The Death/Loss Of Religion In America (1 Viewer)

[Captain Cranks]

Slavery - I don't believe the Bible "condones" it as in endorsement. It deals with it as a reality. Jesus never said a word about it and Paul gives practical instructions to those that are involved in it (slaves and owners). The end of slavery in the world was kicked off by the abolitionist movement beginning in Christian Europe in the late 1700's following the Enlightenment and strongly driven by the Quakers and other evangelic Christian groups. If you lived at any time prior to that, you wouldn't have likely had any qualms at all about slavery as it was practiced everywhere in every culture. Now we see it as abuse of fellow humanity and that all humans are worthy of equal honor and respect. This is a very uniquely Christian idea that came about through the teachings of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit.

I don't believe the bolded is true. This article discusses how attempts to abolish slavery happened in Ancient China as early as 200 BCE.

 

[Steeler]

But is really beside my main point, which was just contradicting the notion that Christians have to suppress their religious morals in politics whereas non-believers are free to assert their non-religious beliefs. Its a concept that is for me the complete opposite of reality.

Gotta take Cletius' side on this one. This is my experience too, and I work around extremely secular people.

To clarify, my secular people are open about being secular and us church-goers are open about it. Nobody in my little world is suppressing this. (Unlike politics -- you would be an idiot to out yourself as a right-winger in higher ed these days.)

In the context of this thread, where we are discussing the decline of religion and it's potential impact on society, I wasn't talking about people shooting the breeze around the water cooler. I was referring to the morality associated with faith in God and it's lesser impact in politics/society. Obviously some people see that as a good thing given the poll results. I was also trying to say even without religion some level of morality is governing society - maybe that's so obvious I don't need to point it out. And I made the analogy between religions morality and pseudo-religious morality via political affiliation so religious morality could not be as easily dismissed - maybe that was unnecessary. In any event, I think society would be better off if we had tighter moral guardrails (faith based) than the looser moral guardrails we currently have.

 

[Scoresman]

I think the best example that morals aren’t 100% rooted in Christianity is the treatment of LGBTQ. Christianity (and other religions to be fair) has been on the wrong side of that moral debate throughout history and is only now showing signs of acceptance.

 

[timschochet]

I am an atheist and I voted “bad”. Essentially I feel safer among religious people. I think that, overall, they’re more likely to be good.

Thanks. That's interesting. Can you elaborate more on why you think that?

Sorry for the delay.

I don’t believe that religion is necessary for morality. But it obviously helps with a lot of people. I think a person who goes to church or synagogue or mosque is less likely to commit crimes, and more likely to be a good person. I like being among good people.

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

this is as serious as I get around here:

I have always been fairly apolitical and non-partisan on religion.

still am.

1) I want to hope for an omnipresent existence ...and I pray EVERY night thanking that entity for my family, health and situation

2) I don't understand how people who believe that people that believe "what they don't believe" will go to hell - wayyyy to many versions of "my" religion

3) Pretty sure religion was developed to keep the masses in line and pull in for money and power

 

[Navin Johnson]

I am an atheist and I voted “bad”. Essentially I feel safer among religious people. I think that, overall, they’re more likely to be good.

Thanks. That's interesting. Can you elaborate more on why you think that?

Sorry for the delay.

I don’t believe that religion is necessary for morality. But it obviously helps with a lot of people. I think a person who goes to church or synagogue or mosque is less likely to commit crimes, and more likely to be a good person. I like being among good people.

I am an atheist and I voted “bad”. Essentially I feel safer among religious people. I think that, overall, they’re more likely to be good.

Thanks. That's interesting. Can you elaborate more on why you think that?

Sorry for the delay.

I don’t believe that religion is necessary for morality. But it obviously helps with a lot of people. I think a person who goes to church or synagogue or mosque is less likely to commit crimes, and more likely to be a good person. I like being among good people.

Do you have anything that supports this notion or is it purely a hunch?

 

[Galileo]

I think the best example that morals aren’t 100% rooted in Christianity is the treatment of LGBTQ. Christianity (and other religions to be fair) has been on the wrong side of that moral debate throughout history and is only now showing signs of acceptance.

Really? That is not my experience. Here is the recently released policy from the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland (my home area) on sexuality and gender identity. If this is what signs of acceptance look like, I'll pass. I don't wish to argue about what is the "wrong side" or "right side" of this moral debate, but suffice it to say, this does not align with my perspective. Clearly there are others who think differently.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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.

