I believe this country will be a mostly atheistic country in the next few decades. Sign of the times. How things are going. I also believe the U.S. will and is declining because of its loss of integrity and morality through belief in God and living as a person who believes and follows Him. The U.S. is just another "Roman Empire," that will crash and burn like so many other countries that had their time in the sun...that rose and then fell
Perhaps it's just me - but I thought the height of an atheistic country was the U.S.S.R and what they sought to do to believers, be it those in the Russian Orthodox Church or other churches). For the entire revolution against the Czar, to my knowledge, was based predominately on blaming God for their situation - although they didn't succedd in eradicating things since the Lord reigns...and the remant of believers will always find ways of making the truth known in ways that subvert a nation from eradicating Christianity from its midst (more discussed in
"Hidden & Triumphant: The Underground Struggle to Save Russian Iconography ).
With the U.S, it does seem we're living in a Post-Christian society where Christianity is not the dominant influence - and that can be beneficial to believers since it causes those serving Christ to shine brighter when the darkness is bigger.....and it does seem Christianity always seemed to thrive on the margins.
Essentially, many are fearful of becoming minorities----feeling as if believers disagreeing with it will lose more power/influence while those disagreeing with Christ will become MORE powerful. But history doesn't seem to support that. I'm reminded of Jim Wallis' thoughts about post-Christendom (A Christian Mistake - Jim Wallis | God's Politics Blog | Sojourners ), which for the most part I agree with:
"Personally, I am not offended or alarmed by the notion of a post-Christian America. Christianity was originally and, in my view, always meant to be a minority faith with a counter-cultural stance, as opposed to the dominant cultural and political force….. Martin Luther King Jr. did not get the Civil Rights Act passed because he had the most Bible verses on his side but because he entered into the public square with compelling arguments, vision, and policy that ultimately won the day. Those faith-inspired movements are disciplined by democracy, meaning they don’t expect to win just because they are “Christian.” They have to win the debates about what is best for the common good by convincing their fellow citizens. And that is best done by shaping the values narrative, as opposed to converting everyone to their particular brand of religion.”
______________________________________________________________________________-
Living in a Post-Christian society can have negatives - and yet there are also strong benefits as well. There is a lack of dominance developing by the traditional parties like the Christian RIght and readjustment of how to interact with ideas.
In many ways, it seems similar to what happened with believers in the Early Church when they became a majority over time and yet had to still find ways of working with the culture/other Non-Christian views - even though the West differed sharply from the East in what developed afterward ( #23 ).
Not being a CHristian-dominanted country seems to open the door for more of what you noted in your thread entitled The coming evangelical collapse. For you DEFINATELY will not see people saying all things "Israel" should be supported on the basis of the Bible like the Evangelical Right has often repeated....to the detriment of Palestinians/Jews alike who suffer because of needless violence and a lack of being held accountable for their actions because of how Christian Zionism allows things to be promoted. As ironic as it sounds, it does seem that others not bound by the Biblical interpretation of Israel have often been more sensible in how to go about it. And it does seem that the Election 2012 marks the End of Evangelical Dominance in Politics
If Christians happened to be on the margins again where their views were not the main ones in dominance, would that somehow mean that the Lord lost control? Would that somehow mean that what the Bible defines morality on is no longer true? Of course not. Christ did not have the mindset that those in the world of non-believers destroyed the truth of God’s instructions simply because they happened to have freedom to do their lifestyles as they please….nor did he reject relationship with those who were enemies of the Gospel.
Sadly, it does seem that secular humanism is a dominant force and something that's seeking to dominate in many ways - although where we're at is tolerance being the new religion, IMHO. And a view of "tolerance" that's intolerant toward Christianity because of its traditional stance that it is supreme and the best out of all other roads...the way to the Lord. It makes no sense as to why others demand Christians to be tolerant of other religions/beliefs - all of it based on moral relativism/the belief that there are no absolutes - and yet they are aggressive in making absolute statements and new religion to proclaim itself as the only way to salvation.
Many have often noted that an even greater threat than anything else is
Transhumanism (more
here and here) - based in Secular Humanism, with the former on the rise and growing in control of much in the world---from
human genetic enhancements/claiming to improve the human condition and doing a lot of messing with things/trying to get patents on biological elements (be it with Monsanto in its work with food or others working with gene therapy/finding ways to alter humanity in its evolution, regulation on human repopulation, eugenic population control, etc). In many ways, we're moving towards an alternative humanity: transhuman existence. This is based more on the technological than the biological. Scientific advances are enabling what once was purely science-fiction to become reality (take cybernetic limbs for example). We are spending increasingly more time interacting with computers than directly with other humans. How then will our ethics and laws alter to cope with these kinds of changes, and what impact will it have on our humanity?
Many have been discussing the ways that a lot of the people
working with trying to get patents on human genes are Transhumanist on differing levels......and that's one reason
why it's so scarey.
Militant Atheism is what often tends to come about from those venues....as well as social darwinism amongst other things (similar to the Eugenics programs hailed by Hitler in the Holocaust, alongside Margret Sanger in her plans for minorities in America with the Negro Project...and of course, the ways that Stalinism arose once Germany was defeated)....although I will say it's interesting seeing
the ways that Hitler himself interacted with people from Radical Islam (a real threat)---for he worked with others who were
leaders in radical Islam such as the Grand Mufti ( the highest official of religious law in a Sunni or Ibadi
Muslim country),
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini (more shared here, here, here and here )---more shared at Haj Amin Al-Husseini - Nazi collaborator and model for today's Islamists - Militant Islam Monitor and
Hitler's Mufti | Catholic Answers.
So with the direction the U.S is going toward, although there will always be others who are Non-Christian and against acts of violence/destruction, there will always be potential for both the extremists in the Religions/Secular realm to come together and do much damage to others in the name of the Lord....just as it has occurred before. There may be a greater time of Christians working together with people in differing religions/groups - but that, in and of itself, doesn't mean that there'll not be others with the intention of establishing Christianity as being non-existant - for even the Herodians and the Pharisees/Saducees (all of whom had serious hate/dislike for each other) came together to be against Christ. So why would it not be possible for other groups - be it atheists or other religous groups - to come together and do the same?