The Death/Loss Of Religion In America (2 Viewers)

[Yankee23Fan]

I do think the basic question is interesting and important for how the discussion might go.

Asking if something is good for society or good for America could be a different question than asking if something is good for the individual person. I suppose that gets into "common good" type things.

For this question, it seems best to keep it in the context of how it affects America. Is that what you're thinking @rockaction ?

Well, we've certainly Americanized a lot of it in the general macro sense, haven't we? I've been inside and a part of just about every size of church in my area from small to mega. Too many of us lean a little too hard into american capitalism in the way the church handles and asks for money. The infection of American politics into the church (which isn't new but has taken a very new offroad into insane in my opinion) has created an entity onto itself that exists for its own sake instead of to teach people what Christ said and how He said to follow Him (there was no politics, and a lot of seek out and love people different from you even if its inconvenient for you). The American character that we must win at all costs and uses war language in just about every avenue of life has bled into the church where any slight disagreement, debate, question, doubt or anything different from the "norm" is an attack on God, and the church must arm up and defend Christ (He doesn't need our help).

If you assume America right now is a country absorbed with selfishness, projected hatred and fear, and a winning is the most important thing type of mentality - and then you see that in the church of Jesus Christ who literally never said or condoned any of that - but taught absolute selflessness, said fear not, don't hate but love, and losing and being humble is better than winning and hurting another - of course that isn't good for America. One has to wonder if America is good for the church at the moment.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I write this with all due respect, so hopefully I'm not writing it in a way that offends anyone. But as an atheist, I couldn't vote anything but this is a good thing. Even aside from the problems of organized religion (and leaving aside weighing the pros and cons), believing in knowledge over mysticism (for lack of a better term) is a good thing. It's an advancement of society to have beliefs grounded in evidence and not faith in things that are not true.

I realize people disagree with that take. But having society believe in the truth and not believe in untruths is good (I think). And as an atheist, that means less religion is good.

This is another area where the church as a macro institution in the last 100 years or so, and the American version of Christianity specifically at the moment, has failed so miserably. The belief that science is the enemy of God is absurd. I don't know why my Christian brothers and sisters are falling into that trap and why, for everything holy, the church feeds it.

If we truly believe that there is a Creator God (and I do) then we must also believe that he created the very systems, and measurable events, causes and effects, that science measures, discovers and teaches. The anti-science God (at least for Christianity, I wouldn't speak for other religions) never existed. Shame on the church for feeding that particular lie to protect itself on some institutional basis, and shame on the pastors, priests, and congregants who spew that. When we wonder why people in the past 50 years are moving away from our church, this is one of the big ones. Any church that tells you to leave your brain at the door, ignore scientific truth and just accept your own ignorance covered in a blanket of faith for faith's sake isn't doing themselves or the collective church any favors.

I agree totally with your second paragraph, but I have to ask you the same question I've asked a couple of our non-believing friends. What churches do you go to where you encounter this? I have been a church-goer literally my entire life, and I never once encountered young-earth creationism or similar stuff in the wild. I know those beliefs exist in certain churches, but I think you're painting with far too broad a brush when you attribute anti-scientific attitudes to "the church."

Edit: On a somewhat related note, it will not surprise anybody to learn that college faculty score comparatively low on religiosity compared to others. But you know who I see in church all the time? STEM faculty. You literally never see modern language profs in church, but half your ME faculty might be there.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I write this with all due respect, so hopefully I'm not writing it in a way that offends anyone. But as an atheist, I couldn't vote anything but this is a good thing. Even aside from the problems of organized religion (and leaving aside weighing the pros and cons), believing in knowledge over mysticism (for lack of a better term) is a good thing. It's an advancement of society to have beliefs grounded in evidence and not faith in things that are not true.

I realize people disagree with that take. But having society believe in the truth and not believe in untruths is good (I think). And as an atheist, that means less religion is good.

This is another area where the church as a macro institution in the last 100 years or so, and the American version of Christianity specifically at the moment, has failed so miserably. The belief that science is the enemy of God is absurd. I don't know why my Christian brothers and sisters are falling into that trap and why, for everything holy, the church feeds it.

If we truly believe that there is a Creator God (and I do) then we must also believe that he created the very systems, and measurable events, causes and effects, that science measures, discovers and teaches. The anti-science God (at least for Christianity, I wouldn't speak for other religions) never existed. Shame on the church for feeding that particular lie to protect itself on some institutional basis, and shame on the pastors, priests, and congregants who spew that. When we wonder why people in the past 50 years are moving away from our church, this is one of the big ones. Any church that tells you to leave your brain at the door, ignore scientific truth and just accept your own ignorance covered in a blanket of faith for faith's sake isn't doing themselves or the collective church any favors.

I agree totally with your second paragraph, but I have to ask you the same question I've asked a couple of our non-believing friends. What churches do you go to where you encounter this? I have been a church-goer literally my entire life, and I never once encountered young-earth creationism or similar stuff in the wild. I know those beliefs exist in certain churches, but I think you're painting with far too broad a brush when you attribute anti-scientific attitudes to "the church."

It's a growing thing in evangelical circles here and I've encountered it first hand. It's more than just the belief that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old; though frankly that specific talk and topic doesn't come up much if at all. (And I will fully admit there was a time in my life where I would have argued it very well could be simply because if I believe in an all powerful creator God, then by definition sure He could have done it all 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and we just haven't figured out how yet. I don't hold to that - or frankly care - about it anymore.) There is a clear anti-science wing of the church, small issues and big. I don't know if I can do the answer justice within the confines of the rules here, so best I can say is that I've encountered it, been a leader who had to deal with it, been a target of attacks because of it, and lost a lot as a result of it because I wouldn't go along with it. Such is life.

I will also fully admit and agree that I am mostly speaking from my experience - though as I mentioned in my first post, this is a particular topic I study and keep up on. The anti-science stuff is real. And it's hurting the church for no reason.

 

[Scoresman]

When I think of rejection of science, I think of the whole anti-vaccine movement and it’s an example that is much more widespread than something like creationism. I don’t know if the anti-vaccine movement has any roots in religion though. Wouldn’t surprise me.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I write this with all due respect, so hopefully I'm not writing it in a way that offends anyone. But as an atheist, I couldn't vote anything but this is a good thing. Even aside from the problems of organized religion (and leaving aside weighing the pros and cons), believing in knowledge over mysticism (for lack of a better term) is a good thing. It's an advancement of society to have beliefs grounded in evidence and not faith in things that are not true.

I realize people disagree with that take. But having society believe in the truth and not believe in untruths is good (I think). And as an atheist, that means less religion is good.