Great post and dead on. It's almost like when we start going away from the structured, tribal, sometimes fanatical guideposts of religion, we end up with something less structured and in a lot of ways more fanatical in politics as guideposts. I'm not sure that is a net win. In fact, I'm sure it's not. The question is whether the political guideposts become more reasonable over time as we get more experienced with these new guideposts or if we just destroy each other. I'm afraid it may be the latter.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

And no, we're not resurrecting the PSF so let's not get off on that track. Getting rid of that was the best thing we've done in years.

I don't know. I think my purge idea has merit. Open it once a year for 24 hours. No rules.

Wasn't there a bad horror movie with that premise?

 

[timschochet]

I am an atheist and I voted “bad”. Essentially I feel safer among religious people. I think that, overall, they’re more likely to be good.

Thanks. That's interesting. Can you elaborate more on why you think that?

Sorry for the delay.

I don’t believe that religion is necessary for morality. But it obviously helps with a lot of people. I think a person who goes to church or synagogue or mosque is less likely to commit crimes, and more likely to be a good person. I like being among good people.

I am an atheist and I voted “bad”. Essentially I feel safer among religious people. I think that, overall, they’re more likely to be good.

Thanks. That's interesting. Can you elaborate more on why you think that?

Sorry for the delay.

I don’t believe that religion is necessary for morality. But it obviously helps with a lot of people. I think a person who goes to church or synagogue or mosque is less likely to commit crimes, and more likely to be a good person. I like being among good people.

Do you have anything that supports this notion or is it purely a hunch?

Personal experience. That’s all.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think the best example that morals aren’t 100% rooted in Christianity is the treatment of LGBTQ. Christianity (and other religions to be fair) has been on the wrong side of that moral debate throughout history and is only now showing signs of acceptance.

Ah, my opinion of that, with regard to all religions, is that a religion needs the most followers it can get. Parents, as discussed in the thread, often pass their religion to their children. So all religions want their followers to procreate as often as possible. One religion even invented a laughable contraception replacement called the Rhythm Method that fails on a regular basis.

Given that LGBTQ family units are less likely, in general, to procreate, all religions and most political parties would like to discourage that behavior.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Really Keerocking this thread. Sorry about that.

 

[Navin Johnson]

I am an atheist and I voted “bad”. Essentially I feel safer among religious people. I think that, overall, they’re more likely to be good.

Thanks. That's interesting. Can you elaborate more on why you think that?

Sorry for the delay.

I don’t believe that religion is necessary for morality. But it obviously helps with a lot of people. I think a person who goes to church or synagogue or mosque is less likely to commit crimes, and more likely to be a good person. I like being among good people.

I am an atheist and I voted “bad”. Essentially I feel safer among religious people. I think that, overall, they’re more likely to be good.

Thanks. That's interesting. Can you elaborate more on why you think that?

Sorry for the delay.

I don’t believe that religion is necessary for morality. But it obviously helps with a lot of people. I think a person who goes to church or synagogue or mosque is less likely to commit crimes, and more likely to be a good person. I like being among good people.

Do you have anything that supports this notion or is it purely a hunch?

Personal experience. That’s all.

Abel and Harlow study 2001: of 3.952 convicted pedophiles, 93% claimed to be religous and the vast majority targeted victims inside of the church.
PewResearch 2012: a survey of prison chaplains estimated that the nationwide prison population was 68% Christian (51% Protestant, 15% Catholic, ~2% other)

 

[Jayrod]

Slavery - I don't believe the Bible "condones" it as in endorsement. It deals with it as a reality. Jesus never said a word about it and Paul gives practical instructions to those that are involved in it (slaves and owners). The end of slavery in the world was kicked off by the abolitionist movement beginning in Christian Europe in the late 1700's following the Enlightenment and strongly driven by the Quakers and other evangelic Christian groups. If you lived at any time prior to that, you wouldn't have likely had any qualms at all about slavery as it was practiced everywhere in every culture. Now we see it as abuse of fellow humanity and that all humans are worthy of equal honor and respect. This is a very uniquely Christian idea that came about through the teachings of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit.

I don't believe the bolded is true. This article discusses how attempts to abolish slavery happened in Ancient China as early as 200 BCE.

Reread the sentence before the one you bolded. That is the unique idea I am referring to.

I'm well aware not every single society in the world practiced slavery and wasn't what the bolded was referring to.

