Religiousness in America, 2000 v. 2012

[King]

Religiousness in America has been declining for decades.  Religious affiliation will remain constant, but it's effect on society is becoming more and more minimal as a whole.  Even those who claim to be religious, especially non-Evangelical Christians, are mostly non-practicing sans a few core ideals.

Actually, I do know quite a few Evangelicals who do not go to church and practice their "biblical Christianity" at home.

This does not mean an end to the views of the Churches.  There are plenty of people who share their beliefs, but it is not the Church who causes these beliefs rather it is the people who run their local church.  Though God is viewed as a universal monarch, the teachings these days are very much developed via a silent democracy.

[TheGlobalizer]

I think there is a general difference in someone who doesn't believe in a deity and meets the definition of an atheist and someone who runs around proclaiming he's an atheist and is generally snarky of others religious beliefs.  I think this is evident in religious polling questions in which only 1-2% self-label as "atheist" while 15% or so say "none."  Granted not all "nones" are atheists, but I'm sure a decent percentage are.  How the person labels themselves (as opposed to what they actually believe) seems to be the deciding factor as to whether they gain general public acceptance.   

I'd say that's probably the next stage in the evolution of the public face of atheism -- respectable self-identifying atheists with a live-and-let-live mentality.  There's quite a few of us out there, and after having our heads down for a long time, we're starting to get more vocal, both against religious excess as well as anti-religious excess.

All it takes is a few notable people who "happen to be an atheist" and the anti- perception will fade.

[Simfan34]

I think there is a general difference in someone who doesn't believe in a deity and meets the definition of an atheist and someone who runs around proclaiming he's an atheist and is generally snarky of others religious beliefs.  I think this is evident in religious polling questions in which only 1-2% self-label as "atheist" while 15% or so say "none."  Granted not all "nones" are atheists, but I'm sure a decent percentage are.  How the person labels themselves (as opposed to what they actually believe) seems to be the deciding factor as to whether they gain general public acceptance.   

I'd say that's probably the next stage in the evolution of the public face of atheism -- respectable self-identifying atheists with a live-and-let-live mentality.  There's quite a few of us out there, and after having our heads down for a long time, we're starting to get more vocal, both against religious excess as well as anti-religious excess.

All it takes is a few notable people who "happen to be an atheist" and the anti- perception will fade.

Vocal and live-and-let-live are contradictory.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think there is a general difference in someone who doesn't believe in a deity and meets the definition of an atheist and someone who runs around proclaiming he's an atheist and is generally snarky of others religious beliefs.  I think this is evident in religious polling questions in which only 1-2% self-label as "atheist" while 15% or so say "none."  Granted not all "nones" are atheists, but I'm sure a decent percentage are.  How the person labels themselves (as opposed to what they actually believe) seems to be the deciding factor as to whether they gain general public acceptance.   

Vocal and live-and-let-live are contradictory.
I'd say that's probably the next stage in the evolution of the public face of atheism -- respectable self-identifying atheists with a live-and-let-live mentality.  There's quite a few of us out there, and after having our heads down for a long time, we're starting to get more vocal, both against religious excess as well as anti-religious excess.

All it takes is a few notable people who "happen to be an atheist" and the anti- perception will fade.

Not an atheist but if you replace the first-person adverbs this would pretty much be my assessment too, and it strikes me as an overall positive trend.

[TheGlobalizer]

I think there is a general difference in someone who doesn't believe in a deity and meets the definition of an atheist and someone who runs around proclaiming he's an atheist and is generally snarky of others religious beliefs.  I think this is evident in religious polling questions in which only 1-2% self-label as "atheist" while 15% or so say "none."  Granted not all "nones" are atheists, but I'm sure a decent percentage are.  How the person labels themselves (as opposed to what they actually believe) seems to be the deciding factor as to whether they gain general public acceptance.   

I'd say that's probably the next stage in the evolution of the public face of atheism -- respectable self-identifying atheists with a live-and-let-live mentality.  There's quite a few of us out there, and after having our heads down for a long time, we're starting to get more vocal, both against religious excess as well as anti-religious excess.

All it takes is a few notable people who "happen to be an atheist" and the anti- perception will fade.

Vocal and live-and-let-live are contradictory.

Reread what I said, vocal against religious/anti-religious excess.

I know from a technical perspective it's not pure "live and let live", but that's sort of like saying that it's an infringement on liberty for a rape victim to say 'no' to her rapist.

[TJ in Oregon]

At Case, the atheist group on campus, the "Center for Inquiry" is pretty much as offensive as they possibly can be. They constantly put up banners and fliers and chalk messages pointedly criticizing religious people. They had an event on Good Friday last year called, "It's a Good Friday for a Barbecue" to harangue those who see a meaning in that day and at Catholics in particular for not eating meat. (The barbecue was incidentally cancelled due to a rather heavy thunderstorm.) Everything they print is just dripping with rage.

