America is Changing; Role of Religion Diminishes

I see this happening.

What say you all?

Excerpt:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12811197

A study using census data from nine countries shows that religion there is set for extinction, say researchers.

The study found a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation.

The team's mathematical model attempts to account for the interplay between the number of religious respondents and the social motives behind being one.

The result, reported at the American Physical Society meeting in Dallas, US, indicates that religion will all but die out altogether in those countries.

The team took census data stretching back as far as a century from countries in which the census queried religious affiliation: Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

- - - Updated - - -

The US is still fairly religious.

 

I stopped reading the article when it said that polarization is being driven solely by the right. Any leftists who pretend that trying to make Christians pay for abortions shouldn't have a polarizing effect is either a liar or very naive. This dishonesty aside, the article does discuss an interesting issue.

It's complicated and a difficult one for the right since Church attendance does not fit into people's lives in the way that it used to. Religion used to combine science, art, entertainment and law into a single social body. These days, the science and the law are severed from any religious elements. Flashing bright lights, CGI, a huge increase in the amount of sex happening (not to mention a related drop in the number of babies being made) and ridiculous science fiction concepts severed most of art away from religion as well. The mega-Churches do a good job of keeping religion entertaining but not everyone can attend an exciting mega-Church.

Religion is left with only one purpose, to remind us of what the right thing to do is, without a whole lot of science, art, entertainment or law thrown in and that's probably why you see mostly older people who are still interested in it. I think that, as has usually been the case, the younger generations today will see many becoming more conservative over time as has seemingly happened to every generation prior.

Now, what can the right do about it? It's a complicated thing but something tells me it should involve apps. The far left's take-over of the collegiate level of education also needs to be dealt with since that is a formative time in people's lives and so many are being led down the wrong path by certain one-dimensional, fake intellectuals.

 

I guess many of you think that is good. Look at the school shooting we have now. Having 2-4 a year isn't uncommon. It would have been 40-50 years ago.

Years ago, we didn't have car alarms or bike locks. We didn't need them You didn't have 2-3 locks on your doors, people didn't break in. You use to be able to let your kids play out in front of the house unsupervised, not now. Kids showed respect to parents and adults. It was looked down on to have children and not married, or living together and not married. Churches are the biggest charity givers. And people seem to think that doing away with religion is a good thing. Here is a person that was not religious, but saw the benefits of it. To bad we aren't as smart today.


TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]


DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.

But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
B. Franklin

 

Why should the right have to do something about it?

The left is just as polarizing as the right.

True tolerance means that these people have a right to their religious views and have the right to express them under the Constitution.

That being said while i don't care if a person wants to be religious or not, I too would love to see the decline of Christianity, Islam and religion period. Christianity isn't really polarizing as the left is, but they are just as discriminatory, and I don't support people imposing their morality on anybody, left or right.

But I'm not entirely sure that there just won't be something else that comes along to replace the religion, and we're back at square one, fighting people who care nothing about individual rights and seeks to impose their order and morality on to people.

 

The beliefs, myths, and ignorance that gripped primitive man still have a stranglehold on the majority of Americans today.

This is shown by the tens-of-millions of Americans that refuse to accept the scientific facts and empirical evidence learned over the last 500 years. Facts and evidence that contradict every myth they hold dear.

Sadly, these myths, and the ignorance they force upon the devoted, are the cause of the intolerance and hatred we see worldwide.

For those who would dispute this, during WW II both Nazi troops and allied troops were reassured by their commanders that “God was with them”, just as military leaders have since armies began.

Humankind must free itself from the shackles of religion, and the flaws and shortcomings it permits the greedy to exploit using their henchmen in the clergy. Doing this will bring a willingness for the races to unite and work for the benefit of all.

But, we all know the powers that be will never let this happen. Hate and distrust among the masses must be maintained to assure the ruling classes remain in control.

So, religious folks, you can take comfort in the fact that the ruling class needs your chosen religious faith, and will protect it so they can use it to manipulate your very thoughts. Just as they’ve been doing for millennia.

 

The cause and effect that the quote tries to suggest is merely a correlation, assuming that you buy into the first half of that. What's happening with religion is that it's becoming more personal. People are attending church less, but people aren't discarding their faith that quickly. If you've ever heard the evangelicals talk, you already know that for them religion has been "personal" for a while. Religion use to be much more communal, and the evangelical movement is an odd one in that it's led to Christians going to Church less, but also to be "more religious", if that makes sense.

And if you read the quote carefully, it isn't even saying that the role of religion is diminishing, it's speaking to a kind of polarization happening in religion, as with animosity building up between the secularist and religious, yet each is becoming less tolerant of the other.

It's odd to see some chiming in essentially with a "yay" statement. This isn't good. The quote is speaking to polarization and rising animosity. In other words, a slow severance of the bonds that bind us together in a peaceful society.

 

In any case, I hope more people will think over how religion affects society in general (it's not what everyone needs/wants).

 

Wrong on several counts.

1. Since when has it been right to impose your religious views on others? That is what the religious right and the GOP are trying to do. Then, they fake being offended when people resent this.

2. Since when has having a religion been necessary to know right from wrong? Given the sordid history of most religions, knowing right from wrong is not one of their strong points. It's a poor morality that needs some hairy Himmler in the heavens threatening eternal fire in order to be effective.

3. Since when has a study of facts, to include science, constituted a "far left takeover if the collegiate level of education? Since when has this been the province of "fake intellectuals?" It seems to me that dealing with reality is of more value than superstition, superstition being defined an anyone else's religion.