 

[Scoresman]

I think the best example that morals aren’t 100% rooted in Christianity is the treatment of LGBTQ. Christianity (and other religions to be fair) has been on the wrong side of that moral debate throughout history and is only now showing signs of acceptance.

Really? That is not my experience. Here is the recently released policy from the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland (my home area) on sexuality and gender identity. If this is what signs of acceptance look like, I'll pass. I don't wish to argue about what is the "wrong side" or "right side" of this moral debate, but suffice it to say, this does not align with my perspective. Clearly there are others who think differently.

I did not mean to imply they were there yet, just showing signs of it here and there.

 

[Scoresman]

I think the best example that morals aren’t 100% rooted in Christianity is the treatment of LGBTQ. Christianity (and other religions to be fair) has been on the wrong side of that moral debate throughout history and is only now showing signs of acceptance.

Ah, my opinion of that, with regard to all religions, is that a religion needs the most followers it can get. Parents, as discussed in the thread, often pass their religion to their children. So all religions want their followers to procreate as often as possible. One religion even invented a laughable contraception replacement called the Rhythm Method that fails on a regular basis.

Given that LGBTQ family units are less likely, in general, to procreate, all religions and most political parties would like to discourage that behavior.

I agree completely. Another reason why it is absolutely ridiculous for people to imply that societal morals today are rooted in Christianity.

 

[TripItUp]

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

It is? What exactly is western culture's morality based on? The Sun God Ra?

I'm not Christian FWIW.

 

[Ilov80s]

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

It is? What exactly is western culture's morality based on? The Sun God Ra?

I'm not Christian FWIW.

A mix of the J-C, Greeks, Romans, Enlightenment, the whole Scientific-Industrial Revolution, some old Germanic stuff, the ideas of Capitalism and Communism, more modern psychology and philosophy plus whatever you want to describe as I guess the modern advancement of civil rights.

 

[Rich Conway]

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

It is? What exactly is western culture's morality based on? The Sun God Ra?

I'm not Christian FWIW.

My morality is based on treating others nicely. I don't need Ra, Odin, or Jesus to tell me that's the right thing to do.

 

[Captain Cranks]

A mix of the J-C, Greeks, Romans, Enlightenment, the whole Scientific-Industrial Revolution, some old Germanic stuff, the ideas of Capitalism and Communism, more modern psychology and philosophy plus whatever you want to describe as I guess the modern advancement of civil rights.

I think you're leaving out the big one which is evolution and how we've learned to behave as a species.

 

[Jayrod]

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

It is? What exactly is western culture's morality based on? The Sun God Ra?

I'm not Christian FWIW.

A mix of the J-C, Greeks, Romans, Enlightenment, the whole Scientific-Industrial Revolution, some old Germanic stuff, the ideas of Capitalism and Communism, more modern psychology and philosophy plus whatever you want to describe as I guess the modern advancement of civil rights.

A mix of the J-C, Greeks, Romans, Enlightenment, the whole Scientific-Industrial Revolution, some old Germanic stuff, the ideas of Capitalism and Communism, more modern psychology and philosophy plus whatever you want to describe as I guess the modern advancement of civil rights.

I think you're leaving out the big one which is evolution and how we've learned to behave as a species.

I don't disagree that there are other influences, but it is impossible to separate the Enlightenment, the Scientific-Industrial Revolution and modern psychology & philosophy since those occurred within predominately Christian Europe and America. If you want to know what development without JC influence, you have to look at Central and far-East Asian cultures or native African or American. Every moral thought in Western society has been effected by the influence of Christianity. The very basic principles of what humanity is and concepts of good and evil are influenced by it. Even in modern Korea, Japan and Southeast Asia, Christian missionaries have had a profound influence. Japan has never embraced Christianity, but they have certainly been moored to the Western version of morality by the US after WW2. I think everyone in this discussion would be aware of Japanese morality up to WW2.

Probably the 2 largest people groups that have never really been under a Judeo-Christian influence are India and China. You truly want to know what morality developed separate from Christianity looks like, those are your examples.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I don't disagree that there are other influences, but it is impossible to separate the Enlightenment, the Scientific-Industrial Revolution and modern psychology & philosophy since those occurred within predominately Christian Europe and America. If you want to know what development without JC influence, you have to look at Central and far-East Asian cultures or native African or American. Every moral thought in Western society has been effected by the influence of Christianity. The very basic principles of what humanity is and concepts of good and evil are influenced by it. Even in modern Korea, Japan and Southeast Asia, Christian missionaries have had a profound influence. Japan has never embraced Christianity, but they have certainly been moored to the Western version of morality by the US after WW2. I think everyone in this discussion would be aware of Japanese morality up to WW2.