This is another area where the church as a macro institution in the last 100 years or so, and the American version of Christianity specifically at the moment, has failed so miserably. The belief that science is the enemy of God is absurd. I don't know why my Christian brothers and sisters are falling into that trap and why, for everything holy, the church feeds it.

If we truly believe that there is a Creator God (and I do) then we must also believe that he created the very systems, and measurable events, causes and effects, that science measures, discovers and teaches. The anti-science God (at least for Christianity, I wouldn't speak for other religions) never existed. Shame on the church for feeding that particular lie to protect itself on some institutional basis, and shame on the pastors, priests, and congregants who spew that. When we wonder why people in the past 50 years are moving away from our church, this is one of the big ones. Any church that tells you to leave your brain at the door, ignore scientific truth and just accept your own ignorance covered in a blanket of faith for faith's sake isn't doing themselves or the collective church any favors.

I agree totally with your second paragraph, but I have to ask you the same question I've asked a couple of our non-believing friends. What churches do you go to where you encounter this? I have been a church-goer literally my entire life, and I never once encountered young-earth creationism or similar stuff in the wild. I know those beliefs exist in certain churches, but I think you're painting with far too broad a brush when you attribute anti-scientific attitudes to "the church."

It's a growing thing in evangelical circles here and I've encountered it first hand. It's more than just the belief that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old; though frankly that specific talk and topic doesn't come up much if at all. (And I will fully admit there was a time in my life where I would have argued it very well could be simply because if I believe in an all powerful creator God, then by definition sure He could have done it all 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and we just haven't figured out how yet. I don't hold to that - or frankly care - about it anymore.) There is a clear anti-science wing of the church, small issues and big. I don't know if I can do the answer justice within the confines of the rules here, so best I can say is that I've encountered it, been a leader who had to deal with it, been a target of attacks because of it, and lost a lot as a result of it because I wouldn't go along with it. Such is life.

I will also fully admit and agree that I am mostly speaking from my experience - though as I mentioned in my first post, this is a particular topic I study and keep up on. The anti-science stuff is real. And it's hurting the church for no reason.

Okay, fair enough. Like I mentioned earlier, I'm not completely ignorant of the evangelical community, but I can't say I've kept up with it at all. Also, I've never been a very engaged church member. Aside from serving on the odd committee here and there, I mostly just show up on Sunday and spend a lot of time thinking about things by myself. I'm a Midwesterner, but religiously I'm more like a New Englander that way. This is obviously driving why we have different experiences.

Anyway, I definitely agree with you on religion and science obviously.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

When I think of rejection of science, I think of the whole anti-vaccine movement and it’s an example that is much more widespread than something like creationism. I don’t know if the anti-vaccine movement has any roots in religion though. Wouldn’t surprise me.

That is certainly one of the bigger ones - all vaccines. As for where that started, I don't know but I think that great philosopher Bill Burr may be right - "I don't know why it is or what is going on but I'm pretty sure white women started it."

 

[Psychopav]

What do you think/did you vote?

I didn't vote, but I can't help but think that this has been a bad thing for America both morally and in terms of stability. With no central unifying theme, people are left to worship disparate things and have a different and non-unifying ethic driving their behaviors. Not only has monoculture died with technology, but religious culture is dying also. That's two big pillars that have fallen with one fell swoop -- and this has happened only in the past thirty years. Not only are we fragmented in our tastes in pursuits, but there is no unifying force for the body politic to agree upon.

I'd say society is much worse off for the absence of those two things. A shared culture might hold us together with a decreasing role for religion, but we have neither.

I think Nietzsche mourned the rationalist death of religion best in Europe a little before the turn of the 20th century. He posited that the death of God in the populace would lead to wars to end all wars. He announced that we had killed God and that we should be horrified at his death. That we had blood on our hands. I think something similar is happening in America. Given the history of 20th century Europe, the out-thereness yet striking accuracy of his prediction, and the resultant shocks that occurred, I don't think it bodes well for America.

Well said.

There's a good secular argument to be made that the decline of institutionalized religion is bad for the simple reason that it removes a foundational framework in which to debate right and wrong (and hence good and bad public policy).

Can't help but remind me of this Chesterton quote, which I have quoted here before:

“Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, "Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good--" At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.”

― G.K. Chesterton, Heretics

 

[Galileo]

I write this with all due respect, so hopefully I'm not writing it in a way that offends anyone. But as an atheist, I couldn't vote anything but this is a good thing. Even aside from the problems of organized religion (and leaving aside weighing the pros and cons), believing in knowledge over mysticism (for lack of a better term) is a good thing. It's an advancement of society to have beliefs grounded in evidence and not faith in things that are not true.

I realize people disagree with that take. But having society believe in the truth and not believe in untruths is good (I think). And as an atheist, that means less religion is good.

This is another area where the church as a macro institution in the last 100 years or so, and the American version of Christianity specifically at the moment, has failed so miserably. The belief that science is the enemy of God is absurd. I don't know why my Christian brothers and sisters are falling into that trap and why, for everything holy, the church feeds it.

If we truly believe that there is a Creator God (and I do) then we must also believe that he created the very systems, and measurable events, causes and effects, that science measures, discovers and teaches. The anti-science God (at least for Christianity, I wouldn't speak for other religions) never existed. Shame on the church for feeding that particular lie to protect itself on some institutional basis, and shame on the pastors, priests, and congregants who spew that. When we wonder why people in the past 50 years are moving away from our church, this is one of the big ones. Any church that tells you to leave your brain at the door, ignore scientific truth and just accept your own ignorance covered in a blanket of faith for faith's sake isn't doing themselves or the collective church any favors.

I agree totally with your second paragraph, but I have to ask you the same question I've asked a couple of our non-believing friends. What churches do you go to where you encounter this? I have been a church-goer literally my entire life, and I never once encountered young-earth creationism or similar stuff in the wild. I know those beliefs exist in certain churches, but I think you're painting with far too broad a brush when you attribute anti-scientific attitudes to "the church."

Edit: On a somewhat related note, it will not surprise anybody to learn that college faculty score comparatively low on religiosity compared to others. But you know who I see in church all the time? STEM faculty. You literally never see modern language profs in church, but half your ME faculty might be there.

Well, in all fairness, there is a fairly extensive history of anti-science and the church. Just ask..."me". And it only took about 360 years for the church to acknowledge they were in the wrong.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I write this with all due respect, so hopefully I'm not writing it in a way that offends anyone. But as an atheist, I couldn't vote anything but this is a good thing. Even aside from the problems of organized religion (and leaving aside weighing the pros and cons), believing in knowledge over mysticism (for lack of a better term) is a good thing. It's an advancement of society to have beliefs grounded in evidence and not faith in things that are not true.

I realize people disagree with that take. But having society believe in the truth and not believe in untruths is good (I think). And as an atheist, that means less religion is good.

