why are americans so religious & conservative compared to other western nations?

[Barcu]

??? actually their argument is that the government is pushing into aspects of religious freedom... an HHS mandate requiring Catholic institutions to pay to cover contraception, sterilization, and some abortifacient drugs. And it has nothing to do with your view of the morality of contraception. It has to do with the government telling a religious organization to violate their consciences.

Yes. There should be a strict separation of church and state say the politicians that use their religious views to influence policy on abortion, on gay marriage, and on teaching creationism in school.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Miss Alyssa]

??? actually their argument is that the government is pushing into aspects of religious freedom... an HHS mandate requiring Catholic institutions to pay to cover contraception, sterilization, and some abortifacient drugs. And it has nothing to do with your view of the morality of contraception. It has to do with the government telling a religious organization to violate their consciences.

I wasn't referring to that mandate. I'm talking about things said by the presidential hopefuls (As I said in my post): Roe vs Wade needs repealing and the constitution amended to ban abortion, contraception giving you a licence to do knotty things, approval of states to ban contraception, prenatal testing causes abortions, HPV vaccine for teens is bad and causes mental ******ation etc.

 

[45408]

Common sense. Treat others as you would like to be treated - all there is to it.

I'd like to be treated with a Porsche, filet mignon and a yacht, but that's not how I treat others.

 

[candav]

??? actually their argument is that the government is pushing into aspects of religious freedom... an HHS mandate requiring Catholic institutions to pay to cover contraception, sterilization, and some abortifacient drugs. And it has nothing to do with your view of the morality of contraception. It has to do with the government telling a religious organization to violate their consciences.

I didn't want to say anything more in this thread, but this is an issue I feel very strongly about. I have much admiration for individuals who have strong faith and practice it well. Religious freedom is important and should be preserved to as far an extent as possible. But if you look at the national discourse on religious freedom, particularly in the political arena, the issue is not about preserving religious freedom within religious institutions; it is about extending religious ideologies to people who do not subscribe to these ideologies in their own personal lives. It aims to bar same-sex unions and abortion at the national level, even among those who have no issues with them. I feel that these efforts, in the name of religious freedom, encroach on my own rights and freedoms as a person who is non-religious.

I hope this is not seen as offensive to anyone; obviously, these are not views I would ever express to a patient, but I assume these issues are open for debate on an internet forum populated by (relatively) intelligent individuals.

 

[45408]

Interesting. So, if a grade school-aged child was brought in after say a car vs bike accident, and the child's parents are both present and both say they are devout JW's and absolutely refuse a blood transfusion, the doctors can (have to?) ignore those statements by the parents and treat the child against their wishes? I would have assumed the parents' wishes would have to be followed if there was no conflict between the parents, etc.

I'd transfuse the child. Many times the parents actually want you to get a court order to override them, just so they can tell their peers "Oh, I said no, but the court overruled us, what could we do?" They don't want the child to die.

are you high? If you have reason to believe that their religion forbids blood transfusions, then you lose the implied consent necessary to do the transfusion without legal retribution.

If you answered like that in an interview, you would lose some major points with the interviewer....

How about no, Scott?

You'd let your patient die because you found a pamphlet in their coat? What if someone had handed them the pamphlet on the street? Great logic here.

 

[premed67783]

You'd let your patient die because you found a pamphlet in their coat? What if someone had handed them the pamphlet on the street? Great logic here.

I wasnt talking about his answer so much as his "what a simple, cut and dry situation" attitude towards it.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

I wasnt talking about his answer so much as his "what a simple, cut and dry situation" attitude towards it.

It is an extremely cut and dry situation.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

The key if it was an interview question is having a sense of WHY the situation is cut and dry, of course. You can't just say "do it" because that is what your gut tells you, and devil take the hindmost.

 

[premed67783]

It is an extremely cut and dry situation.

well then, i just disagree

 

[QuizzicalApe]

well then, i just disagree

and as a result, as per prowler's response and my multiple choice situation I posted, a patient with no moral opposition to receiving blood products is dead.

Your appreciation for the religious sensitivities of the many groups the patient may have been associated with based on circumstantial evidence will be of little comfort to the patient's family, the family's lawyer, your boss, or your license.

It's okay to not understand why, because we all start there, but reserve the vehemence for when you know for a fact that you are correct.

 

[scarshapedstar]

If I ever shoot someone, I'll be sure to leave a Jehovah's Witness pamphlet in their pocket.

