claim.---In case you are too busy to do any research, please note that the Dutch live longer than Americans. Additionally, their infant mortality rate is lower.
Buffman then went on to provide you with several websites that refuted your claim. Again, as far as I can tell, these were simply information/statistics web sites, not affililated with any liberal or conservative agenda. Unless summary statistics are all of a sudden a liberal agenda.
When I am asked i will gladly provide, but since my source will not be the Nation or the NY Times it will be dismissed out of hand without consideration anyway.
For someone who apparently can't even keep track of a thread and what has, and has not been asked of you. . . I don't think you have a leg to stand on when making assumptions of us, and what we would or would not do, with data you can't even PROVIDE.

scigirl

[truelies]

Originally posted by scigirl

For someone who apparently can't even keep track of a thread and what has, and has not been asked of you. . . I don't think you have a leg to stand on when making assumptions of us, and what we would or would not do, with data you can't even PROVIDE.

scigirl

As Scigirl has so gracious pointed out my failure to read every single post on this thread does seem to indicate that I am a person of low Character and probably beneath navel lint on the evolutionary scale. Since some have apparently asked for the information on Dutch involuntary euthanasia I will of course provide in due course. Its not as if there is unlimited time to spend on internet forums what with the snake handling and cross burning & all that other fundie stuff I have to get done every week. However I will provide the information, which WILL be derided and dismissed because of the sources.

I am curious though if there is even one on the Secular side here who is willing to step out and say that involuntary euthanasia of the aged and infirm is wrong.

[Toto]

Involuntary euthanasia of the conscious aged and infirm is wrong. (One of the most articulate advoctes for disability rights is an open atheist.) We still don't have evidence that is happening on the scale you allege.

Scigirl - The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/) is a magazine of political commentary and opinion favored by old leftists. The fact that truelies puts the New York Times in the same class tells you what part of the political spectrum he inhabits.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by truelies
does seem to indicate that I am a person of low Character and probably beneath navel lint on the evolutionary scale.
:rolleyes: A "sorry I was wrong" would have been sufficient. Your persecution complex isn't going to get you anywhere on this board.
Since some have apparently asked for the information on Dutch involuntary euthanasia I will of course provide in due course. Its not as if there is unlimited time to spend on internet forums
No one expects you to spend all your time here. But this is not the Baptist Board. If you choose to post here, and if you choose to make very bold statements about the practices of a country in which several members of this forum actually live in and happen to know about, then be prepared to back up your statements. Otherwise, don't post in the philosophical forums.
However I will provide the information, which WILL be derided and dismissed because of the sources.
Again you make this accusation. Why? Do you admit that the sources are biased? Or do you think we ignore clear factual information?
I am curious though if there is even one on the Secular side here who is willing to step out and say that involuntary euthanasia of the aged and infirm is wrong. [/B]
Involuntary euthanasia? Yes no shit that's wrong.

Voluntary euthanasia on the other hand? As a future geriatrician (that's the specialty I'm leaning towards) I usually find the religious rhetoric on this issue (on many issues actually) to be misguided, one-sided, simplistic, and refusing to take into account several medical facts. Oh and before you go accusing me of being all atheistic-biased - I thought the exact same thing when I was a christian. Medical issues are complex, and you aren't gonna be able to resolve them with a catchy bumper-sticker phrase like "euthanasia is wrong" or "put grandma to sleep."

But since you asked so nicely, I'll actually answer your question. Yes indeed there is in fact a debate right here on this forum between two atheists about the morality of euthanasia. You can find it
here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57909)

I still find it amusing that you whined and cried when we jumped to conclusions about you in the pope/gay thread (for which I remember apologizing), yet you continually make assumptions about this crowd. Here's a hint - we are a diverse group of people whose only thing in common is not believing in a god or gods. You will find people from various countries, from various backgrouds, from education levels ranging from still in junior high to PhD.