Probably the 2 largest people groups that have never really been under a Judeo-Christian influence are India and China. You truly want to know what morality developed separate from Christianity looks like, those are your examples.

Can I ask you to back up a bit and define what you mean by "Judeo-Christian" morality. What are its main tenets?

 

[dgreen]

3) Pretty sure religion was developed to keep the masses in line and pull in for money and power

Do you mean the origins of religion? Obviously some people use religion this way, but my understanding would be that religion originally formed out of a sincere belief in gods and a desire to appease those gods.

 

[Jayrod]

Can I ask you to back up a bit and define what you mean by "Judeo-Christian" morality. What are its main tenants?

As far as things that are not necessarily commonplace in the non-Christian world, I would say:

• All humans are by and large of equal value to God, regardless of genealogy or physical characteristics. All humanity and their property should be respected by one another. (Golden Rule)
• Human life is precious to God and therefore should not be taken unnecessarily or without just cause. (Shall not murder)
• The punishment should fit the crime. (Eye for an eye...yes I know about Hammurabi's Code)
• Sex should be limited to husband and wife.

I think the first one is the most revolutionary. The first 3 are considered commonplace now, but were not so common prior to Christian influence. The last one is being thrown off by our current society because it is considered "victimless", but it is a foundational thing in Christianity so I threw it in there. Also think our society boldly throwing it aside is causing a lot of long term damage.

 

[dgreen]

Can I ask you to back up a bit and define what you mean by "Judeo-Christian" morality. What are its main tenants?

As far as things that are not necessarily commonplace in the non-Christian world, I would say:

• All humans are by and large of equal value to God, regardless of genealogy or physical characteristics. All humanity and their property should be respected by one another. (Golden Rule)
• Human life is precious to God and therefore should not be taken unnecessarily or without just cause. (Shall not murder)
• The punishment should fit the crime. (Eye for an eye...yes I know about Hammurabi's Code)
• Sex should be limited to husband and wife.

I think the first one is the most revolutionary. The first 3 are considered commonplace now, but were not so common prior to Christian influence. The last one is being thrown off by our current society because it is considered "victimless", but it is a foundational thing in Christianity so I threw it in there. Also think our society boldly throwing it aside is causing a lot of long term damage.

For the first one, why do you say "by and large"? Are you thinking of some humans that have less or more value to God?

For 2 and 3, why do you link those to "Christian influence" while quoting Hebrew scriptures that pre-date Christianity?

 

[the moops]

Milwaukee Wisconsin. I've also lived in Austin TX and Chicago and would say the same - I have never experienced open atheism to be acceptable in public life where I've lived. I think non-Christians (Jewish and Islamic people for example) have their own legitimate complaints but can be open about their religion and still be accepted in business, politics, teaching, etc. but an open atheist is still almost completely unheard of. I'm not complaining about persecution or something here, just noting that it is very odd for me to hear someone say that religious morals are somehow excluded from public or political life in this country.

Thanks. That's interesting. I've not been to Milwaukee much but spent a good bit of time in Chicago and especially Austin and I wouldn't for one second think being an Atheist would be a problem there vs proclaiming to be a Christian. That's fascinating.

For politicians, a list here.

That is not an especially impressive list of politicians here in the US. I think the fact that there are only a couple of recognizable names of the 20 people helps prove Cletius point

 

[Scoresman]

Can I ask you to back up a bit and define what you mean by "Judeo-Christian" morality. What are its main tenants?

As far as things that are not necessarily commonplace in the non-Christian world, I would say:

• All humans are by and large of equal value to God, regardless of genealogy or physical characteristics. All humanity and their property should be respected by one another. (Golden Rule)
• Human life is precious to God and therefore should not be taken unnecessarily or without just cause. (Shall not murder)
• The punishment should fit the crime. (Eye for an eye...yes I know about Hammurabi's Code)
• Sex should be limited to husband and wife.

I think the first one is the most revolutionary. The first 3 are considered commonplace now, but were not so common prior to Christian influence. The last one is being thrown off by our current society because it is considered "victimless", but it is a foundational thing in Christianity so I threw it in there. Also think our society boldly throwing it aside is causing a lot of long term damage.

Do you think the modern Christian church has been following the first one you list? I feel like they have categorically failed in that one.