 

[45408]

I wasnt talking about his answer so much as his "what a simple, cut and dry situation" attitude towards it.

That scenario was quite cut and dry.

 

[gasknight]

Refer to my handle for my opinion

 

[One Hip Guy]

America is not more conservative and religious than other western countries. We are just loud. The non-religious population is on the increase in all 50 states in the US.

nvm.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

If I ever shoot someone, I'll be sure to leave a Jehovah's Witness pamphlet in their pocket.

The perfect crime

 

[bajoneswadup]

to answer multiple posts

1. USA isn't the most religious/conservative western nation by far.
2. you don't need a bible to teach you morals
3. religion has prevented potentially valuable life saving stem cell research, drives families into poverty with no birth control/ no abortion, prevents marriage equality, ect (then they claim attempting to act contrary to any of this infringes on their religious freedom.)

Well for the past 3 years, ofc not...

 

[235788]

are you high? If you have reason to believe that their religion forbids blood transfusions, then you lose the implied consent necessary to do the transfusion without legal retribution.

If you answered like that in an interview, you would lose some major points with the interviewer....

I wasnt talking about his answer so much as his "what a simple, cut and dry situation" attitude towards it.

lol are you kidding me? Its a dead obvious answer.

It is an extremely cut and dry situation.

thank you.

 

[235788]

The perfect crime

haha

 

[dreamweaver1988]

Very well said. This thread and the whole Liberty University thread both were apalling with ignorance and prejudice.

I believe every person is entitled to her own delusions. All religions are clearly false, but if someone wants to drink the Kool-Aid, then I say go right ahead.

This whole Obamacare issue, though, is just *****ic. What about members of the fanatical Christian "Science" cult? They have to pay taxes that help county health departments etc. that provide medical care to others. That's clearly against their religion. They also have to provide employees with health care insurance, and again, that's clearly in violation of their beliefs. Should they be exempted from Obamacare?

I get very nervous when religious beliefs are found to trump law. Take the recent case where a Catholic school (I think that's what it was, anyway) was allowed to not hire someone with narcolepsy. However, if the RCC wants to be bigoted, that's their right.

Lastly, it never fails to amuse me that old crusty virgins in the RCC are giving advice about sex.

 

[One Hip Guy]

No we are not. We have more self reported religiousness (hence the "we are just loud" comment) but we are not more religious and conservative in our social life, policies etc. We have a huge market for religiosity (an economic market), which is the reason we think we are more conservative. Anecdotal, but the burqa ban in France would have never been passed in the US.



From present society. Morality has always been relative.

I was gonna say this earlier, retracted it, but now that you've said it TWICE I have to tell you, that you are very wrong. If this country wasn't particularly religious, we wouldn't have guys like Rick Santorum. I understand what you're trying to say, your'e trying to say that modern religious people are hypocrites because so many claim to be religious but act as if they are not religious. However, in the realm of social life and policies, I fail to see how you don't see the impact of religion. Abortion would already be legal everywhere if it wasn't for religious right-to-life activists, along with gay marriage.



As far as morality, I disagree with that, as well. There's a correlation between religion and morality, and as such lots of morality is derived from it. However, morality is a philosophical issue and as we know philosophy has a long, rooted history.

 

[scarshapedstar]

Though in a similar manner, you stand up for your beliefs and are outspoken about them, the simple fact that your beliefs (morals etc) aren't founded in "religious" doctrine doesn't make them any more/less relevant/important than mine, or anyone else's beliefs.

Please provide an example of any of the following.

- An gay person attempting to ban Christian marriage.
- An abortion provider bombing/shooting member(s) of an anti-choice organization.
- A hateful act that can only be performed by an atheist.

Sorry but the Goldilocks fallacy (all parties are equally wrong and the truth lies exactly in the middle) gets really tiresome.

 

[Neurosis]

Please provide an example of any of the following.

- An gay person attempting to ban Christian marriage.
- An abortion provider bombing/shooting member(s) of an anti-choice organization.
- A hateful act that can only be performed by an atheist.

Sorry but the Goldilocks fallacy (all parties are equally wrong and the truth lies exactly in the middle) gets really tiresome.

So would my cautious agnosticism offend you?

 

[scarshapedstar]

So would my cautious agnosticism offend you?

Depends on what you mean.