Good luck making any generalizations, or predictions, about our behavior and beliefs here.

scigirl

[Buffman]

Like so many sincere believers in the supernatural, truelies has been conditioned to believe that faith is fact. That is why I requested that he/she provide the verifiable evidence for the horrific and provincial claim that he/she made.

Only by confronting and challenging these outlandish claims made by these blind faith believers, and demanding that they "put up or shut up," can we, as a so-called modern, civilized, society, hope to help accurately educate our fellow citizens concerning the facts of the natural world. Unless we do this at every opportunity, these sincere believers will drag us all back into the darkened caves of the past where the gods of Mt. Olympus, or Asgard, or ever so many others, answered all the questions of mortal man concerning the universe in which he found himself and in which we, today, are attempting to survive and make a better, more tolerant, world for those humans of tomorrow.

http://alexm.here.ru/mirrors/www.enteract.com/jwalz/Eliade/gods.html

http://hem.fyristorg.com/bernt_rostrom/s_atran.htm

[truelies]

Interesting links but with no real connection to the topic at hand.

[truelies]

http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html



Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

The Hague -- Euthanasia in The Netherlands is "beyond effective control", according to a report which shows that one in five assisted suicides is without explicit consent.

British opponents of assisted suicide say that the figures are a warning of the dangers of decriminalising euthanasia, as Holland did in 1984. By 1995 cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Holland had risen to almost 3 per cent of all deaths.

The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent. A follow-up survey found that the main reason for not consulting patients was that they had dementia or were otherwise not competent. ...........................

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The Times(UK) 2/16/99

[Buffman]

Au contraire, my interesting friend. They relate directly to you...and the opinions you are posting in these forums. However, I posted them to amplify my post...and hopefully help some readers to understand why you are stating the things you do in the manner that you do. You are merely a conditioned messenger parroting certain faith beliefs rather than verifiable evidence. I am concerned with the message, not the messenger.

[truelies]

http://www.euthanasia.com/netherlands2000.html


Netherlands Parliament Legalizes Euthanasia (November 2000)

The Hague, Netherlands --- The Dutch parliament approved a bill legalizing euthanasia Tuesday, positioning the Netherlands to become the first nation in the world to openly allow the anti-life policy............................................




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Associated Press, Reuters, BBC; November 28, 2000.

[truelies]

Remmelink Report


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Euthanasia Results in the Netherlands - Number of Cases in 1990

http://www.euthanasia.com/hollchart.html

[truelies]

Originally posted by Buffman
Au contraire, my interesting friend. They relate directly to you...and the opinions you are posting in these forums. However, I posted them to amplify my post...and hopefully help some readers to understand why you are stating the things you do in the manner that you do. You are merely a conditioned messenger parroting certain faith beliefs rather than verifiable evidence. I am concerned with the message, not the messenger.

If publishing such rubbish regarding a total stranger about whom you know less than nothing braces your ego post away I guess. But really you are broadcasting a hundred times the info about the inner workings of yourself as you are about me. Why is it that you have the overwhelming need to feel smug and superior? Have you always been this way?

[StrictSeparationist]

Originally posted by truelies
Well obviously the dogmas of the political Left don't qualify.

But, of course, the dogmas of the religious right do, correct?

[truelies]

Originally posted by StrictSeparationist
But, of course, the dogmas of the religious right do, correct?

I don't know I am a Libertarian, so why don't you tell me.

Thanks

TL

[Toto]

Originally posted by truelies
http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html

The Hague -- Euthanasia in The Netherlands is "beyond effective control", according to a report which shows that one in five assisted suicides is without explicit consent.

. . .

The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent. A follow-up survey found that the main reason for not consulting patients was that they had dementia or were otherwise not competent.

But in 15 percent of cases the doctors avoided any discussion because they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.

. . .

These numbers don't add up. There are 3,600 authorized (i.e., voluntary euthanasia) cases plus 900 unauthorized, most of which involved patients who were not competent to make the decision. 15% of those were doctors making the decision without consulting a patient who might have been competant - which is 15% of 900 or 135, or more like 3% of total assisted suicides, which is a far cry from the thousands of citizens you claimed that the Dutch government was putting to death.