This is another area where the church as a macro institution in the last 100 years or so, and the American version of Christianity specifically at the moment, has failed so miserably. The belief that science is the enemy of God is absurd. I don't know why my Christian brothers and sisters are falling into that trap and why, for everything holy, the church feeds it.

If we truly believe that there is a Creator God (and I do) then we must also believe that he created the very systems, and measurable events, causes and effects, that science measures, discovers and teaches. The anti-science God (at least for Christianity, I wouldn't speak for other religions) never existed. Shame on the church for feeding that particular lie to protect itself on some institutional basis, and shame on the pastors, priests, and congregants who spew that. When we wonder why people in the past 50 years are moving away from our church, this is one of the big ones. Any church that tells you to leave your brain at the door, ignore scientific truth and just accept your own ignorance covered in a blanket of faith for faith's sake isn't doing themselves or the collective church any favors.

Great post. I like to say that I have a lot of faith, it's just faith in science and logic. And there shouldn't be anything wrong with that or really make me incompatible with people with strong faith in religion/God.

But I think the biggest impediment to religion has actually been technology. Faith, by definition, means that you won't always see the "truth" or end result of your beliefs. And before the proliferation and globalization of mass consumer technology, most things needed to be taken with some faith, even matters of science, logic or "fact'. You didn't see a video or hear a recording of everything. You needed to trust that Walter Cronkite was telling the truth about a some scientific discovery or some racial unrest. There weren't always cameras everywhere. Now you see a video of George Floyd being choked to death by police officers. You don't need faith for those things anymore.

But religion still needs a lot of faith. There is no You tube video of Jesus walking on the water. There is no Tiktok called Introduction to Heaven.
Come to think of it, Tiktok would only have the Welcome to Hell version.

It's sad but the more you give people the ability to see and hear "truths" (and yes, there can be deep fakes), the less they need or appreciate faith in general.

 

[Mister CIA]

I love y'all.

 

[dgreen]

Also, people need to be more aware of the genres of literature contained in the Bible.

Why?

Also, do people need to be more aware of the Quran?
The Book of Mormon (the 1830 book, not the 2011 play)?
The Veda?
The Tripitaka?

If not, why not?

And that goes for both believers and skeptics.

Believers? Sure. By why in the world do skeptics need to be more aware of these "genres"?

I think genre is really important. You need to know if you're reading history or romance or poetry or science fiction or a newspaper article or satire or a textbook. Anyone who is going to interpret and develop an opinion on any work should know what genre the author intended. So, if a Christian wants to comment on the Quran, they should read and know what genre each part is. Same goes for a skeptic and the Bible. If an atheist is going to have an opinion on Genesis 1, it's best for them to know what genre it is. If it's not a science textbook then there's no need to analyze it from that perspective. "Genesis is wrong about the age of the Earth" doesn't discredit Genesis if it never intended to answer that question.

For example, if one reads Genesis 1 as if it's a historical narrative or a journalistic approach to the scientific facts of creation, it could lead to bad conclusions.

Could? I'd say it definitely does.

The believer might conclude that scientific discoveries are wrong when they contradict what they think is a historical telling of the creation events.

You can probably strike "might" from your contention. This happens. Sad but true.

As an Econ major, I had to write a lot of papers. I always tried to hedge against making an incorrect statement by using words like "could" or "might". I had a professor tell me to stop being writing with such little confidence and just make my statement and risk being wrong. I still have that flaw where I want to use language that allows me to get out of a statement I really want to make. In other words, I agree that those things happen and didn't need the "could" and "might".

The skeptic might conclude that it's all incorrect facts that must be ignored as nonsense that can't teach us some kind of truth.

And they'd be correct. Unless of course the skeptic in question believes in some other creed (e.g., Xenu, reincarnation, magic underwear).

As to "some kind of truth" what do you mean? The parables? Allegories for ...?

This goes back to my comment about genre, which is also another way of putting the focus on the original intent of the author. If the author wasn't trying to present historical, scientific facts, then I think it's incorrect to conclude that they've presented incorrect facts...because that was never their intent.

And, yes, I mean truths that can be learned from stories, even if those stories didn't happen the way they are described or maybe didn't happen at all. People can learn some important truths through parables and allegories.

There's some decent stuff in the Bible (haven't read it cover-to-cover, but I've read a little): 10 Commandments (if you strike 1 through 3 you've got a pretty good rules of the road), Psalms (if you like poetry), Sermon on the Mount's not bad.
But I think people can get the same basic understanding of how to behave from a much shorter book or pamphlet. Bible could have used an editor.

I agree. I'm guessing tons of people who have walked this planet didn't have much access to the Bible and yet they've learned that killing people is bad.

 

[culdeus]

Haven't read a lot in this thread, general feel is that it is a good thing.

Religion was a social house that did dual work of charity, and counseling. Prayer was a form of meditation, and comforting to many.

Now it is enriching itself, and turning people on eachother.

I'm sure there are still some good churches, and good people in churches but the overall message and mission is lost.

 

[Terminalxylem]

What do you think/did you vote?

I didn't vote, but I can't help but think that this has been a bad thing for America both morally and in terms of stability. With no central unifying theme, people are left to worship disparate things and have a different and non-unifying ethic driving their behaviors. Not only has monoculture died with technology, but religious culture is dying also. That's two big pillars that have fallen with one fell swoop -- and this has happened only in the past thirty years. Not only are we fragmented in our tastes in pursuits, but there is no unifying force for the body politic to agree upon.

I'd say society is much worse off for the absence of those two things. A shared culture might hold us together with a decreasing role for religion, but we have neither.

I think Nietzsche mourned the rationalist death of religion best in Europe a little before the turn of the 20th century. He posited that the death of God in the populace would lead to wars to end all wars. He announced that we had killed God and that we should be horrified at his death. That we had blood on our hands. I think something similar is happening in America. Given the history of 20th century Europe, the out-thereness yet striking accuracy of his prediction, and the resultant shocks that occurred, I don't think it bodes well for America.

Do you think there is something about the US that makes religion more important than largely irreligious places, like Scandinavia or Japan?

 

[Orange&Blue]

Seems to me that the decline in religion tracks with increases in literacy and education

That's not a coincidence

I'd like to see some math on that.

 

[Orange&Blue]

What do you think/did you vote?

I didn't vote, but I can't help but think that this has been a bad thing for America both morally and in terms of stability. With no central unifying theme, people are left to worship disparate things and have a different and non-unifying ethic driving their behaviors. Not only has monoculture died with technology, but religious culture is dying also. That's two big pillars that have fallen with one fell swoop -- and this has happened only in the past thirty years. Not only are we fragmented in our tastes in pursuits, but there is no unifying force for the body politic to agree upon.