Agnosticism, as it's typically presented, boils down to hair-splitting between "there may or may not be an invisible pink unicorn but even in the absence of evidence it may be beyond our comprehension and thus unable to be proven or disproven" and "I see no evidence for an invisible pink unicorn". I don't find it offensive because it's like the ball is at the 1-yard line as opposed to the 50; I just say run it in for a touchdown already.

 

[STAT EKG]

this is a gross oversimplification, premed67783.

what do you mean by openly religious people tending to be less moral? you see them downing kamakaze shots? and how do you know that the non-religious people you have observed to be more moral aren't secretly watching child porn on the computer?

we are all some what immoral in the truest sense of the word. we just try to make the best decisions we can based on how we see the world, and the laws of the land.

How is downing shots immoral? I don't even drink, but I don't understand this (outside of a slippery slope argument that there's a possibility of you making a bad decision that might harm someone else).

Why is it that so often sex, drinking, drug use (I don't use drugs), etc. are used as examples of "immorality"? If the sex is consensual and both the drinking/drugs and sex are safe... I don't get it. And, read between the lines here... I'm not advocating this behavior.

 

[Lunasly]

well i think thats an easy interview question that i'd love to have had.

You obviously give them the transfusion.

Wait a moment:

Let me get this straight. A man is to have a blood transfusion, however, you, as the doctor, find a pamphlet in his pocket which states that this man is an "X" (not sure what that means) and thus he is not a viable candidate for a blood transfusion.

Wouldn't there be tests? I understand that a pamphlet doesn't mean much in the first place and I agree that I won;t continue with the blood transfusion had I been authorized to do so. However, wouldn't you know prior that this man is an "X?"

If I had this interview question, I would say that I would continue with the blood transfusion, but I'd perhaps check up on some of the tests that I performed beforehand to make sure that this man is in the appropriate condition to under a blood transfusion.

I'm not in medical school yet so I may be looking at this in the wrong way. If previous tests showed that he is not a viable candidate for a blood transfusion, would you still do it?

Lunasly.

 

[Neurosis]

Depends on what you mean.

Agnosticism, as it's typically presented, boils down to hair-splitting between "there may or may not be an invisible pink unicorn but even in the absence of evidence it may be beyond our comprehension and thus unable to be proven or disproven" and "I see no evidence for an invisible pink unicorn". I don't find it offensive because it's like the ball is at the 1-yard line as opposed to the 50; I just say run it in for a touchdown already.

Your analogies are funny btw . But in all seriousness, I can't really see myself become an full fledged atheist. When it all comes down to, it's all where your faith lies.

 

[mauberley]

Wait a moment:

Let me get this straight. A man is to have a blood transfusion, however, you, as the doctor, find a pamphlet in his pocket which states that this man is an "X" (not sure what that means) and thus he is not a viable candidate for a blood transfusion.

Wouldn't there be tests? I understand that a pamphlet doesn't mean much in the first place and I agree that I won;t continue with the blood transfusion had I been authorized to do so. However, wouldn't you know prior that this man is an "X?"

If I had this interview question, I would say that I would continue with the blood transfusion, but I'd perhaps check up on some of the tests that I performed beforehand to make sure that this man is in the appropriate condition to under a blood transfusion.

I'm not in medical school yet so I may be looking at this in the wrong way. If previous tests showed that he is not a viable candidate for a blood transfusion, would you still do it?

Lunasly.

The scenario suggested that the pamphlet implied there's a chance the man professed a faith that would prevent him from accepting a blood transfusion (for example, a Jehovah's Witness). It wasn't a question of being biologically fit for a transfusion.

 

[scarshapedstar]

Wait a moment:

Let me get this straight. A man is to have a blood transfusion, however, you, as the doctor, find a pamphlet in his pocket which states that this man is an "X" (not sure what that means) and thus he is not a viable candidate for a blood transfusion.

Wouldn't there be tests? I understand that a pamphlet doesn't mean much in the first place and I agree that I won;t continue with the blood transfusion had I been authorized to do so. However, wouldn't you know prior that this man is an "X?"

If I had this interview question, I would say that I would continue with the blood transfusion, but I'd perhaps check up on some of the tests that I performed beforehand to make sure that this man is in the appropriate condition to under a blood transfusion.

I'm not in medical school yet so I may be looking at this in the wrong way. If previous tests showed that he is not a viable candidate for a blood transfusion, would you still do it?

Lunasly.

Not like "I am allergic to all blood types" but rather "I am a Christian Scientist".