And all this was before the 2000 law that seems to have put some regulation in place.

Or how do you interpret these numbers?

Is there any way of compiling comparable statistics in the US, where physician assisted suicide is under the table, but happens - the doctor provides high doses of pain medication to a patient who is dying in any case?

[StrictSeparationist]

Originally posted by truelies
I don't know I am a Libertarian, so why don't you tell me.

Thanks

TL

Don't make me laugh. A libertarian who is anti-abortion, anti-euthunasia, and is strongly opposed to legalizing homosexual conduct? The first one can perhaps be justified on personal moral grounds, (though I do know plenty of people who object to abortion for a variety of reasons and would never choose it themselves, but who respect the right of pregnant women to determine their own future), but the second two positions lack any explanation but deep religious faith and a desire to force all people to accept one's own moral values regardless of the effect on oneself. You are no libertarian by the defintion of most who would identify themselves as such, but I would really love to hear you attempt to reconcile your social conservatism with the government-hands-off approach of true libertarians.

[Buffman]

I am concerned with the message, not the messenger.

What was so confusing about that statement? Perhaps you simply did not like reading the information at those two URLs. Maybe reality frightens you. I have no idea and really don't care.
I have been seeking source references from you to support your posts:

Already in Holland active euthansia by the Dutch medical profession takes more lives on a proportional basis than does the entire private legal and illegal firearms arsenal of the gun toteing USA.

It is well documented that the Dutch medical establishment indulges in involuntary euthanasia on a routine basis. People are not being given an option. They are being killed because someone else with the power to do so wants them dead.

Thank you for finally providing some that can now be examined for accuracy and merit.

[demoninho]

\Originally posted by Toto
Is there any way of compiling comparable statistics in the US, where physician assisted suicide is under the table, but happens - the doctor provides high doses of pain medication to a patient who is dying in any case?

Truelies, how would you classify the above : compassion or murder?

In any case this is not a unique dutch thing it happens all over the world but we have the openess to talk about it and compile statistics.

[Buffman]

(http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html)

The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent. A follow-up survey found that the main reason for not consulting patients was that they had dementia or were otherwise not competent.

But in 15 percent of cases the doctors avoided any discussion because they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.

Perhaps someone can provide accurate information on how "competency" is legally determined in the Netherlands.--- What are the patient-doctor confidentiality/privacy laws?

Additionally, "in 15 percent" of which cases?[Thanks Toto]

(http://www.euthanasia.com/netherlands2000.html)

When folks talk about pro-life, aren't they also advocating prolonged pain and suffering under any and all circumstances? If not, what are the moral exceptions according to "their" God's will?

Opponents in the Dutch parliament denounced the bill, saying it challenges God's will by giving doctors the power to decide over life and death. "This a black day in the history of our Parliament," said lawmaker Bas van der Vlies of the State Reform Party SGP. "We believe as Christians that our lives are not in our hands, that we cannot ourselves decide. We must wait for God's leadership."

Perhaps the Christian god speaks directly to each doctor directing him/her/them to follow "its" will/leadership. I hope that this lawmaker doesn't think that his Christian god could not do whatever "it" desired.

The Vatican said the law was "a sad record for Holland," and spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said it "violates human dignity."

War, terrorism, poverty, ignorance and intolerance all violate some manner of human dignity. Yet religious faith beliefs are often the cause/source of each and every one of them. The fact that they have all continued unabated over the last 2,000 years is a truly "sad record for" the Vatican and Christianity.

"The first problem this law poses is a very serious question of conscience, which doctors will have to face up to," Navarro-Valls explained. "Again, we are faced with a law of the state which opposes the natural law of human conscience."

What is the "natural law of human conscience?" War and terrorism...or just ignorance and poverty?