Also, the last one should be thrown off because it is out of date. It should be updated to "Sex should be limited to partner and partner". I feel like that would partially fix the modern Christian church's problems with following the first one.

 

[Captain Cranks]

As far as things that are not necessarily commonplace in the non-Christian world, I would say:

• All humans are by and large of equal value to God, regardless of genealogy or physical characteristics. All humanity and their property should be respected by one another. (Golden Rule)
• Human life is precious to God and therefore should not be taken unnecessarily or without just cause. (Shall not murder)
• The punishment should fit the crime. (Eye for an eye...yes I know about Hammurabi's Code)
• Sex should be limited to husband and wife.

I think the first one is the most revolutionary. The first 3 are considered commonplace now, but were not so common prior to Christian influence. The last one is being thrown off by our current society because it is considered "victimless", but it is a foundational thing in Christianity so I threw it in there. Also think our society boldly throwing it aside is causing a lot of long term damage.

The Golden Rule is pretty intuitive which is why it's a tenet of many religions. Christianity was far from the first. History of the Golden Rule

What's immoral about sex outside a marriage? Who is harmed?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I see people more or less conceding that yes, a decline in religiosity (or specifically Christianity) does in fact lead to a decline in the emphasis we place on marriage.

Thanks, everyone.

 

[jamny]

It was mentioned earlier that parents should not expose children to religion but I feel the opposite. That's where I think any death/loss of religion is bad for the country. Exposing a child to some of the basic tenants of religion can form a foundation for better behavior. I think the problem lies when there is an overemphasis on it and a child rejects it completely. Parents should let the child decide how much or how little they want to embrace their particular religion without forcing their own opinions on them. This at least will allow a person to pursue their own path towards spirituality.
I was raised Lutheran and I guess it might be easier to come to my conclusion because of how I was brought up in the religion. My parents weren't really religious and after my Confirmation, my Mom stopped attending church soon after, as did I. I never rejected the church but went away from it and eventually came to consider myself an agnostic, but a hopeful one! I would like to have faith but it just hasn't happened yet. At this point, I mostly follow Taoism and feel like it is the way I've lived most of my life. But I'm not sure if I would have ever ended up here if not for the foundation established by my parents introducing me to the church at a young age.

 

[pecorino]

I'm not reading five pages to get up to speed so apologies in advance if this has been covered. But my stance is that self-love, self image, the rise of humanism, have all been fostered in the vacuum left behind with the loss of religion. It is the worship of self. There are pros to this as we as a society become more aware of what is healthy and useful for us individually as we look inward. And in this frame of mind, as one begins to ponder bigger things, we turn our eye to the planet, to our fellow man in an urge to find meaning in what we do and make a difference. Yet precisely because this is rooted in the worship of the self, there is often a deficiency, a feeling of incompleteness. Anxiety creeps in. Feeling less-than or inadequate creeps in. I've seen this over the years with the high school students who I teach. They're really struggling looking for meaning. So while it is possible that religion is a means to dupe or tame society, it is very effective at doing so and may be a lesser evil than humanism.

Put another way, in a turn of phrase that's been rolling around in my head for many years: If religion is the opiate of the masses then we're going through one heck of a withdrawal period. I voted 'bad.'

 

[Joe Bryant]

That is not an especially impressive list of politicians here in the US. I think the fact that there are only a couple of recognizable names of the 20 people helps prove Cletius point

That wasn't the point. I don't think anyone claimed there was an "especially impressive list" of atheist politicians. He mentioned he thought it was "almost completely unheard of" and 2 seconds on google produced a pretty long list. But of course, certainly not the norm or common. But that's different from "almost completely unheard of".

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm not reading five pages to get up to speed so apologies in advance if this has been covered. But my stance is that self-love, self image, the rise of humanism, have all been fostered in the vacuum left behind with the loss of religion. It is the worship of self. There are pros to this as we as a society become more aware of what is healthy and useful for us individually as we look inward. And in this frame of mind, as one begins to ponder bigger things, we turn our eye to the planet, to our fellow man in an urge to find meaning in what we do and make a difference. Yet precisely because this is rooted in the worship of the self, there is often a deficiency, a feeling of incompleteness. Anxiety creeps in. Feeling less-than or inadequate creeps in. I've seen this over the years with the high school students who I teach. They're really struggling looking for meaning. So while it is possible that religion is a means to dupe or tame society, it is very effective at doing so and may be a lesser evil than humanism.

Put another way, in a turn of phrase that's been rolling around in my head for many years: If religion is the opiate of the masses then we're going through one heck of a withdrawal period. I voted 'bad.'