If the guy has a tattoo reading "DO NOT TRANSFUSE - RELIGIOUS OBJECTOR" that's more clear-cut; however, there's also the possibility that the guy would wake up and say "you know, the last thing that flashed before my eyes was that I was going to leave my kids without a father because of pressure from my wacko cult leader".

Even if he's angry, I seriously doubt a jury is going to punish a doctor for saving a patient's life. This isn't like a DNR order where futile care would be painful for everyone involved; you need a reeeeeeeeeeeally good reason to let a (relatively) healthy person die and I'm not sure how you account for the possibility that they might have changed their mind in the time since they got the tattoo or bracelet or pamphlet or even just the bullet wound.

 

[Camy99]

Oh look it's this thread again :eyeroll: SDN never fails, it's like a monthly ritual!

SDN is so rampant with narrow minded stereotyping it is appalling. It scares me to think that a large majority of these posters will successfully get into medical school. Holding religious beliefs does not necessarily equal fanaticism. I consider myself deeply religious, however, I would never allow my faith to compromise the care of my patients. All of the anecdotal, n=1 examples are extremely immature and do not necessarily reflect the minds of modern American believers. Does fanaticism exist? Certainly! Is it prevalent within the field of medicine? I think not.
Many modern day religionists hold fundamentally naturalistic worldviews and are able to successfully reconcile their faith with their understanding of science. Unfortunately some religiously minded people feel that they must battle the teachings of science as it is an "enemy" of religion. However, as stated previously these convictions are not homogenous within the religious community and are much less prevalent among the learned medical populous. I only ask that we be more open minded and less akin to disrespectful and ignorant commentary.

lol the only good post (on page 1 at least, I'm def not reading any further) and like 2 people acknowledge it.

 

[STAT EKG]

They are one person's examples of immorality (drinking to the point of intoxication, sex out of wed-lock, pornography etc are the more common examples given by mainstream Christianity), and these, like religious beliefs, differ from person to person.

I agree that people have personal morals and beliefs and they differ from person to person. I would also argue that there is a much broader set of morals/ethics that apply to everyone, or at least everyone without some kind of severe antisocial disorder.

For instance - I feel fairly confident that most sane people would think that being consciously aware that you are directly endangering/hurting others and doing it anyway is immoral.

I just thought it was... interesting that the go-to example of immorality was drinking

I honestly don't mean offense by this, but some morals seem manufactured and some seem like they arose out of a common benefit for mankind.

 

[Lunasly]

Not like "I am allergic to all blood types" but rather "I am a Christian Scientist".

If the guy has a tattoo reading "DO NOT TRANSFUSE - RELIGIOUS OBJECTOR" that's more clear-cut; however, there's also the possibility that the guy would wake up and say "you know, the last thing that flashed before my eyes was that I was going to leave my kids without a father because of pressure from my wacko cult leader".

Even if he's angry, I seriously doubt a jury is going to punish a doctor for saving a patient's life. This isn't like a DNR order where futile care would be painful for everyone involved; you need a reeeeeeeeeeeally good reason to let a (relatively) healthy person die and I'm not sure how you account for the possibility that they might have changed their mind in the time since they got the tattoo or bracelet or pamphlet or even just the bullet wound.

Ah I understand. I have to ask, though: Do the doctors assume that this individual is not a man of religion just because he carries a pamphlet? I have heard that individuals who are religious will have some sort of advanced medical record stating the way they want their treatment (and in the case of a blood transfusion, who they want it from). As a doctor, wouldn't it be in your best interest to take a second look at the patients medical records for this sort of information before progressing forward with the procedure? If this individual is in urgent care and needs a blood transfusion immediately, is it wrong to disregard the patients right and continue with the blood transfusion? If I were a doctor, I'd want to save their life. I, however, don't want to screw my life over while doing it.

I don't know what is more unethical: To let a man die or to disregard his beleifs. If this was an interview question (with the scenario I provided above) I would have said something similar to the above (without the "I don't want to screw my life over while doing it" part) in addition to suggesting that the system needs a change in this particular area.

Call me selfish, but I would honestly think twice before saving a man's life if it means that their is a big possibility for a hefty law suit. With the some of the cases that we have all heard about over the years, is it really a stretch to say that a jury would not hold you accountable for going against this individuals beleifs? I mean wars are started over religion. It's a big gamble.

