Why should the majority religious group in America (amost 90% of American calim a Christian background) have to accomadate the minorities instead of the minorities accomodate the majority?
Really ....?
Well take a look at this report that you can find here: (you will need Acrobat pdf to view it.)
A small proviso.....
Hispanics, (for the most part are Catholics), and as far as I know, they are rather "non-fanatic" when it comes to religion, they seem to be on the tolerant side, in fact many of them go to church, so they keep the wife and family "happy". (They are rather family oriented for the most part, but non-fanatical).
And even if the great majority were "strong" Catholics, I seriously doubt that they would profess or align with Evile's beliefs. The mere fact that they are "Hispanics", contradicts Evile's idea of a "majority" as his opinions, which are clearly racist, at some point would show his hate towards said Hispanics. (In a loving christian way, of course).
Evile's vision of Christian Majority, uses "selective" criteria to "manage" statistics, in a way that would support his views, i.e. "90% christian based".... but then, he forgets that a significant % of such is (in this case Hispanic), or, that the same % if not a larger portion, would not even come close to spousing his views of "loving hate" (in the christian way, of course).
So Evile, take your "vision" and shove it where the statistical sun don't shine. (This applies to the historical sun too).
The above, more than my opinion is my "imression", I may be mistaken, and as the "evil" atheist that I am, I really do not care what religion is practised. (I am concerned however, that [any] religion is kept at the individual level, not promoted as public policy).
My points in this post are three:
1. To show that Evile's "perception" of reality is totally wrong. (Historical and statistically speaking).
2. To accentuate the fact that religion opinions should be kept personal and "up to each individual". Particularly when it comes to matters of PUBLIC EDUCATION, and/or PUBLIC POLICY.
As the statistics will show, the population in this country for one is quite diverse, and the future growth and "group classifications" are changing rather dramatically from the past.
Therefore, attempting to impose a specific religious agenda as a matter of public policy, is not only morally wrong, but IMPRACTICAL. As I have expressed before, once tax funds are used to support a specific religion, then you open the door for any and all other religions to request "equal treatment".
I for one would like to pay as little in taxes as it is possible. the public support for religions would only cause an increase in taxes of major proportions, which as we all know, the government is in no shape to afford. (as there are far more important issues ahead of religion). BTW I think churches should pay taxes !!
Further, anybody is free to pursue their own specific religion and beliefs, including the establishment of private schools under such guidelines, for the purpose of educating their children under specific belief.
3. As the statistics will show, the authors of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, where wise, in showing their determination NOT to base said documents on religion... ANY religion. The diversity in the population of this country, allowed by the principles of such documents, is the strongest evidence of such wisdom.
By the way..... How is your Spanish ?
And now, the envelope please.......
(some excerpts here, the entire document in this URL: (remember, you need Acrobat-PDF)
census.gov (go to Front cover to Page # 7, then, the copied part below are pages 9-11 of the actual PDF doc.)
census.gov (source)
--------------------------------------Start copy----------------------
Population Projections by Race, Age, Sex, and Hispanic Origin. 1995-2050
National Projections
Race and Hispanic-Origin Distribution (1)
* Although nearly three-quarters of the population was
non-Hispanic White in 1995, this group would contribute
only about one-quarter of the total population growth
during the next 10 years. From 2030 to 2050, the
non-Hispanic White population would contribute nothing
to the Nation's population growth because it would be
declining in size.
* The non-Hispanic White share of the U.S. population
would steadily fall from 74 percent in 1995 to 72 percent
in 2000, 64 percent in 2020, and 53 percent in 2050.
* By the middle of the next century the Black population
would nearly double its 1995 size to 61 million. After
2016, more Blacks than non-Hispanic Whites would be
added to the population each year.
* For each year from 1997 to 2050, it is projected that less
than half of total U.S. population growth would occur to
the combined Black and White non-Hispanic popula-tions.
* The race/ethnic groups with the highest rates of increase
would be the Hispanic-origin and the Asian and Pacific
Islander populations with annual growth rates that may
exceed 2 percent until 2030. In comparison, even at the
peak of the Baby Boom era, the total U.S. population
never grew by 2 percent in a year.