Thanks @pecorino. Selflessness is of course not exclusive to Christianity but it's a foundational tenet of Christianity. As Christians, we can surely do better there.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Just to say thanks everyone for a good discussion. This kind of thing is always tricky and y'all brought interesting insights and observations and shared knowledge and we talked about it in a way that I think benefitted everyone. I know I surely benefited from learning. That type of good discussion seems too rare online today. Thanks for showing it can still happen.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

That is not an especially impressive list of politicians here in the US. I think the fact that there are only a couple of recognizable names of the 20 people helps prove Cletius point

That wasn't the point. I don't think anyone claimed there was an "especially impressive list" of atheist politicians. He mentioned he thought it was "almost completely unheard of" and 2 seconds on google produced a pretty long list. But of course, certainly not the norm or common. But that's different from "almost completely unheard of".

I guess maybe its semantics as to the meaning of "almost completely unheard of" but I think a list showing a small handful of elected politicians throughout US history absolutely supports my comment (many on the list are journalists, lawyers and activists rather than elected politicians.) One of the few recognizable elected politicians on the list - Jesse Ventura - (wisely) ran as a Lutheran in Minnesota but came out as atheist long after his political life was over saying, "I can't even run for office anymore. I've come out of the closet. ... I'm an atheist. ... I don't believe you can be an atheist and admit it and get elected in our country." I am always interested to hear differing views and am happy to hear that your experience is that atheism is more accepted in the communities you've lived in or visited. My experience is that openly denying the existence of God, particularly the Christian God, is career suicide for someone running for office in this country as well as for many other public careers and relationships.

I'm trying not to deflect from the main discussion, which has been great and educational for me so will leave it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

That is not an especially impressive list of politicians here in the US. I think the fact that there are only a couple of recognizable names of the 20 people helps prove Cletius point

That wasn't the point. I don't think anyone claimed there was an "especially impressive list" of atheist politicians. He mentioned he thought it was "almost completely unheard of" and 2 seconds on google produced a pretty long list. But of course, certainly not the norm or common. But that's different from "almost completely unheard of".

I guess maybe its semantics as to the meaning of "almost completely unheard of" but I think a list showing a small handful of elected politicians throughout US history absolutely supports my comment (many on the list are journalists, lawyers and activists rather than elected politicians.) One of the few recognizable elected politicians on the list - Jesse Ventura - (wisely) ran as a Lutheran in Minnesota but came out as atheist long after his political life was over saying, "I can't even run for office anymore. I've come out of the closet. ... I'm an atheist. ... I don't believe you can be an atheist and admit it and get elected in our country." I am always interested to hear differing views and am happy to hear that your experience is that atheism is more accepted in the communities you've lived in or visited. My experience is that openly denying the existence of God, particularly the Christian God, is career suicide for someone running for office in this country as well as for many other public careers and relationships.

I'm trying not to deflect from the main discussion, which has been great and educational for me so will leave it.

Thanks. I have a very different opinion and actual experience with that but it was interesting to hear your perspective. Thanks for sharing.

But mostly, thanks to everyone for the discussion.

 

[the moops]

That is not an especially impressive list of politicians here in the US. I think the fact that there are only a couple of recognizable names of the 20 people helps prove Cletius point

That wasn't the point. I don't think anyone claimed there was an "especially impressive list" of atheist politicians. He mentioned he thought it was "almost completely unheard of" and 2 seconds on google produced a pretty long list. But of course, certainly not the norm or common. But that's different from "almost completely unheard of".

I wouldn't consider a list of 20 mostly unrecognizable politicians in the history of this country as a pretty long list. In fact, I would consider it almost completely unheard of.

If we asked 1000 US citizens if they could name 1 atheist politician in the history of this country, do you think any would toss out Barney Frank or any other names on that list? I doubt so, and that would be because it is almost completely unheard of for popular US politicians to be atheist. Compare that to if we asked the same 1000 people to name a Jewish, or Muslim, or Christian politician.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I wouldn't consider a list of 20 mostly unrecognizable politicians in the history of this country as a pretty long list. In fact, I would consider it almost completely unheard of.

No worries. We disagree there.