But all in all, the Center of Inquiry is one of the best things Christianity has going for it on campus because it really turns off and offends anyone even marginally religious. It’s always nice when the people who disagree with you are insane. A more reasonable atheist group could be much more effective at changing opinions, so I'm glad they are what they are.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I notice that at University groups like that try really hard to make their point, but are so ham-fisted, they have no idea how to do it effectively.

For example - since I was at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign - it's not known as a conservative school by any means - so they have a 'conservative coming out day' and raffles and bake-sales which totally demonstrate their ham-fistedness. ..

There was a gun-raffle (which offended me to begin with), but they would only sell tickets to 'women and homosexuals' - they also had an affirmative action bake-sale - with sugar and chocolate-chip cookies... if you asked for two of one kind, you go one of each whether you liked it or not...

I don't think the 'Center for Inquiry' really helps the cause of the religious, it more hurts the cause of disrespectful tools.

I just don't like having my beliefs/viewed belittled by anyone and I find it really funny that many atheists and hyper-religious types share so many common qualities, especially "the world would be so much better if everyone thought like us"...

For me, faith (however much of it I have, and whatever I have it in) is deeply personal, I have come to my own conclusions, which will change over time... and they should - I just want to be left alone in that "that is your faith, I hope it brings you comfort and peace - this is mine, please respect that".

[nhmagic]

There's a lot of good ideas in this thread.  One that hasn't been mentioned, however, is the religious perspective on why the trend is downward.

Many Christians in this country and around the world believe that the world is coming to an end soon (not on a specific date like that idiot suggested).  It was predicted in Revelation that there would be a falling away from the church in the end times.  Even twenty years ago, being a Christian in this country was a respectable distinction.  Now, by many, it is something that marks a person as a laundry list of very unfair terms tied to, primarily, a secular-leftist worldview.  For example, Christians today are undeservedly called intolerant, bigots, racists, or any number of swear words just for being Christian or holding different views of politics than the culture of the age.  Many of us have to hide our religion within the workplace because it can bring discrimination (as it has for me in two jobs).

Really, it's mainly tied to gay marriage though.  I don't care whether two guys get married because it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I go to heaven.  I don't believe all gays are going to hell, nor do I believe all straights are going to heaven.  I also am not supposed to judge the sins of others because we are all with sin.  The only way to heaven is to believe that Jesus died for your sins on the cross, rose from the grave three days later and is coming back to save believers from the destruction that will be visited upon those who refused to believe. From that point, we try to live our best as the Lord teaches us - understanding we have been forgiven.

[nhmagic]

There's a lot of good ideas in this thread.  One that hasn't been mentioned, however, is the religious perspective on why the trend is downward.

Many Christians in this country and around the world believe that the world is coming to an end soon (not on a specific date like that idiot suggested).  It was predicted in Revelation that there would be a falling away from the church in the end times.  Even twenty years ago, being a Christian in this country was a respectable distinction.  Now, by many, it is something that marks a person as a laundry list of very unfair terms tied to, primarily, a secular-leftist worldview.  For example, Christians today are undeservedly called intolerant, bigots, racists, or any number of swear words just for being Christian or holding different views of politics than the culture of the age.  Many of us have to hide our religion within the workplace because it can bring discrimination (as it has for me in two jobs).

You are wrong.  A lot of black people are religious.  I don't think they are called intolerant bigots and racists... unless you count the rantings of Rush Limbaugh.

Did I bring up black people?  No.  I said Christians.  Just because blacks are religious and don't get labeled to their face does not mean their Christianity is without scorn by the culture of the age.  They also won't get called it because despite their religious social views they are the strongest voting base of the same secularists who deride their social views.  If a major figure on the left came out and began calling blacks a bunch of bigoted fundies who keep them from passing their social agenda they would lose a massive portion of their votes.

[t_host1]

Indeed,
 the conversation here within this thread and a couple of other current ones over on the general board have a relationship that for me have relevance to there discussions. This conversation, the suburb/urban and the riots threads are quite telling. For I unfortunately, trying to articulate them would be an exercise for long isolated weakend.

[TJ in Oregon]

Identification with a faith does not mean that one practices it and I would venture a guess that many in that 80% are nominally Christian and indifferent to religious hostility. But, no matter what the number is, some individuals in a position of power are capable of victimizing those they disagree with. If nhmagic claims he was a victim of religious discrimination it is entirely possible that he was. There is a segment of US culture that does view religious people as extremists and bigots. Each person in this country will likely have a different experience in this regard. Perhaps he is lying, but I see no reason to believe he is. There are certainly areas in society where religion is viewed quite negatively, socially conservative views in particular. The relevance of Republicans and blacks is a non-sequitur.