I'd say society is much worse off for the absence of those two things. A shared culture might hold us together with a decreasing role for religion, but we have neither.

I think Nietzsche mourned the rationalist death of religion best in Europe a little before the turn of the 20th century. He posited that the death of God in the populace would lead to wars to end all wars. He announced that we had killed God and that we should be horrified at his death. That we had blood on our hands. I think something similar is happening in America. Given the history of 20th century Europe, the out-thereness yet striking accuracy of his prediction, and the resultant shocks that occurred, I don't think it bodes well for America.

Do you think there is something about the US that makes religion more important than largely irreligious places, like Scandinavia or Japan?

Japanese/Japan isn't irreligious.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I write this with all due respect, so hopefully I'm not writing it in a way that offends anyone. But as an atheist, I couldn't vote anything but this is a good thing. Even aside from the problems of organized religion (and leaving aside weighing the pros and cons), believing in knowledge over mysticism (for lack of a better term) is a good thing. It's an advancement of society to have beliefs grounded in evidence and not faith in things that are not true.

I realize people disagree with that take. But having society believe in the truth and not believe in untruths is good (I think). And as an atheist, that means less religion is good.

This is another area where the church as a macro institution in the last 100 years or so, and the American version of Christianity specifically at the moment, has failed so miserably. The belief that science is the enemy of God is absurd. I don't know why my Christian brothers and sisters are falling into that trap and why, for everything holy, the church feeds it.

If we truly believe that there is a Creator God (and I do) then we must also believe that he created the very systems, and measurable events, causes and effects, that science measures, discovers and teaches. The anti-science God (at least for Christianity, I wouldn't speak for other religions) never existed. Shame on the church for feeding that particular lie to protect itself on some institutional basis, and shame on the pastors, priests, and congregants who spew that. When we wonder why people in the past 50 years are moving away from our church, this is one of the big ones. Any church that tells you to leave your brain at the door, ignore scientific truth and just accept your own ignorance covered in a blanket of faith for faith's sake isn't doing themselves or the collective church any favors.

well put. both of you

 

[DA RAIDERS]

What do you think/did you vote?

I didn't vote, but I can't help but think that this has been a bad thing for America both morally and in terms of stability. With no central unifying theme, people are left to worship disparate things and have a different and non-unifying ethic driving their behaviors. Not only has monoculture died with technology, but religious culture is dying also. That's two big pillars that have fallen with one fell swoop -- and this has happened only in the past thirty years. Not only are we fragmented in our tastes in pursuits, but there is no unifying force for the body politic to agree upon.

I'd say society is much worse off for the absence of those two things. A shared culture might hold us together with a decreasing role for religion, but we have neither.

I think Nietzsche mourned the rationalist death of religion best in Europe a little before the turn of the 20th century. He posited that the death of God in the populace would lead to wars to end all wars. He announced that we had killed God and that we should be horrified at his death. That we had blood on our hands. I think something similar is happening in America. Given the history of 20th century Europe, the out-thereness yet striking accuracy of his prediction, and the resultant shocks that occurred, I don't think it bodes well for America.

Do you think there is something about the US that makes religion more important than largely irreligious places, like Scandinavia or Japan?

Japanese/Japan isn't irreligious.

here we go...

 

[Terminalxylem]

What do you think/did you vote?

I didn't vote, but I can't help but think that this has been a bad thing for America both morally and in terms of stability. With no central unifying theme, people are left to worship disparate things and have a different and non-unifying ethic driving their behaviors. Not only has monoculture died with technology, but religious culture is dying also. That's two big pillars that have fallen with one fell swoop -- and this has happened only in the past thirty years. Not only are we fragmented in our tastes in pursuits, but there is no unifying force for the body politic to agree upon.

I'd say society is much worse off for the absence of those two things. A shared culture might hold us together with a decreasing role for religion, but we have neither.

I think Nietzsche mourned the rationalist death of religion best in Europe a little before the turn of the 20th century. He posited that the death of God in the populace would lead to wars to end all wars. He announced that we had killed God and that we should be horrified at his death. That we had blood on our hands. I think something similar is happening in America. Given the history of 20th century Europe, the out-thereness yet striking accuracy of his prediction, and the resultant shocks that occurred, I don't think it bodes well for America.

Do you think there is something about the US that makes religion more important than largely irreligious places, like Scandinavia or Japan?

Japanese/Japan isn't irreligious.

here we go...

You’d think I’d learn my lesson from the other threads. Forget I even mentioned the “J” word.

 

[zoonation]

“Religion poisons everything”

-Hitchens

 

[Galileo]

Seems to me that the decline in religion tracks with increases in literacy and education

That's not a coincidence

I'd like to see some math on that.

Have some faith...

 

[SoBeDad]

Is there a relationship between the loss of religion in America and the increase in no party affiliation? I think there is and my interpretation is that younger people and new voters are saying what have you done for me lately.

The big decrease in the rate of poverty and increase in educational attainment and availability of knowledge (internet) has reduced the perceived need for religion.

 

[Steeler]

I’m a cradle catholic who was an altar boy (never propositioned by a priest ), then stopped going to church in college, then began attending church again when I got married, then was mad at God my daughter was born with special needs, and the pedophile priest scandal was the final straw and I stopped going to church for years.

But at the end of last year, I started going back to church and this year I started reading the Bible for the first time in my life (bible in a year podcast). One of the driving forces behind my return to church/God is that society, in my estimation, has moved too far away from too many traditional things. I guess I'm trying to find grounding in something more solid. I hardly ever posted in the political forum when it was around but I have strong political beliefs and the chasm between left and right felt like (and still feels like) it’s insurmountable. I hope that doesn’t cross the line on the “no politics” front, but it’s pretty general and I think everyone agrees. So I voted “bad” for America because I’m personally returning to faith/God and I think it would benefit society in general.

On this journey I have come across some interesting things on the science vs God debate. I’m posting these because I found the conversation interesting, not trying to persuade anyone (ignore the title of the first video ).

Discussion of the complexity of cells: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMzqA4XNxtw

Joe Rogan podcast #2008 with Stephen C. Meyer - I haven’t listened to the whole Rogan podcast and you can find snippets of this discussion on YouTube

 

[BeTheMatch]

There seems to be a pretty tight correlation between what religion a person observes and the religion their parents follow. Maybe not 100%, but pretty darn close.

I'd suggest that matters. Very few people choose a religion; more often it is chosen for them. Again, there are exceptions, but the rule seems to be inculcation.

I got really into religion and took many classes on it in college and IIRC correctly the bold is very much supported by polling data and statistical studies.

To be honest, that's one of my major beefs with organized religion. They all seem like some form of brainwashing or cult to me, where everyone just goes to the same place their parents took them as kids without thinking about what's going on.