Under the new Dutch law, a patient must be undergoing unremitting and unbearable suffering, be aware of all other medical options and have sought a second professional opinion. The request must be made voluntarily, persistently and independently. But the bill does not stipulate that the patient's suffering must be physical and it also does not require the patient's disease be terminal. Pro-life advocates say these open up wide loopholes for abuse.

I find myself somewhat in agreement with the "Pro-Pain & Suffering" advocates on this as a potential loophole.

Recent figures show that Dutch doctors helped 2,216 patients, mostly cancer victims, to die in 1999, but it is estimated that some 60 percent of cases are not reported.

"Estimated" by whom...based on what verifiable data?

[scigirl]

Well I couldn't access the Journal of Medical ethics, but I did find an article in the Lancet. Here's the abstract, for those of you cool enough to have full-text access like me:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12907015&dopt=Abstract

Here's some snippets:

. The deliberate hastening of death by administration of lethal drugs was rare, but was most frequently used at the explicit request of the patient. However, this decision was also made in about 1000 cases per year without an explicit request.
So the claim that "there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent" looks correct. Which is disturbing to me. However there are a few things to point out about these studies.
The rate of euthanasia had significantly increased during this 5-year period, but the rate of physician-assisted suicide and ending of life without a patient's explicit request had remained virtually unchanged.
So - it doesn't look like legalization specifically caused an increase in the numbers of un-requested euthanasia/PAS, since it did not increase over the 5-year period.
The death-certificate studies showed the rate of euthanasia increased from 1·7% of all deaths in 1990 to 2·4% in 1995, and further to 2·6% in 2001. In the interview studies, no further increase was found in 2001. The frequency of physician-assisted suicide and the ending of life without the patient's explicit request remained virtually unchanged during all years.
Again confirming the above statistic - that the rates of involuntary euthanasia are not going up.
The proportion of physicians who were ever engaged in the ending of life without a patient's explicit request decreased from 27% in 1990 to 23% in 1995, and further to 13% in 2001. Furthermore, physicians' unwillingness to ever do so increased, especially after 1995, from 45% in 1995 to 71% in 2001.
Doctors are performing less involuntary euthanasia than they used to be.
The combination of a decreasing proportion of physicians who have ever engaged in ending of life without a patient's explicit request and a stable number of such cases could be partly explained by the rise in the number of physicians in the Netherlands. Furthermore, physicians who are still willing to end life without a patient's explicit request may be engaging in these practices frequently.
Sounds like there are a few doctors out there who are doing some bad stuff - so should we do something about those doctors, or go back to making euthanasia illegal? I think the former is the better action.
In previous studies, we have noted that the explicit intention of hastening death is similar to that with which euthanasia is performed. Other characteristics of these cases, however, such as the frequent use of morphine or other opioids, are frequently more similar to the alleviation of symptoms in which hastening of death was not an explicit intention.[9] Such alleviation of symptoms precedes death in about 20% of all cases, and was the only end-of-life decision that had clearly increased in 2001, especially for nursing-home patients.
Basically what I think they mean is that some of the cases of "involuntary euthanasia" could in fact simply be a consequence of prescribing lots of pain medication to terminally ill patients. This already happens in the USA. A patient has about a week to live, we keep upping the morphine in tiny increments until they are comfortable. Problem is, sometime the level that you need to make them even *sort of* comfortable is near the lethal dose.

scigirl

[scigirl]

While I do agree that there were (are?) too many cases of what is termed "involuntary" euthanasia in the Netherlands, a couple of things are still not clear to me, even after reading a couple of in-depth studies on the subject. I wasn't sure how they were counting people who were taken off life support. This is not euthanasia, however it looks like it may have been counted in the "involuntary" euthanasia rather than just "death" from natural causes. In addition, it is not clear how the study classified people who died from pain medication which was given at a non-lethal dose.

Furthermore, I found absolutely no confirmation of the following statements made by the site that truelies posted:
Michael Howitt Wilson, of the Alert campaign against euthanasia, said: "A lot of people in Holland are frightened to go into hospital because of this situation."