As I said though, thanks to all on the bigger discussion. It's been productive.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I admit I didn't read the first three pages of this thread, so perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone explain HOW the decline of religion has been detrimental for society. I've certainly seen opinions that assume the decline of religion is the reason for society's ills, but there doesn't appear to be any objective data to support them. They also don't explain why countries with the best quality of life tend to be less religious per capita.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I admit I didn't read the first three pages of this thread, so perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone explain HOW the decline of religion has been detrimental for society. I've certainly seen opinions that assume the decline of religion is the reason for society's ills, but there doesn't appear to be any objective data to support them. They also don't explain why countries with the best quality of life tend to be less religious per capita.

I feel like you should read the first 3 pages.

 

[Psychopav]

Can I ask you to back up a bit and define what you mean by "Judeo-Christian" morality. What are its main tenants?

As far as things that are not necessarily commonplace in the non-Christian world, I would say:

• All humans are by and large of equal value to God, regardless of genealogy or physical characteristics. All humanity and their property should be respected by one another. (Golden Rule)
• Human life is precious to God and therefore should not be taken unnecessarily or without just cause. (Shall not murder)
• The punishment should fit the crime. (Eye for an eye...yes I know about Hammurabi's Code)
• Sex should be limited to husband and wife.

I think the first one is the most revolutionary. The first 3 are considered commonplace now, but were not so common prior to Christian influence. The last one is being thrown off by our current society because it is considered "victimless", but it is a foundational thing in Christianity so I threw it in there. Also think our society boldly throwing it aside is causing a lot of long term damage.

The last bullet also changed dramatically in the west with the rise of Christian ideals.

 

[massraider]

I admit I didn't read the first three pages of this thread, so perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone explain HOW the decline of religion has been detrimental for society. I've certainly seen opinions that assume the decline of religion is the reason for society's ills, but there doesn't appear to be any objective data to support them. They also don't explain why countries with the best quality of life tend to be less religious per capita.

I feel like you should read the first 3 pages.

There was no objective data in the first 3 pages. It was: These two things happened at the same time, so one caused the other.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

New study finds that correlation IS causation.

 

[culdeus]

As far as things that are not necessarily commonplace in the non-Christian world, I would say:

• All humans are by and large of equal value to God, regardless of genealogy or physical characteristics. All humanity and their property should be respected by one another. (Golden Rule)
• Human life is precious to God and therefore should not be taken unnecessarily or without just cause. (Shall not murder)
• The punishment should fit the crime. (Eye for an eye...yes I know about Hammurabi's Code)
• Sex should be limited to husband and wife.

I think the first one is the most revolutionary. The first 3 are considered commonplace now, but were not so common prior to Christian influence. The last one is being thrown off by our current society because it is considered "victimless", but it is a foundational thing in Christianity so I threw it in there. Also think our society boldly throwing it aside is causing a lot of long term damage.

The Golden Rule is pretty intuitive which is why it's a tenet of many religions. Christianity was far from the first. History of the Golden Rule

What's immoral about sex outside a marriage? Who is harmed?

Mostly has to do with property rights pre DNA tests.

 

[timschochet]

I am an atheist and I voted “bad”. Essentially I feel safer among religious people. I think that, overall, they’re more likely to be good.

Thanks. That's interesting. Can you elaborate more on why you think that?

Sorry for the delay.

I don’t believe that religion is necessary for morality. But it obviously helps with a lot of people. I think a person who goes to church or synagogue or mosque is less likely to commit crimes, and more likely to be a good person. I like being among good people.

I am an atheist and I voted “bad”. Essentially I feel safer among religious people. I think that, overall, they’re more likely to be good.

Thanks. That's interesting. Can you elaborate more on why you think that?

Sorry for the delay.

I don’t believe that religion is necessary for morality. But it obviously helps with a lot of people. I think a person who goes to church or synagogue or mosque is less likely to commit crimes, and more likely to be a good person. I like being among good people.

Do you have anything that supports this notion or is it purely a hunch?

Personal experience. That’s all.

Abel and Harlow study 2001: of 3.952 convicted pedophiles, 93% claimed to be religous and the vast majority targeted victims inside of the church.
PewResearch 2012: a survey of prison chaplains estimated that the nationwide prison population was 68% Christian (51% Protestant, 15% Catholic, ~2% other)

I don’t think these stats are meaningful. I don’t care what percentage of pedophiles are Christian. I care what percentage of Christians are pedophiles. See the difference?

As for the second stat, not sure what that proves either. If you survey the prison population in Turkey, you’ll find that most prisoners are Muslim. What does that prove? I’d also be willing to bet that most of the Christian prisoners in this country came to religion AFTER they were sent to prison, which implies that they are, at least in theory, attempting to improve their lives for the better.

