Tell me about the Republic of Ireland, where divorce was only recently legalized.

Or Italy, France, Spain, All of South & Central America, or pretty much every single western hemisphere nation on earth.

Cited are countries with a dominant religions, but not necessarily a highly religious population. Only developing countries really complete with America for actively religious people. Many may claim to be members of a religion, but don't actively participate except maybe during Christmas and Easter. More often the pews remain vacant.

When a country of 1st generation immigrants, then America was about 35% actively religious in 1850. This has risen to in excess of 60% in the 1950s. A Gallup poll in the early 1990s put that number at 70% for college educated and 67% for non-college graduates. Religion is sold in America as a commodity. TV evangulists even time their speeches to meet the TV commericial breaks. Religion is a business more in America then anywhere else in the world from Scientology, to Mormons, to Pentecostalists. Only Protestants have seen significant declines in America - especially Prysbeterians, Luthurans, and Methodists.
Which developing countries? Africa.

Cited were countries with a dominant religions, AND highly religious populations. All of which have more actively religious populations than the United States of America.

And the number of people who are actively religious in America is irrelevant to the discussion. America isn't a Christian nation, wasn't built on Christian (or any other religion) principles, etc. The U.S. government was built to be completely and totally free of all religions and to keep government out of all religions.

America is a secular nation. The number of people who are religious doesn't change that fact. If every single citizen of the United States were of the same religion (let's say catholic for the sake of argument) and all of them were actively and frequently participating in church, it still wouldn't make America a Catholic nation.

From New York Times 24 Jan 2003:

That's right, NYT - it's not about the security of the world, the billions upon billions of dollars in European oil contracts, the Arab minorities that the governments have to pander to, the slowly decaying UN and its inability to tie it's own shoes, the end of NATO, etc.

It's alllll about the personal style of the President.

Sigh.

And y'know what? I'm half-tempted to take the NYT's attempt at a point. So you say the froggies are a little embarrassed to be around Bush -- his swagger is a little alarming, he refuses to take off his cowboy hat indoors, and they don't like his pronunciation of "nukular" and the fact that he ends every phone call with "God Bless".

If they are truly saying that THIS is what has kept them from supporting the US position all along... then FUCK THEM.

Of course, many of them vote, and are encouraged to vote using religious beliefs (and associated stances on moral issues) as a litmus test, which helps get politicians into office who will heavily push narrowly-interpreted Christian viewpoints as the potential or actual law of the land.

Too many people use religion as a primary motivator at the ballot box. Too FEW people are insufficiently afraid of or ignorant of the implications of this to come out regularly and vote in opposition.

And when was the last time that a non-believer came within lightyears of a Democratic or Republican Presidential nomination?

<a href="http://archive.salon.com/comics/tomo/1999/07/03/tomo/index.html">One of my favorite commentaries on this phenomenon.</a>

Its media. There is a posture, an image, and it is part of the game. Just like the latest recruiting ads that cast young warriors as knights of the roundtable.

I'm thinking that the lone cowboy leader might play pretty well in shame cultures- taking on a flamboyant tribal warlord. Just like the movies.

Sigh.

American media or European media?

yes.

I mean, its global. Arab media too. It seems part of the weaponry.

vsp: I like THIS ONE myself.

So far, whether intentionally or not, they're playing a perfect "good cop" to the US's "bad cop".

As for Bush's style, what do you expect? Americans have long preferred leaders who appeared to lack sophistication -- Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, to pick three obvious examples. The Europeans should be used to it by now.

Besides, what this war is really over is something they understand quite well... Saddam takes a shot at Bush's daddy, Bush wants to take out Saddam (and boost domestic popularity at the same time, of course)

It's not about sophisticaton. George Jr is the mental midget among world leaders. Instead he preaches what secular nations and intelligent people don't need to hear. He preaches religion like a back woods preacher complete with finger pointing and lessons in morality. Religion does not belong in government or international diplomacy. However that is not George Jr's way. George Jr has god on his side and must therefore teach those other secular nations. There are even Americans so naive as to think George Jr's actions are acceptable or that Saddam is a threat to America.

George Jr has a history of lying. He is a religious activist masking as a tolerant politician. George Jr's administration even provides money and support to religious groups at the expense of secular organizations and honest people. George Jr is so two faced as to even remain quiet when virtually every Catholic diocese in America stands accused of protecting child molestors.

George Jr is so naive as to preach religious doctrine to secular world leaders. Just another in a long list of reasons why George Jr has undermined relations with virtually every nations in the world. No UT. NY Times only adds another reason why George Jr has undermined relations with virtually every nation. This president is so incompetant as to even use religious doctrine to preach morality to a secular world.

US relations with all countries - even Canada, France, and Germany - have not been this low since WWII because George Jr is a poor leader. Even Johnson and Nixon could not so destroy international relations. George Jr is even so silly as to resort to religion to justify a war against Iraq - because he has no honest, secular reason to justify hate of Saddam. But then what should we expect from a mental midget president who sees a world in terms of religion rather than the reality of secularism. It is not that he is unsophisticated. He is so ill informed as to even claim that Saddam is a threat to the US - which any informed American knows is utter nonsense.

Here Here! Well said tw!

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;One thing though, Bush has been known to purchase a company, that's been making a profit for years, run it into the ground, and make a huge profit selling it off piecemeal. Now that might be good business, but as alot of good people lose their livelihoods and pensions it's not a christian act. So, you might ask yourself if you really think he's as hardcore a christion as is being assumed here.