I went through confirmation as a Lutheran, and it all seems like such over-the-top indoctrination where all the kids stand up and repeat the same words and phrases and have all these consequences for any different thoughts.

They're doing everything they can to rope in paying customers for life. That's all it seems like to me.

I really, really don't get it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I agree totally with your second paragraph, but I have to ask you the same question I've asked a couple of our non-believing friends. What churches do you go to where you encounter this? I have been a church-goer literally my entire life, and I never once encountered young-earth creationism or similar stuff in the wild. I know those beliefs exist in certain churches, but I think you're painting with far too broad a brush when you attribute anti-scientific attitudes to "the church."

This is how I see it as well.

My faith is an important part of my life. I don't claim to have the deep knowledge of church and Christian behavior across America as @Yankee23Fan but this is something that's important to me and something that's a big part of my life and I think about, read about and discuss it a lot.

I also think it's important to acknowledge actual experiences. As Yankeefan said, he's had some particularly negative personal experiences there and I'm sorry for that. I think it's natural he'd feel the way he does.

But I feel my experiences are valid in how I see it as well. I am way more like @IvanKaramazov in I just don't see the dominant widespread broad brush "anti-science" activism in "the church". I haven't remotely heard a discussion about "Young" or "Old" Earth in 15 years. Maybe it's because in my area of East Tennessee adjacent to Oak Ridge National Labs and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and their Nuclear Energy programs, I encounter a lot of Christians who are not just not "anti-science", but actual scientists. And engineers. And physicians and surgeons. My best friend is a physician.

My pastor friends take a scholarly view of their work translating from Greek and thinking deeply on issues. I know there are plenty of clips on youtube showing pastors seemingly not doing this. I'm speaking to what I've seen in my personal experience.

And to be clear, my very old and conservative and fairly large Presbyterian church is very much in the mainstream.

We are not some fringe upstart. Our members include former US congressmen and governors and attorney generals. I can think of one time in the 25 years I've been there that a political reference was made from the pulpit and that was a rebuke for our audience related to Donald Trump. We pray at the beginning of every service for wisdom and discernment for the President and that's been done the exact same way with the same words for every president since Bill Clinton when I started going there. There are very intentionally no US flags displayed prominently and especially not on stage. (We are not going to be political in this thread but my point is my old, large, mainstream southern church and my experience is adamantly and intentionally anti-political.)

So while I'm not doubting some of the anti-science or pro-political attitudes exist, I've seen the opposite of that in my very mainstream conservative church experience.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Also, to make sure I am super clear. For sure, my church miles away from being perfect. I hope I was clear on that. We make mistakes regularly.

My particular point was in my experience, I have not seen the broad brush, anti-science or pro political attitude personally. In fact, I’ve experienced the opposite.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I agree totally with your second paragraph, but I have to ask you the same question I've asked a couple of our non-believing friends. What churches do you go to where you encounter this? I have been a church-goer literally my entire life, and I never once encountered young-earth creationism or similar stuff in the wild. I know those beliefs exist in certain churches, but I think you're painting with far too broad a brush when you attribute anti-scientific attitudes to "the church."

This is how I see it as well.

My faith is an important part of my life. I don't claim to have the deep knowledge of church and Christian behavior across America as @Yankee23Fan but this is something that's important to me and something that's a big part of my life and I think about, read about and discuss it a lot.

I also think it's important to acknowledge actual experiences. As Yankeefan said, he's had some particularly negative personal experiences there and I'm sorry for that. I think it's natural he'd feel the way he does.

But I feel my experiences are valid in how I see it as well. I am way more like @IvanKaramazov in I just don't see the dominant widespread broad brush "anti-science" activism in "the church". I haven't remotely heard a discussion about "Young" or "Old" Earth in 15 years. Maybe it's because in my area of East Tennessee adjacent to Oak Ridge National Labs and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and their Nuclear Energy programs, I encounter a lot of Christians who are not just not "anti-science", but actual scientists. And engineers. And physicians and surgeons. My best friend is a physician.

My pastor friends take a scholarly view of their work translating from Greek and thinking deeply on issues. I know there are plenty of clips on youtube showing pastors seemingly not doing this. I'm speaking to what I've seen in my personal experience.

And to be clear, my very old and conservative and fairly large Presbyterian church is very much in the mainstream.

We are not some fringe upstart. Our members include former US congressmen and governors and attorney generals. I can think of one time in the 25 years I've been there that a political reference was made from the pulpit and that was a rebuke for our audience related to Donald Trump. We pray at the beginning of every service for wisdom and discernment for the President and that's been done the exact same way with the same words for every president since Bill Clinton when I started going there. There are very intentionally no US flags displayed prominently and especially not on stage. (We are not going to be political in this thread but my point is my old, large, mainstream southern church and my experience is adamantly and intentionally anti-political.)

So while I'm not doubting some of the anti-science or pro-political attitudes exist, I've seen the opposite of that in my very mainstream conservative church experience.

I remember when my church was anti political. It was awesome.

 

[kupcho1]

Seems to me that the decline in religion tracks with increases in literacy and education

That's not a coincidence

I'd like to see some math on that.

lim x → a f ( x ) g ( x ) = f ′ ( a ) g ′ ( a )

Seriously though, instead of math, how about a report from the Pew Research Center? I think they have a reputation for being relatively unbiased and their mission is to "inform the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world."

In America, Does More Education Equal Less Religion?

The conclusion is right in the subtitle: Overall, U.S. adults with college degrees are less religious than others, but this pattern does not hold among Christians

The "majority of American adults (71%) identify as Christians. And among Christians, those with higher levels of education appear to be just as religious as those with less schooling, on average."
However, I would contend that this is a somewhat misleading conclusion as it is "among Christians", given the indoctrination (I won't go so far as others in the thread that refer to it as "brainwashing") that takes place at childhood for most, if not all of these highly educated Christians. It takes time to throw off irrationality (i.e., an overreliance on faith). And that's about as far as supporting evidence for increasing literacy & education <> decline in religiosity goes.

From Pew:
"Looking at the U.S. public as a whole, however, the answer to the question of whether more education is correlated with less religion appears to be yes. Among all U.S. adults, college graduates are considerably less likely than those who have less education to say religion is “very important” in their lives: Fewer than half of college graduates (46%) say this, compared with nearly six-in-ten of those with no more than a high school education (58%)."

I guess statistics = math, so there you go. Here's some more math:

"Highly educated Americans also are less inclined than others to say they believe in God with absolute certainty and to pray on a daily basis. And, when asked about their religious identity, college graduates are more likely than others to describe themselves as atheists or agnostics (11% of college grads vs. 4% of U.S. adults with a high school education or less)."