 

[Navin Johnson]

I am an atheist and I voted “bad”. Essentially I feel safer among religious people. I think that, overall, they’re more likely to be good.

Thanks. That's interesting. Can you elaborate more on why you think that?

Sorry for the delay.

I don’t believe that religion is necessary for morality. But it obviously helps with a lot of people. I think a person who goes to church or synagogue or mosque is less likely to commit crimes, and more likely to be a good person. I like being among good people.

I am an atheist and I voted “bad”. Essentially I feel safer among religious people. I think that, overall, they’re more likely to be good.

Thanks. That's interesting. Can you elaborate more on why you think that?

Sorry for the delay.

I don’t believe that religion is necessary for morality. But it obviously helps with a lot of people. I think a person who goes to church or synagogue or mosque is less likely to commit crimes, and more likely to be a good person. I like being among good people.

Do you have anything that supports this notion or is it purely a hunch?

Personal experience. That’s all.

Abel and Harlow study 2001: of 3.952 convicted pedophiles, 93% claimed to be religous and the vast majority targeted victims inside of the church.
PewResearch 2012: a survey of prison chaplains estimated that the nationwide prison population was 68% Christian (51% Protestant, 15% Catholic, ~2% other)

I don’t care what percentage of pedophiles are Christian. I care what percentage of Christians are pedophiles. See the difference?

I do. Not sure you do though

 

[Ilov80s]

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

It is? What exactly is western culture's morality based on? The Sun God Ra?

I'm not Christian FWIW.

A mix of the J-C, Greeks, Romans, Enlightenment, the whole Scientific-Industrial Revolution, some old Germanic stuff, the ideas of Capitalism and Communism, more modern psychology and philosophy plus whatever you want to describe as I guess the modern advancement of civil rights.

A mix of the J-C, Greeks, Romans, Enlightenment, the whole Scientific-Industrial Revolution, some old Germanic stuff, the ideas of Capitalism and Communism, more modern psychology and philosophy plus whatever you want to describe as I guess the modern advancement of civil rights.

I think you're leaving out the big one which is evolution and how we've learned to behave as a species.

I don't disagree that there are other influences, but it is impossible to separate the Enlightenment, the Scientific-Industrial Revolution and modern psychology & philosophy since those occurred within predominately Christian Europe and America. If you want to know what development without JC influence, you have to look at Central and far-East Asian cultures or native African or American. Every moral thought in Western society has been effected by the influence of Christianity. The very basic principles of what humanity is and concepts of good and evil are influenced by it. Even in modern Korea, Japan and Southeast Asia, Christian missionaries have had a profound influence. Japan has never embraced Christianity, but they have certainly been moored to the Western version of morality by the US after WW2. I think everyone in this discussion would be aware of Japanese morality up to WW2.

Probably the 2 largest people groups that have never really been under a Judeo-Christian influence are India and China. You truly want to know what morality developed separate from Christianity looks like, those are your examples.

Then how does one separate Christianity from Greco-Roman influence? Obviously Greece and Rome came first and influenced Christianity. Very quickly Rome became the head of the church. Carrying that forward, the monarchs of Europe were key figures in running the Church and often layered it with their own established cultural norms and traditions.

 

[SoBeDad]

I admit I didn't read the first three pages of this thread, so perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone explain HOW the decline of religion has been detrimental for society. I've certainly seen opinions that assume the decline of religion is the reason for society's ills, but there doesn't appear to be any objective data to support them. They also don't explain why countries with the best quality of life tend to be less religious per capita.

The "rapid loss of religion in private life" since the 1990s has also coincided with a big decline in crime in the USA. Objective data on the detriment caused by the decline of religion in America will be hard to obtain. So many factors are in play, there are multiple theories about why crime has decreased, one could even propose that less religion is a factor.

Anecdotally, I've seen that many people obtain emotional and social support from going to church, especially smaller more personal places of worship. My grandmother's Methodist church had an active prayer circle by phone, many covered dish dinners, and more. However, Reverend Jackson's sermons were scary to me as a kid, I took many things literally and hell didn't sound like a good option. The Golden Rule exists outside of religion.

 

[Psychopav]

New Gallup data released. It indicates nonbelief is on the rise. The only perhaps surprising result is that there has been little change among Republicans and Independents.

 

[Steeler]

So many factors are in play, there are multiple theories about why crime has decreased, one could even propose that less religion is a factor.

Can you explain this position, that less religion could be a factor in lower crime?