I for one can honestly say I have never been victimized by anything other than my own human imperfection, the sins I have committed, and the sins some people around me have committed. I occasionally do say things that receive criticism, every once in a while scorn. But I am not a victim. I have been blessed with many opportunities in this life and my beliefs have never caused me to lose them. I hope by bringing up the Center for Inquiry I have not painted myself as a victim; I am not. I am merely glad to have such a poor opponent when a more skilled one could do much more damage. When it comes to dealing with other people, I try my very best (and often fail) to clearly and honestly denounce the sins I see but not the people who commit them. I believe we are supposed to hate the sin and love the sinner.

As for the end of the world, I cannot and will not pretend to have any idea when that will happen. We made it 2000 years since Christ, so from a statistical view it seems unlikely that I will see the end. (I am envisioning this as a binomial distribution with unknown parameters.) There may come a day when I am persecuted and there may not. I find that to go into a situation expecting persecution is not good mentally and may cause me to start imagining myself as some sort of victim, which I never want to do. If one day I am persecuted, then so be it. I am not expecting the end of the world but if it comes, then so be it. I try to live every day as if I were my last. Clearly I do fail at times, but I can think of no better way to go through life.

[TJ in Oregon]

I've never heard "racist" and not really sure how that comes up, but I hear "bigot" quite often, not usually directed at me but in a general sense. After all, in some eyes, anyone who opposes gay marriage is a "bigot". Actually the word bigot seems to pop up everytime I criticize people for something that isn't illegal (and sometimes even things that are). It's not surprising to me at all if he was called that.

I don't know what "America" you live in but at least in mine that happens all the time.

[TJ in Oregon]

No, and I do not expect them to (heck if everyone liked me that ought to tell me I have to be doing something wrong), and being called a bigot isn't discrimination. However, nhmagic said this cost him two jobs, which would make him a bit of a victim.

[BlueSwan]

First up, please excuse my poor english.

I have never understood why it is considered disrespectful to critize religion or religiousness. People critize ideologies all of the time. If you're an outspoken conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist, whatever, you better be able to handle criticism and that's the way it should be. In a democracy we discuss important issues and hopefully, through discussion, become wiser. People like to present faith as this deeply personal thing that is the business of no one else. But that's rarely true. Religion is just as much a guideline of thought and behaviour as ideology is. Infact it is more influential than ideology, partly because it is unacceptable to critize it. It's like we're in North Korea when talk falls on religion. What's even worse is that religion is not based on rationality. All ideologies are based on rationality, whether or not you agree with said ideology, they're based on internally consistent ideas, which can be challenged. Atheists like myself are stupified and deeply concerned about having presidents who has "God" as his main advisor. Rationality is flung out the window. When religion is mixed with politics, we should all be deeply concerned. Even the religious amongst us, because they can not be sure that their imagined God is the same as the imagined God of the political leaders.

[phk]

For 2000 vs 2012. It's pretty clear that 9/11 had a huge impact upon Evangelicals in the US.

[nhmagic]

No, and I do not expect them to (heck if everyone liked me that ought to tell me I have to be doing something wrong), and being called a bigot isn't discrimination. However, nhmagic said this cost him two jobs, which would make him a bit of a victim.

TJ your previous posts said everything I would have said in response.  However, when I mentioned that I was discriminated against, I did not say that it cost me two jobs.  I meant that once people found out that I was a "born again", after not having said anything controversial (i do that stuff on the internets ), I was brought aside and told that religion doesn't have a place in the workplace.  It was the extra scrutiny that bothered me.  I wasn't trying to convert people or anything.  In fact, other people were allowed to speak openly about their Muslim faith or atheist beliefs, put up posters of Obama in their office, etc. 

In addition, I'm not a victim.  Being a victim suggests that I am trying to generate sympathy and or manipulate someone else.  I am trying to do neither.  I am simply stating what happened to illustrate that it does occur in the real world. 

Link: Though Christianity is still fairly dominant in American society, we are discussing the move away from it -culturally, politically and socially.  In the context of that discussion, it is wholly appropriate to discuss the trends that we see from our perspective - just as its appropriate to discuss how you see it from yours.

[TheGlobalizer]

First up, please excuse my poor english.

I have never understood why it is considered disrespectful to critize religion or religiousness. People critize ideologies all of the time. If you're an outspoken conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist, whatever, you better be able to handle criticism and that's the way it should be. In a democracy we discuss important issues and hopefully, through discussion, become wiser. People like to present faith as this deeply personal thing that is the business of no one else. But that's rarely true. Religion is just as much a guideline of thought and behaviour as ideology is. Infact it is more influential than ideology, partly because it is unacceptable to critize it. It's like we're in North Korea when talk falls on religion. What's even worse is that religion is not based on rationality. All ideologies are based on rationality, whether or not you agree with said ideology, they're based on internally consistent ideas, which can be challenged. Atheists like myself are stupified and deeply concerned about having presidents who has "God" as his main advisor. Rationality is flung out the window. When religion is mixed with politics, we should all be deeply concerned. Even the religious amongst us, because they can not be sure that their imagined God is the same as the imagined God of the political leaders.