One odd (at least to me) finding is w/r/t church attendance:
"At the same time, Americans with college degrees are no less likely than others to report attending religious services on a weekly basis. Roughly a third of U.S. adults with college degrees (36%) say they attend a house of worship at least weekly, about the same as the share of those with some college (34%) and those with a high school diploma or less education (37%) who say they attend services once a week or more."

So regardless of education level, hardly anyone attends church anymore. Perhaps this captures the move to "spirituality"?

There's a lot more in the article and I'm not going to address all of it. But I did want to leave off with one last finding:
"[T]hose at the lowest end of the educational spectrum (i.e., people who did not finish high school) stand out for especially high levels of religious observance by some measures, such as the self-described importance of religion in their lives, further supporting the idea that more education is connected with lower levels of religiosity among the U.S. public overall. "

Lastly, I'm not going to go all @rockaction here ("I'm not your lapdog. Post something contradictory if you feel like it") but if you've got math to the contrary, feel free to post it. (Sorry GB, I couldn't resist.)

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Seems to me that the decline in religion tracks with increases in literacy and education

That's not a coincidence

And the countries that seem to be the most religious which IMHO is the Middle East, seems to be where we have the most problems.
-But let's leave politics OUT of it, focusing on what you wrote, very strong argument can be made supporting your statement.
-I was born Catholic and went to Sunday School/Mass and then as I gained more intelligence I started to ask more questions and by the time I reached high school I didn't want to attend any longer. The only way they could entice me was thru music, I learned several instruments while attending church but then once I made it to 18/college there was no going back. In my adult life, I've been but a handful of times to a Sunday mass.

And to be clear, I do believe there was a man 2,000 years ago that caused a great stir but the leap of faith required on some of his miracles, it starts to approach a Grimm and that's where I check out. But I do think someone was asking questions way back then and was dealt with as any heretic of that era was that claimed they were the Son of God.

Good post, agree mostly with where you make that connection between educated/intellectual and blind faith/religion.
It should be noted though, there are many Christians and people of faith throughout all parts of our society. You might be shocked how many doctors at the hospitals believe in religion or the bible or Jesus Christ, don't kid yourself.

 

[pollardsvision]

Back in the early 2000s, we spent a lot of time debating whether religion was a positive or negative for society, on net. Over the next two decades, traditional religiosity dropped off quite a bit. Has society gotten healthier during that time, or did it get crazy?

I think it has a whole lot to do with the rise of social media, and very little to do with the decline of traditional religiosity.

Humans cannot handle social media.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Back in the early 2000s, we spent a lot of time debating whether religion was a positive or negative for society, on net. Over the next two decades, traditional religiosity dropped off quite a bit. Has society gotten healthier during that time, or did it get crazy?

I think it has a whole lot to do with the rise of social media, and very little to do with the decline of traditional religiosity.

Humans cannot handle social media.

The craziness I see is usually Evangelicals whose emotions and sensibilities have been provoked by social media. I'm not saying that's the only craziness to exist, but to imply that the craziness is because of a lack of religion is out of touch.

 

[Captain Cranks]

To answer the OP, religion as is practiced in this country, as a whole, is an impediment to inclusion and acceptance of others (Your personal mileage may vary).

 

[Navin Johnson]

Back in the early 2000s, we spent a lot of time debating whether religion was a positive or negative for society, on net. Over the next two decades, traditional religiosity dropped off quite a bit. Has society gotten healthier during that time, or did it get crazy?

I think it has a whole lot to do with the rise of social media, and very little to do with the decline of traditional religiosity.

Humans cannot handle social media.

The craziness I see is usually Evangelicals whose emotions and sensibilities have been provoked by social media. I'm not saying that's the only craziness to exist, but to imply that the craziness is because of a lack of religion is out of touch.

Provoked is a pretty generous way of putting it.

 

[Steeler]

I'm not trying to cast aspersions on anyone so please don't take it that way. Also, I think this is broad enough to not get into the political arena, but if I'm wrong we can just delete this post.

I'm sure this isn't a new idea, but I've been toying with this idea of politics as a replacement for religion - especially since that was one of the things I replaced religion with when I wasn't attending church.

If we broadly define religion as a guide for behavior and thinking (morals) - can we then also define politics in the same way? For example, people on the left or right have different beliefs on a variety of topics which also dictate how they might act in certain situations.

If that's true, then can we say non-believers have replaced religion with the pseudo-religion embodied by their political beliefs? Heck, even people who still consider themselves believers might fall into this category based on their actions.

So the absence of religion isn't the absence of morals. It's just that a different set of morals is being used as the guardrails of society. And that can be good or bad depending on your POV.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Back in the early 2000s, we spent a lot of time debating whether religion was a positive or negative for society, on net. Over the next two decades, traditional religiosity dropped off quite a bit. Has society gotten healthier during that time, or did it get crazy?

I think it has a whole lot to do with the rise of social media, and very little to do with the decline of traditional religiosity.

Humans cannot handle social media.

I think social media sped up the process of forming our new political pseudo-religions, so it certainly served as a catalyst for this. And most things in real life are not monocausal, so I'm completely good with assigning some causal blame to social media as well. But I also think it's pretty obvious that a large chunk of the population has essentially replaced traditional religious beliefs with one of the neo-religions.

I was here for the Great Atheism Debates of the early 2000s and I've updated my priors in the meantime. Folks like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris argued that society would become more logical, more rational, and more science-y if we moved away from religion. Well, we did move away from religion. If you look around at society right now, and you feel like society is healthier and more rational today than it was 25 years ago, great. Keep voting for the same leaders, and keep promoting the same people to run your institutions. Keep heading in the same direction if you think it's working out for you.

I respect people like Dawkins and Harris a lot, because they seem pretty clear-eyed about all of this. They're very bright people who place an extremely high value on being factually right about things. I totally understand where they were coming from. Drawing from their own experience, they reasoned that they discarded religion and they embraced science, so therefore other people who discard religion will also embrace science. You can see why they would think that. It's an intuitively appealing concept. But we've run this experiment and we know what actually happened. Most people aren't like Daniel Dennett. When they dispense with religion, they don't turn to book-length arguments about the philosophy of the mind as a substitute. Instead, they get into conspiracy theories and anti-scientific woo.

If you disagree, no problem. I'm probably in a position similar to that of @Yankee23Fan in the sense that certain things that others might not see that often are right in my face day-in and day-out.

 

[Captain Cranks]

When they dispense with religion, they don't turn to book-length arguments about the philosophy of the mind as a substitute. Instead, they get into conspiracy theories and anti-scientific woo.

I won't link the article out of respect for keeping this apolitical, but an Economist poll of those most likely to believe in conspiracy theories consistently showed Christians far more likely than Atheists to believe by a factor of 2-4X.