Dr Henk Jochensen, of the Lindeboom Institute, and Dr John Keown, of Queens' College, Cambridge carried out the study. They conclude: "The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked. Dutch claims of effective regulation ring hollow."

"I know of patients in a nursing home who are carrying around what they call sanctuary certificates all the time, stating that they do not want to be helped to die. People are afraid of being sick or of being knocked down in case a doctor takes the decision, without their permission, to stop treatment."
If anything, it looks like people in the Netherlands are becoming more and more ok with the idea of having the right to die, whereas the doctors themselves are becoming less ok with it (because of right-wingers accusing them of murder perhaps?)

scigirl

[scigirl]

Ok one more post and then I absolutely have to work on my paper that's due tomorrow!!

Beliefs concerning death, dying, and hastening death among older, functionally impaired Dutch adults: a one-year longitudinal study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9777907&dopt=Abstract)

OBJECTIVES: Population surveys have documented increasing public support for euthanasia and assisted suicide but have not focused on the population of chronically ill older persons, obtained detailed sociocultural or health status information, or performed repeat assessments. This study seeks to describe the views of functionally-impaired Dutch elders on death, dying, and hastened death and to relate these to sociocultural and health status.
RESULTS: Low and stable rates of preoccupation with death and fear of death were found. Occasional but not persistent fears about the dying process were common. Fears of death and dying were most closely related to health status, especially mental health status. Views concerning hastening death were most strongly related to sociocultural variables, especially religious belief and affiliation. There was little change over the 1-year follow-up, with a trend toward less fears of death and dying and less support for hastened death. Significant changes in fears of death and dying and attitudes toward hastened death were not seen even in the 25% of subjects with the greatest deterioration in activities of daily living or greatest increase in anxiety and depression during the 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Beliefs about death, dying, and hastened death are stable over 1-year follow-up. Fears of death and dying are most strongly related to mental health in this community sample. Attitudes about hastening death are primarily related to religious belief and secondarily to mental health. Mental health factors may determine the distress associated with the prospect of death and dying, whereas religion may dictate the actions considered proper when dying.

So let me reiterate - that article that truelies provided did have one of the numbers right. But the rest of it was bullshit.

scigirl

[demoninho]

Tuelies thank for giving these data. As with all stastical data you have to know what the different numbers mean an how they were obtained before yoy can make any conclusions.

Let me try to explain those 900 involuntary active euthanasia: many times patients with severe respitory problems such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) or people were cancer has spread to the pleura (membrane's around the lungs) will come to a stage were they are in severe respitory distress and slowly suffocating in spite of all possible treatment, they will die slowly and painfully within 1-2 days literally breathing for their life. When these people are given morphine their sense of suffocation greatly diminishes their breathing slows down and they will die within a few hours.

They would be classified as involentary active euthanasia because the morphine is the direct cause of death and they were not told the morphine would kill them (virtually all of them can no longer speak because they need all their strenght for breathing) and not under lethal morphine overdose

A far cry from:

Expect a rapid shift among European opinionmakers from advocating a right to die among the elderly and infirm to the advocacy and perhaps the explicit imposition of a duty to die for those whose lives are judge to be a burden on society.

[Secular Pinoy]

Originally posted by azazel
Though I think there are WAY more protestants than that 9%, considering my countrymen's fascination for shiny american missionaries, not the mention the endless hordes of televangelists who pratcially rule late-night programming on local stations Looks can be deceiving. As a QC-based former Protestant, I thought that Protestants number around 20% nationwide. It's when I go to the provinces and see how deeply entrenched catholicism in country really is.

We may very well see protestant televangelists and hear them on the radio here, but in theprovince, where their clout is weaker, Catholicism is still going strong. Even in Bulacan, where my Catholic GF lives, protestantism is hardly seen. And Bulacan is just adjacent Metro Manila. Manila has about 20% (a generous estimate) of our Country's population; and if we concede my rather extravagant estimate that Protestant number 20% and use that as the number for Manila, that only adds up to 4% of the Philippine population.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by demoninho
Let me try to explain those 900 involuntary active euthanasia:
Ahh thanks demoninho, I figured that some of those cases fell into that extremely gray area.