Then again what the hell do I know, lol. I'm not even a medical student and I live in Canada. Interesting topic, though.

 

[drizzt3117]

I think the pamphlet case is cut/dried (transfuse) whereas the child case is less cut/dried (transfuse but get court order concurrently) and obv people have the right to refuse treatment if they so choose.

 

[theseeker4]

Ah I understand. I have to ask, though: Do the doctors assume that this individual is not a man of religion just because he carries a pamphlet? I have heard that individuals who are religious will have some sort of advanced medical record stating the way they want their treatment (and in the case of a blood transfusion, who they want it from). As a doctor, wouldn't it be in your best interest to take a second look at the patients medical records for this sort of information before progressing forward with the procedure? If this individual is in urgent care and needs a blood transfusion immediately, is it wrong to disregard the patients right and continue with the blood transfusion? If I were a doctor, I'd want to save their life. I, however, don't want to screw my life over while doing it.

I don't know what is more unethical: To let a man die or to disregard his beleifs. If this was an interview question (with the scenario I provided above) I would have said something similar to the above (without the "I don't want to screw my life over while doing it" part) in addition to suggesting that the system needs a change in this particular area.

Call me selfish, but I would honestly think twice before saving a man's life if it means that their is a big possibility for a hefty law suit. With the some of the cases that we have all heard about over the years, is it really a stretch to say that a jury would not hold you accountable for going against this individuals beleifs? I mean wars are started over religion. It's a big gamble.

Then again what the hell do I know, lol. I'm not even a medical student and I live in Canada. Interesting topic, though.

The point is, barring absolute indication of the patient's wishes (living will, med-alert bracelet or the like on the person, direct statement of family member, etc.) you as a doctor should default to saving his life. Obviously if there is time to track down who the person is, where his medical records are, and what they state, do that. In an emergency, however, there very well might not be any time to discover anything more about the person.

If you have absolute indication that not only is the person a member of X faith, but also believes in it strongly enough that they will refuse treatment Y based on that decision, do not treat. If there is a legitimate question as to what the patient wants, you are opening yourself to much more liability by letting him or her die than by treating the patient.

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

Don't most hospitals have an ethics committee/consultant they can page?

 

[theseeker4]

Don't most hospitals have an ethics committee/consultant they can page?

You won't have any more time to wait for them if you are in the hospital overnight when an emergency comes in than you would have to look up the patient's identity and check into their background....

 

[jippyslim]

How is downing shots immoral? I don't even drink, but I don't understand this (outside of a slippery slope argument that there's a possibility of you making a bad decision that might harm someone else).

Why is it that so often sex, drinking, drug use (I don't use drugs), etc. are used as examples of "immorality"? If the sex is consensual and both the drinking/drugs and sex are safe... I don't get it. And, read between the lines here... I'm not advocating this behavior.

Um, did you read the post i responded to? It's clear you didn't so i'll catch you up. Premed67783 made a point that he observed overtly religious people acting more immoral than non-religious people, and that religion has no basis morality. I merely said this was an oversimplification an asked him to clarify.

I was not arguing that drinking is immoral so you're taking this out in left field.

 

[Jennet]

Where are ethics and morals derived from?

I'm late to the party but there is a lot of convincing scientific research on the idea that morality and ethical behavior directly contributes to evolution of a species or bloodline (beginning with the idea of biological altruism). Cultural and biological systems provide a certain amount of feedback that can dictate behavior; this purportedly helps the species thrive. If we are all kind and good, won't the human race expand? Just calling out the fact that many people believe ethics and morals are a function of evolutionary biology.

 

[kunalp89]

I don't mean to be cynical or inflammatory, but this is quite the last thing I think of when I think of organized religion, as it stands today.

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

You won't have any more time to wait for them if you are in the hospital overnight when an emergency comes in than you would have to look up the patient's identity and check into their background....

I was just curious because this exact situation was on the show "Untold Stories of the ER." A mother wouldn't allow the doctors to perform a life saving operation on her son because they were Jehovah's Witnesses. The son's doctor and mother sat in front of an ethics consultant and pleaded their cases. The surgery was performed and the mother was happy that her son was alive and that she didn't have to make the choice.

 

[theseeker4]

I was just curious because this exact situation was on the show "Untold Stories of the ER." A mother wouldn't allow the doctors to perform a life saving operation on her son because they were Jehovah's Witnesses. The son's doctor and mother sat in front of an ethics consultant and pleaded their cases. The surgery was performed and the mother was happy that her son was alive and that she didn't have to make the choice.