 

[The Commish]

I write this with all due respect, so hopefully I'm not writing it in a way that offends anyone. But as an atheist, I couldn't vote anything but this is a good thing. Even aside from the problems of organized religion (and leaving aside weighing the pros and cons), believing in knowledge over mysticism (for lack of a better term) is a good thing. It's an advancement of society to have beliefs grounded in evidence and not faith in things that are not true.

I realize people disagree with that take. But having society believe in the truth and not believe in untruths is good (I think). And as an atheist, that means less religion is good.

This is another area where the church as a macro institution in the last 100 years or so, and the American version of Christianity specifically at the moment, has failed so miserably. The belief that science is the enemy of God is absurd. I don't know why my Christian brothers and sisters are falling into that trap and why, for everything holy, the church feeds it.

If we truly believe that there is a Creator God (and I do) then we must also believe that he created the very systems, and measurable events, causes and effects, that science measures, discovers and teaches. The anti-science God (at least for Christianity, I wouldn't speak for other religions) never existed. Shame on the church for feeding that particular lie to protect itself on some institutional basis, and shame on the pastors, priests, and congregants who spew that. When we wonder why people in the past 50 years are moving away from our church, this is one of the big ones. Any church that tells you to leave your brain at the door, ignore scientific truth and just accept your own ignorance covered in a blanket of faith for faith's sake isn't doing themselves or the collective church any favors.

 

[The Commish]

I write this with all due respect, so hopefully I'm not writing it in a way that offends anyone. But as an atheist, I couldn't vote anything but this is a good thing. Even aside from the problems of organized religion (and leaving aside weighing the pros and cons), believing in knowledge over mysticism (for lack of a better term) is a good thing. It's an advancement of society to have beliefs grounded in evidence and not faith in things that are not true.

I realize people disagree with that take. But having society believe in the truth and not believe in untruths is good (I think). And as an atheist, that means less religion is good.

This is another area where the church as a macro institution in the last 100 years or so, and the American version of Christianity specifically at the moment, has failed so miserably. The belief that science is the enemy of God is absurd. I don't know why my Christian brothers and sisters are falling into that trap and why, for everything holy, the church feeds it.

If we truly believe that there is a Creator God (and I do) then we must also believe that he created the very systems, and measurable events, causes and effects, that science measures, discovers and teaches. The anti-science God (at least for Christianity, I wouldn't speak for other religions) never existed. Shame on the church for feeding that particular lie to protect itself on some institutional basis, and shame on the pastors, priests, and congregants who spew that. When we wonder why people in the past 50 years are moving away from our church, this is one of the big ones. Any church that tells you to leave your brain at the door, ignore scientific truth and just accept your own ignorance covered in a blanket of faith for faith's sake isn't doing themselves or the collective church any favors.

I agree totally with your second paragraph, but I have to ask you the same question I've asked a couple of our non-believing friends. What churches do you go to where you encounter this? I have been a church-goer literally my entire life, and I never once encountered young-earth creationism or similar stuff in the wild. I know those beliefs exist in certain churches, but I think you're painting with far too broad a brush when you attribute anti-scientific attitudes to "the church."

Edit: On a somewhat related note, it will not surprise anybody to learn that college faculty score comparatively low on religiosity compared to others. But you know who I see in church all the time? STEM faculty. You literally never see modern language profs in church, but half your ME faculty might be there.

Hard NOT to find this sort of thing on the eastern seaboard/southeast. I've seen it, consistently, all the way from Appalachia down here to Florida. I can't speak to the rest of the country though, so it may be that my anecdotal twist of fate plops me in the middle of the highly concentrated (yet relatively small compared to the rest) group that believes these sorts of things.

 

[dgreen]

The more I think about it, I'm not sure anti-science is the right label. I see it more as anti-anything-that-seemingly-contradicts-scripture. Yes, many times that's something in the world of science but it doesn't have to be. A phrase I've heard a ton during my church life is "It [the Bible] means what it says and says what it means." There's this idea out there that the Bible is easy to interpret and - despite being separated by thousands of years, culture, and language - I should be able to read my 21st Century American English version and easily understand exactly what's going on.

The idea is that whenever something new goes against that straight forward understanding of what the Bible obviously says, then it must be that new thing that's wrong. Obviously my interpretation of the Bible isn't wrong. In fact, I'm not even interpreting it; I'm simply reading it for what it clearly says and anyone who sees it differently lacks faith.

 

[Scoresman]

To answer the OP, religion as is practiced in this country, as a whole, is an impediment to inclusion and acceptance of others (Your personal mileage may vary).

It's easy to paint a broad brush like this, but sometimes I wonder how much of this is true. I feel like I could walk into most Christian churches and be welcomed and included.

Now, if you're gay/trans/pro-choice/etc. maybe it gets dicey but outside of the fringes, would they really be unwelcome?

 

[TripItUp]

I put neutral because there are pros and cons IMHO.

Pros - abortion issue, gay rights, the country's slow move to the political left and increased focus on the environment

Cons - cotinued degradation of the nuclear family, general erosion of morals and values(ten commandents), loss of community, the country's slow move to the political left and its harm on the economy and eventually global destabilization

 

[Joe Bryant]

I remember when my church was anti political. It was awesome.

Thanks GB. That feels like something we should explore more.

I do think it's an interesting thing.

Some random thoughts. (and I know you know all this stuff @Yankee23Fan , I'm mostly just thinking out loud)

There's a ton of talk in the Old Testament about nations (usually Israel) and how they did as a country under the leadership of the King. There's very much a vibe of a nation operating in accordance with or rebelling against God. And you get the clear impression it's a big deal for the nation to conduct itself in accordance with God.

So it's not a huge jump for citizens of our country to draw a parallel between now and then and want our nation to be in accordance with God. I get it.

But a few points.

1. The United States is not Israel. If you believe the bible, Israel and its people have a sacred relationship with God. As shocking as it seems, to the best of my knowledge, there's no mention of the United States of America in the Bible.

2. While there's a lot of talk about nations and governments operating in accordance with and pleasing God in the Old Testament. But in the New Testament, not so much. (Not to go Sunday School, but for folks that didn't know, the Old Testament is basically time before Jesus and the New Testament starts with Jesus and the four books (called the Gospels) about his life and then letters from church leaders to churches with instruction on how to operate).

3. Jesus lived in a time when the government where he lived was opposed to what he was doing. Being a Christian in Jesus' time meant to be literally persecuted. Not having to deal with the horror of "Happy Holidays" on your coffee cup.

Yet Jesus taught very little about government or politics. And what he did say was pretty clearly not overly involved in politics. when he was questioned about if one should honor the government and pay taxes, he said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." And it's not like he was just chill and didn't criticize anything. Jesus was extremely critical of the church leadership.