* Every year from now to 2050, the race/ethnic group
adding the largest number of people to the population
would be the Hispanic-origin population. In fact, after
2020 the Hispanic population is projected to add more
people to the United States every year than would all
other race/ethnic groups combined. By 2010, the Hispanic-origin
population may become the second-largest race/ethnic
group.
* By the year 2030, the non-Hispanic White population
would be less than half of the U.S. population under age
18. In that year, this group would still comprise three-quarters
of the 65 and over population.
(1) The information on the Hispanic population shown in this report was collected in the 50 States and the District of Columbia and, therefore, does not include residents of Puerto Rico.
--------------------
* In 1995, nearly two-thirds of all births would be non-Hispanic
White, about 1 in 6 would be Black, and 1 in 6
would be of Hispanic origin. By the middle of the
21st-century, about 2 of every 5 births would be non-Hispanic
White, 1 in 3 would be Hispanic, 1 in 5 would be
Black, and 1 in 10 would be Asian and Pacific Islander.
* The middle series assumes that every year 4 of every 10
people added to the population through net immigration
would be Hispanic, 3 of every 10 would be Asian and
Pacific Islander, 2 in 10 would be non-Hispanic White,
and 1 in 10 would be Black.
* By 2000, the Nation's population is projected to be 5
million (2 percent) larger than it would have been if there
had been no net immigration after July 1, 1994. The
equivalent values for 2020 are 29 million (10 percent)
and for 2050, 80 million (25 percent).
MAJOR CHANGES FROM THE LAST REPORT
The projections shown here supersede the information
contained in Current Population Reports, Series P25-1104.
The methodology used to generate the projections in this
report is similar to that used for the earlier reports. How-ever,
the base population data and several assumptions
have changed.
Moreover, the age-specific fertility rates, total fertility
rates, and life expectancy statistics shown in this report
incorporate population denominators consistent with the
1990 census as enumerated. In addition to being more
consistent with the published population projections, they
more closely match similar statistics produced by the
National Center for Health Statistics or survey data. In
previous reports the published vital rates were based on
population denominators that were adjusted to incorporate
the 1990 census undercount as measured by Demo-graphic
Analysis.
Population Base Changes
Table A. Principal Fertility, Mortality, and Net Immi-gration
Assumptions in the Middle Series
Subject ...............................1995..... 2050
FERTILITY RATE (1)
Total................................ 2,055 .....2,245
White ............................... 1,984 .....2,230
Black ............................... 2,427 .....2,467
American Indian ..................... 2,151 .....2,165
Asian (3) ........................... 1,953 .....1,948
Hispanic origin (4) ................. 2,977 .....2,977
White, not Hispanic ................. 1,826 .....1,826
Black, not Hispanic ................. 2,398 .....2,398
American Indian, not Hispanic (2).... 2,114 .....2,114
Asian, not Hispanic 3 ............... 1,919 .....1,919
LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH (1)
Total................................ 75.9 ......82.0
White ............................... 76.8 .......84.0
Black ............................... 69.7 .......75.3
American Indian (2) ................. 76.2 .......82.5
Asian 3 ............................. 82.1 .......86.0
Hispanic origin (4) ................. 78.6 .......87.0
White, not Hispanic ................. 76.8 .......83.6
Black, not Hispanic ................. 69.4 .......74.2
American Indian, not Hispanic (2) ... 75.8 .......81.6
Asian, not Hispanic (3) ............. 82.3 .......86.0
YEARLY NET IMMIGRATION (thousands)
Total................................. 820 ........820
White ................................ 491 ........491
Black ................................. 90 .........90
American Indian (2) .................... 4 ..........4
Asian (3) ............................ 235 ........235
Hispanic origin (4) .................. 350 ........350
White, not Hispanic .................. 186 ........186
Black, not Hispanic ................... 57 .........57
American Indian, not Hispanic (2) ...... 1 ..........1
Asian, not Hispanic 3 ................ 226 ........226
(1) Method of calculating rates differs from that used in previous reports. See ''Major Changes From the Last Report'' for further information.
(2) American Indian represents American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut.
(3) Asian represents Asian and Pacific Islander.
(4) Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. The information on the total and Hispanic population shown in this report was collected in the 50 States and the District of Columbia and, therefore, does not include residents of Puerto Rico.
---------------------------End of Excerpt----------------------- |