My mom, who is against euthanasia, is a nurse here in the states. She is totally ok with giving morphine to a dying patient to help them breathe better, even if it does speed up their inevitable death. Dyspnea sucks.

Anyway - I still think that truelies has a point - there are too many "involuntary" cases done, although not nearly as many as the website sounds, and patients are not in fact running and screaming from the doctors (well maybe in the psych wards. . . ).

scigirl

[demoninho]

I figured that some of those cases fell into that extremely gray area

Probably the majority. I couldn't find a study which looks more closely to those numbers.

But I guess it's a case of definitions and semantics and not of an evil goverment directive or malicious doctors deciding who has the right to life and who doesn't.

I think the best way to look at these numbers would be to look legal cases and convictions made, where each case is studies individualy.

[Crix1313]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
But if you are baptised in a Catholic church the church considers you a Catholic for life even if you never go to church again, and the government relies on the church for accurate counts of believers.


Well, if the US Government likes to use unreliable methods to obtain statistics more power to them.:D

[truelies]

Originally posted by demoninho
\

Truelies, how would you classify the above : compassion or murder?

In any case this is not a unique dutch thing it happens all over the world but we have the openess to talk about it and compile statistics.

Is this done with or without the consent of the patient?

[truelies]

Originally posted by StrictSeparationist
Don't make me laugh. A libertarian who is anti-abortion, anti-euthunasia, and is strongly opposed to legalizing homosexual conduct? The first one can perhaps be justified on personal moral grounds, (though I do know plenty of people who object to abortion for a variety of reasons and would never choose it themselves, but who respect the right of pregnant women to determine their own future), but the second two positions lack any explanation but deep religious faith and a desire to force all people to accept one's own moral values regardless of the effect on oneself. You are no libertarian by the defintion of most who would identify themselves as such, but I would really love to hear you attempt to reconcile your social conservatism with the government-hands-off approach of true libertarians.

Damn, perhaps you should get in contact with the Libertarian Party and let them know they have a ringer in their ranks.

[CoffeeFiend]

Hmm, I think my country is quite secular. According to the latest polls, 40% of the populaion are atheists, 30% don't really care about religion one way or the other and 30% are religious. There is no mention of a creator or any other religious references in our constitution, it only states that we have freedom of religion and separation of state and church. Religion is a non-issue over here. There aren't even any programs on local TV stations that actively preach religion :) Personally, I think Eastern or Northern Europe is the best place for an atheist to live :D

[conkermaniac]

China is strange. Most of the people here are openly practicing Buddhists, and the state maintains all the old hundred year-old temples for the people to pray. You can see large groups of people meditating and practicing Tai Chi in parks. There are also state-run Christian churches here too. I don't know why the government even pretends that they are against all religion. It's so obvious that they aren't atheist, especially when many Communist Party members are Buddhists themselves.

[Yangja Isuko]

muah! we are the dutch! the most powerful euthanasia country in the world!

as for muslims supposedly overtaking dutch culture....i remind you all that the dutch have no culture to begin with. who cares! drink your grog or jenever and eat your bitterballen and sail the seas! uhm....

[Secular Pinoy]

Originally posted by conkermaniac
China is strange. Most of the people here are openly practicing Buddhists, and the state maintains all the old hundred year-old temples for the people to pray. You can see large groups of people meditating and practicing Tai Chi in parks. There are also state-run Christian churches here too. I don't know why the government even pretends that they are against all religion. It's so obvious that they aren't atheist, especially when many Communist Party members are Buddhists themselves. What do you want, another Cultural Revolution?

[Jewel]

Originally posted by conkermaniac
It's so obvious that they aren't atheist, especially when many Communist Party members are Buddhists themselves.

Buddhism isn't incompatible with atheism. None of the Buddhists that I've personally known have believed in any god.