It mostly has to do with how religious Americans, particularly southern conservatives, express their religiosity.  It can be offensive, oppressive, illiberal, antagonist, judgmental, mean, and too often guides public discourse in a manner that allows a small minority to co-opt a 2000-year old tradition for non-religious social engineering ends.  It has also been used as a shield for defending all sorts of hateful behavior.

I despise the vocal religious conservative movement in this country, just as I despise the vocal religious conservative movements in Saudi Arabia and Iran, as they seek similar ends.  (In Saudi Arabia/Iran, theocracy; in the US, de facto theocracy.)

[TheGlobalizer]

90-95% of what is in the Bible is not controversial or in conflict with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.

More than 5-10% of the notable substance of the Bible is pretty controversial, IMO.  Especially when taken literally and used as a guiding principle for government activity.

[BlueSwan]

What's even worse is that religion is not based on rationality.

Religion is based on rationality.  It is only the extremists that fight against religion and the extremists practitioners of religion that are not rational.  90-95% of what is in the Bible is not controversial or in conflict with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.

You're missing the point. Christians don't believe in the things you mention because they're rational. They believe in it because it's IN THE BIBLE. The whole basis for religion is blind faith. The rational approach would be to consider the arguments for and against the existence of God and the Bible being the words of God and then to decide what is more plausible based on evidence and logical arguments. The only ones coming with that attitude to the issue end up being agnostic or atheist for the simple reason that there are no good OBJECTIVE reasons to believe in the existence of a God and in the Bible being the words of that God. The only reason is that it for some people "feels right". I'm sure you'd agree that, beinge religous or not, basing a belief on a "feeling" is not rational. It may be true, maybe there is a God*, but rational it is not.

*) I'm kidding. There really isn't. ;-)

[courts]

I just don't like having my beliefs/viewed belittled by anyone and I find it really funny that many atheists and hyper-religious types share so many common qualities, especially "the world would be so much better if everyone thought like us"...

For me, faith (however much of it I have, and whatever I have it in) is deeply personal, I have come to my own conclusions, which will change over time... and they should - I just want to be left alone in that "that is your faith, I hope it brings you comfort and peace - this is mine, please respect that".

I agree that's ineffective and rude IMO. And further, I don't agree with all the claims of unconstitutionality put forth by people against (voluntary) school prayer or certain religious displays. But honestly, what have atheists attempted that even approaches the dogmatism and authoritarianism of so much of the religious right? I mean in the US it's still not uncommon to hear about laws prohibiting atheists from holding office, 'blue laws,' religiously motivated censorship campaigns, 'community standards,' etc. You might have a few militant feminists or marxists or other fringe group that are atheists (I've certainly seen them) that want to ban a lot of the same things but they're tiny and not really motivated by their non-belief per see.

[nhmagic]

Link: Though Christianity is still fairly dominant in American society, we are discussing the move away from it -culturally, politically and socially.  In the context of that discussion, it is wholly appropriate to discuss the trends that we see from our perspective - just as its appropriate to discuss how you see it from yours.

Christianity is not fairly dominant.  It IS dominant.  Maybe that is changing but what I took issue with was you making it seem like its open season on Christians in this country.  I've worked in red states and blue states.  I have never felt persecuted because I was a Christian.  Frankly religion of ANY type does not come up at most places where I've worked.  I am not denying that you may have had a bad experience.  But your two anecdotal accounts do not debunk the statistics that show nearly 80% of people self identify with Christianity.

Too be honest if the worst thing you have to do is keep you mouth shut about religion between the hours of 8am-5pm on weekdays I would hardly call that persecution.  There are a lot of people that can't simply trade in their skin color between the hours of 8am-5pm and avoid persecution.  I'm a lot more concerned about their plight.  And quite frankly their plight is no where near as bad as it was decades ago.

See, you nitpick at things and exaggerate what I said.  I wouldn't call it persecution, but it is a troubling sign to believers in this country.  First, if Christianity were dominant politically then the social issues would be decided decisively.  I've worked in red states and blue states too; however, I've seen different things than you.  I've seen hostility toward Israel growing, hostility towards Christians growing in both red and blue states.  There is a secular trend that is emerging.  I'm not saying its anywhere full mass like you assume I say, but I am saying it's growing and I believe it will get worse as time goes forward.  No it's not open season, but it will be soon...and then when that happens, even you will choose to stand in your faith accepting the worlds punishment or choose to deny it for a momentary reward.