4. Since when has it been the right thing to do to teach children, who are too young to defend themselves, the religious prejudices of whatever church their parents belong to? Are the churches/parents perhaps afraid to let the kids make up their own minds when they are old enough to think?

5. Since when has religion NOT been one-dimensional?

 

i think it's obvious how you see religion affecting society, but you've made it quite clear you can only recognize its negative aspects. what is religion, after all, but a primitive form of government. it enforces the basic rules of society with the carrot of a benevolent deity and the stick of divine wrath, far more persuasive than the notion that some representative of the state may detect your crimes and incarcerate you for them. it provides the willing with answer to our greatest question, "why", and allows them to persevere in the face of a lifetime of woes.

the influence of religion as we know it is indeed slowly waning, most noticeably in the west, but the influence of "spirituality" is something there will always be a need for. how many times have you heard someone claim that they aren't religious but they are spiritual? they are often merely replacing the personal "God" with the more amorphous notion of "god", a creative force that they recognize they will never get a firm grasp on. they are replacing the mythology and parables of religious writings with a more innate moral sense, a moral sense that has been instilled in modern society by those same religious writings. they have replaced a faith in something infallible with a faith in something they know to be fallible, the minds and ideas of themselves and those around them. intrinsic in that faith we are losing, most notably the abrahamic creeds, was the notion that each individual was solely responsible for the outcome of his own life and, unluckily, we seem to be losing that as well.

 

No, I realize there are good things about religion. Still, I'm honest about the very clear reality... that the manner in which some wield their 'religion' has led to negative effects which no reasonable person should ever ignore.

To sum it up as an American:

Strictly maintain Separation of Church and State. Protect the right to practice religion AND protect people from having religion 'imposed' upon them.

I am a very spiritual/religious person in general. I know that religion is not necessarily "negative" (as you assumed I did)... but the toxicity derived from religion as too many practice their own, often leads to some tragic and oppressive effects. The evidence of that is all around us; that is really nothing to argue.

 

When asked if he believed in any religion, Carl Sagan answered "I don't want to believe. I want to KNOW"

Works for me.

 

Good points.

At the very least, a person ought to be willing to discuss (earnestly) those items you have addressed above. If someone is of a mindset that they cannot or will not do that, then I would be generally tentative concerning the 'values' they might exude. In other words, they may be trouble for reasonable human beings.

 

so should we restrict the ownership of personal property, of the way we think and even of self-ownership? these are things which have caused far more death and destruction than the religious have ever dreamed of. should we keep a man from speaking his mind because someone may use those thoughts to incite violence? should differing economic and political philosophies be outlawed because they may cause discord?

i've just about had it with this "separation of church and state" garbage. it was never intended to shackle religion in the manner in which it is used these days. it was a means of limiting the power of the state, not of the beliefs of men. it was never intended to force the representatives of the state, mere men and women, to hide their most closely held beliefs. those beliefs, after all, are the stuff of which their decisions are made.

religions don't have armies and police, nations and those attempting to build or tear down nations do.

 

So, you think every religious idea/thought can be freely practiced, to the point of infringement of other citizen's rights?

Come on... you should know that will not ever work.

 

you know perfectly well that's not what i said, but we should be careful when determining what exactly are the rights of those other citizens. for instance, those others have no right to not be offended in their daily lives by the expressions of the beliefs of others.

 

"i've just about had it with this "separation of church and state" garbage. it was never intended to shackle religion in the manner in which it is used these days. it was a means of limiting the power of the state, not of the beliefs of men. it was never intended to force the representatives of the state, mere men and women, to hide their most closely held beliefs. those beliefs, after all, are the stuff of which their decisions are made."

You (purposefully?) confuse personal with organized religion and the right to a personal religion (and the right to express it) with the nonexistent right to force your beliefs on others. You mistake expression with imposition.

Based on its history, religion deserves to be shackled. That is the very purpose of the wall of separation. It is to prevent some from dumping their garbage on others. You might want to read The Debates on the Constitution (Library of America - 2 volumes - $35.00 ea if memory serves, and well worth the money).

 

Some people really want to live in a theocracy.

 

based on its history, socialism deserves to be abolished. still we have fools who insist on leading us in that direction. based on its history, every form of government should be abolished. the amount of suffering caused by the conflicts of government against government make religious violence pale by comparison. of course you would prefer to hold religion to an entirely different standard.

 

No, I wasn't sure what you were saying.

And after the last 7-10 years or so of certain Americans trying harder and harder to PUSH their religious views upon others... I'm defaulting to what I know protects all BEST:

Freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion.

Otherwise, all we'll have in this society and others is unnecessary and messy contentions.

Observe and practice what you will... but don't PUSH it upon anyone else.

 

You said it well. Without the mitigating factors in our laws (protections going in both directions), religion would likely become absolutely oppressive. And those who were oppressed BY 'x' religion would ultimately seek to restrain/eliminate the source of their suffering. (Anyone seen the Middle East lately?)

Amen to what you've pointed out.

Keep government away from promoting religion; better that individual freedoms and liberties be regarded above 'belief' systems (because those rights/liberties include those same belief systems for most).

 

As long as the role of religion was expanding, the religionists were not all that dangerous. Now that they see their role diminishing, fundies are coming out of the woodwork, making goofier statements and rousing more rabble with each passing day.

 

Nicely hallucinated

 

What? You're having issues getting onto Christian Mingle at Bob Jones University?

 

Nice thought but I don't see how government is shackling religion even a little bit.