Sure, when there is time to consult with such a committee, there is time. Similarly to what was discussed above, when the hospital needs to obtain a court order to override parents who are insisting their child not receive a certain necessary treatment. If the case is emergent, however, as a doctor you or I may be the "highest level" of authority that is available to make the call.

 

[To be MD]

and does it effect how medicine is practiced ?

To answer your question, of course it affects medicine. Some people are more trusting and reliant of their spiritual leaders than of their medical doctors.

But, as to why, the answer unquestionably lies in our history as a nation founded upon religious extremism: the pilgrims, the puritans--these are the type of people on which our intellectual history was founded upon.

Whereas in Europe, where religiosity is at an all time low (if almost completely absent), their intellectual history lied on the minds of Enlightened thinkers that perpetually questioned the truth behind fundamentalism and orthodoxy. In England, we see Darwin. In France, we see Moliere and Rousseau. And, in Germany, we see Goethe.

Europe, it seems, is just more mature in their secularism than America is. While we were arguing for religious security, they were arguing for religion's absence.

 

[Lexdiamondz]

to answer multiple posts

1. USA isn't the most religious/conservative western nation by far.
2. you don't need a bible to teach you morals
3. religion has prevented potentially valuable life saving stem cell research, drives families into poverty with no birth control/ no abortion, prevents marriage equality, ect (then they claim attempting to act contrary to any of this infringes on their religious freedom.)

1. Untrue
2. Valid
3. Nonsense

 

[scarshapedstar]

1. Untrue
2. Valid
3. Nonsense

Google "child dies faith healing". You're welcome.

 

[circulus vitios]

How would being religious ever be a bad thing in medicine? Self-less giving

And being conservative would be irrelevent. I can imagine that you would probably hold negative opinions on medicaid/self-pay populations, but you'd still treat them.

 

[BrandonR]

With or without religion, good men will do good things.

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

Google "child dies faith healing". You're welcome.

Extreme cases of modern medicine has killed people who would otherwise be alive today too, but we don't totally condemn it. Very few religious people use faith alone. Faith can give people strength during their medical treatment.

 

[scarshapedstar]

Extreme cases of modern medicine has killed people who would otherwise be alive today too, but we don't totally condemn it. Very few religious people use faith alone. Faith can give people strength during their medical treatment.

Survey says...

Praying for a sick heart patient may feel right to people of faith, but it doesn't appear to improve the patient's health, according to a new study that is the largest ever done on the healing powers of prayer.

Indeed, researchers at the Harvard Medical School and five other U.S. medical centers found, to their bewilderment, that coronary-bypass patients who knew strangers were praying for them fared significantly worse than people who got no prayers. The team speculated that telling patients about the prayers may have caused "performance anxiety," or perhaps a fear that doctors expected the worst.

"Obviously, my colleagues were surprised by the unexpected and counterintuitive outcome," said the Rev. Dean Marek, director of chaplain services at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a study co-investigator.

 

[dreamweaver1988]

Survey says...

Hahaha just read about this in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.

 

[Neurosis]

Google "child dies faith healing". You're welcome.

So parents can be held accountable for negligence even when it is caused by their faith?

 

[StoicJosher]

I was gonna say this earlier, retracted it, but now that you've said it TWICE I have to tell you, that you are very wrong. If this country wasn't particularly religious, we wouldn't have guys like Rick Santorum. I understand what you're trying to say, your'e trying to say that modern religious people are hypocrites because so many claim to be religious but act as if they are not religious. However, in the realm of social life and policies, I fail to see how you don't see the impact of religion. Abortion would already be legal everywhere if it wasn't for religious right-to-life activists, along with gay marriage.

As far as morality, I disagree with that, as well. There's a correlation between religion and morality, and as such lots of morality is derived from it. However, morality is a philosophical issue and as we know philosophy has a long, rooted history.

I am NOT saying that religious people are hypocrites. You misunderstood my post. I am talking purely from a scientific and objective point of view. When it boils down to the actual policies that are currently in effect in the political realm, we are NOT more religious or conservative than other nations. Something like the burqa ban in France would never pass in the US. Yes - we see a lot of religious activism, pro-life work, anti-gay activities etc here in the US but when you look at the number of policies we have, laws we have etc (purely objectively), we are on par with other western nations.

Correlation does not imply causation.