Is US-style fluidity of religious identity a good thing?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is one thing that I'll admit I'll never see eye to eye with many people on, but it seems kind of childish to me for non-Americans to be view it as an inherently bad thing just because that's not exactly how it works in their countries, especially since it's helped break down sectarianism. Is anyone going to argue the attitudes in Northern Ireland on this are more healthy?

Also it's completely in the spirit of the First Amendment, which is not exactly a US-exclusive thing because basically every democratic country in the world has some equivalent.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That's not exactly what I'm referring to. If he converted in marriage that could happen in most countries.

I'm talking more about someone who converts to Islam before they get married, has no connections to Islam in the culture they were raised in and completely changes their religious identity so that what they were born into doesn't matter at all. Like my Congressman Keith Ellison.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's itself a neutral-to-good thing probably but has negative as well as positive side-effects. It's likely better for a country that's otherwise culturally diverse than the alternative; were America more homogeneous in other ways that would not be the case.

I'm a bit surprised you say that, since you've reacted with horror to some very "American" quotes and comments on this before.

It's good because it prevents overt "tribalism"/sectarianism, and it's good for social cohesion in society. It's bad for communities and social cohesion within communities.

Rural areas in Minnesota and North Dakota are some of the most "socially cohesive" places you can ever find.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's itself a neutral-to-good thing probably but has negative as well as positive side-effects. It's likely better for a country that's otherwise culturally diverse than the alternative; were America more homogeneous in other ways that would not be the case.

I'm a bit surprised you say that, since you've reacted with horror to some very "American" quotes and comments on this before.

Because they're flippant and don't seem to recognize that there are downsides to this or that things could be different. Besides, my personal feelings about the 'American' attitude are different (much more negative) than my 'official' position as an aspiring sociologist of religion.

The only downside I've ever heard brought up that wasn't based on an extreme conservative/reactionary mindset built on worshiping "tradition" is that it permits the rise of some churches that serve mostly to enrich their leaders and things like prosperity theology.

But an open democratic process permits the rise of some extreme fringe movements (be they crazy fringe parties in Europe or the Tea Party in the US) and that doesn't mean that such attitudes toward democracy and openess (as opposed to say a Singapore system) are a bad thing.