TL;DR version: Jesus didn't seem very political.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Another point on the non-political idea of Christianity.

Yes, it's been effective in the past. Much of the Civil Rights advances were closely tied to churches. Dr. Martin Luther King, of course, was a pastor. In the days before social media, churches were incredibly influential in gathering people and organizing and helping things move in a good direction.

But that feels like an exception.

For the past 50 years or longer, there just doesn't seem (at least to me) any good reason to mix church and politics. I think my church has it exactly right.

I think my church is similar to the Free For All in that regard (didn't have typing those words on my agenda this morning. ) Meaning I know for sure there are lots of people that have a strong opinion on politics here (and in my church), but those opinions aren't something we let bleed over to main thing we're doing.

I think one might could make the purely practical business case (which churches aren't really supposed to focus on I guess) that keeping a church anti-poliitcal is good for business as you don't alienate and exclude people. Same as I see our business of Footballguys.

I've talked here in the forum about how I've voted for the Democrat presidential candidate in every election since Bill Clinton's first term. But this group is more intimate. I wouldn't talk about that in an email to our entire Footballguys email list. There's just no upside to it. And lots of downside. I'd guess our customer base voted about like the general population in the last election. Meaning there were a ton of our folks who voted for the Republican candidate. And I love that they have the freedom to vote for whoever they like.

So back more to @Yankee23Fan 's point about how his church was better when it was non political, I think lots if not all churches would be better being non Political.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm not trying to cast aspersions on anyone so please don't take it that way. Also, I think this is broad enough to not get into the political arena, but if I'm wrong we can just delete this post.

I'm sure this isn't a new idea, but I've been toying with this idea of politics as a replacement for religion - especially since that was one of the things I replaced religion with when I wasn't attending church.

If we broadly define religion as a guide for behavior and thinking (morals) - can we then also define politics in the same way? For example, people on the left or right have different beliefs on a variety of topics which also dictate how they might act in certain situations.

If that's true, then can we say non-believers have replaced religion with the pseudo-religion embodied by their political beliefs? Heck, even people who still consider themselves believers might fall into this category based on their actions.

So the absence of religion isn't the absence of morals. It's just that a different set of morals is being used as the guardrails of society. And that can be good or bad depending on your POV.

For sure. I think a lot of folks today see politics as a sort of "religion". Humans are wired I think to associate with others in their "tribes" and for a great many folks, politics offers a huge opportunity for that.

 

[Captain Cranks]

To answer the OP, religion as is practiced in this country, as a whole, is an impediment to inclusion and acceptance of others (Your personal mileage may vary).

It's easy to paint a broad brush like this, but sometimes I wonder how much of this is true. I feel like I could walk into most Christian churches and be welcomed and included.

Now, if you're gay/trans/pro-choice/etc. maybe it gets dicey but outside of the fringes, would they really be unwelcome?

Would they be unwelcome? No. It's their shtick to want people in the church. Would they be accepted as they are? In this poll, 68% of white Evangelicals feel acceptance of transgender people has gone too far, up from 61% in 2017.

Pew Research Poll

 

[Joe Bryant]

Presbyterians don't have a Pope but if we did, I think it would have been Tim Keller.

He consistently put into words how I think it's best to be a Christian.

This one is about 10 minutes long but he speaks about how Evangelism in the 21st century. It's about 12 years old but I think still relevant.

Tim Keller on evangelism in the 21st century

Tim Keller, founder and senior pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, talks about evangelism and contextualising the gospel for the 21st ce...

youtu.be

 

[Joe Bryant]

This one is about 30 minutes long from about 6 years ago, but I think he speaks well here on how the Christian attitude toward racism should be and "corporate evil". Corporate there meaning a group of people. Not Apple or Exxon

Racism and Corporate Evil: A White Guy’s Perspective – Tim Keller

If we don’t get what the Bible says about corporate evil, we won’t only misunderstand the Bible, but we won’t understand our non-white brothers and sisters’ ...

youtu.be

 

[Jayrod]

There is a lot in this thread to discuss.

Here is some thoughts I'm having:

1. It is impossible to separate what we deem to be "morality" from Judeo-Christian teaching as it is the foundation of what is deemed moral in Western society. Most of what every single one of us think is right and wrong comes from Biblical and specifically Christian teachings, whether you believe in the Bible or not.
2. Jesus was decidedly non-political and I'd argue even a little anti-political.
3. What we most often think of as "religion" is a bad thing and Jesus preached against it regularly.
4. Rejecting "religion" being equal to rejecting theism, and specifically Christianity is a bad thing in my opinion. Without moorings, morality will eventually go adrift as is being seen with the breakdown of the family unit and decline in mental health across the board.

 

[Captain Cranks]

There is a lot in this thread to discuss.

Here is some thoughts I'm having:

1. It is impossible to separate what we deem to be "morality" from Judeo-Christian teaching as it is the foundation of what is deemed moral in Western society. Most of what every single one of us think is right and wrong comes from Biblical and specifically Christian teachings, whether you believe in the Bible or not.
2. Jesus was decidedly non-political and I'd argue even a little anti-political.
3. What we most often think of as "religion" is a bad thing and Jesus preached against it regularly.
4. Rejecting "religion" being equal to rejecting theism, and specifically Christianity is a bad thing in my opinion. Without moorings, morality will eventually go adrift as is being seen with the breakdown of the family unit and decline in mental health across the board.

I won't jack up the thread any further, but 1 and 4 are complete nonsense.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't have much to add on this point, but I did want to chime in just to say that I agree with Joe and Jayrod on Jesus being non-political/anti-political. Clearly Jesus wants us to be kind toward children, widows, immigrants, lepers, etc. -- outsiders in general. Aside from that, I don't think it's possible to read the NT in good faith and come away with the impression that Jesus would support your political party, any more than he would support your favorite sports franchise.* It's just not there, and honestly I tend to tune out people who argue otherwise.

*God certainly doesn't seem to be favorably disposed to my favorite team. :(

 

[Navin Johnson]

There is a lot in this thread to discuss.

Here is some thoughts I'm having:

1. It is impossible to separate what we deem to be "morality" from Judeo-Christian teaching as it is the foundation of what is deemed moral in Western society. Most of what every single one of us think is right and wrong comes from Biblical and specifically Christian teachings, whether you believe in the Bible or not.
2. Jesus was decidedly non-political and I'd argue even a little anti-political.
3. What we most often think of as "religion" is a bad thing and Jesus preached against it regularly.
4. Rejecting "religion" being equal to rejecting theism, and specifically Christianity is a bad thing in my opinion. Without moorings, morality will eventually go adrift as is being seen with the breakdown of the family unit and decline in mental health across the board.

The presupposition that morality is tied to/based on Judeo-Christian values is just nonsense.