Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

[FireDragon76]

As I've explained before, the DNC has been controlled by Critical Theory ideologists since 2008. The struggle at the top between the old guard liberals and the CT ideologists occurred from 2008 through 2020, with the infighting being visible in hindsight. Clinton (old-school liberal) was rather suddenly replaced by Obama (a CT ideologist).

Yang, Klobuchar, Gabbard and some others are younger, but not CT ideologists, so they had to go...permanently. Sanders was neutered ( some of the Democratic Party rank-and-file did notice that, but didn't understand what was happening). Others of the Old Guard like Pelosi and Warren just decided to quietly let their clocks run out. Biden was senile enough to be controlled. The ones you see in good standing in the DNC right now are firm CT ideologists. But notice that none of them are Party leaders. The Party is run by committee and will pick an appropriate mouthpiece when the time comes.

Both Clinton and Obama had more in common in terms of actual politics. Both were committed to managerial neoliberalism, and both heavily shaped by the New Left consensus that tried to come to terms with the Reagan revolution. Clinton could just pour effusive southern warmth into everything, whereas Obama was seen as aloof (and largely that was correct).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I personally have not had any encounters with "critical theory". I did once go to a lecture on String Theory. Could it be worse than that?

Since the lineage of this post includes mine about the failures to distinguish the gradients of the left portion of the political "spectrum", I was a bit disappointed to see this mashup of "Democrats", the "Left" and "deconstruction", while complaining about discernment of the "left" of some Christian stuff.

Capital "D" Democrats and the capital "L" Left aren't exactly on speaking terms. If you meant the portion of the "political spectrum" past the middle relative to the conservatives/right (or vice versa) that includes most Democrates it is just lower case "left".

Roughly the labels for the positions on the Democrats/left scale from right to left are:

Conservative Dems, Centrist Dems, mainstream/normie Dems, Liberals, Progressives, Democratic Socialists (and somewhere around here we run out of Dems), Socialists, Anarcho sydicalists, Communists.

With the DS roughtly separating the Dems (to their right) from "The Left".



They may not, but I don't know any such persons. I've run into some "Leftists" on regular social media, but they mostly spend their time complaining about the Dems and how far right the Dems are. Since what follows is a bunch of Christian stuff, I have no idea what their "spiritual' positions are. The political spectrum is a poor determinant of that.

The biggest problem with the "Bee" is that it isn't funny. Their content is often bigoted and they often "punch down".

I ran in to Lewis in grade school and his literature was blech. More recently I've run into his "apologetics" second hand and it isn't any better than apologetics of "cold case detective" turned apologist J. Warner Wallace. Not the best arguments in an already dire genre. I know you are fond of your friend Mr. Screwtape, but I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Wouldn't that be some sort of "analytic" literary analysis? It's not something I know or care to know. I think you'd need some sort of lit. major. "Critical theory" is itself an analytic framework for social sciences. It's one of many such frameworks, but I had one course in college that engaged in analysis in the social sciences. I do remember doing "Marxist analysis" (socioeconomic) analysis as part of that class.

Deconsruction? Isn't that the thing the kids call deconverting from religion now-a-days?

Are you wanting to complain about non-belivers not liking your Christian media ("humor" and "buck up lit") and confusing us with "The Left"?

What???????????????????????????????????????

NEXT!!!

 

[Fervent]

I have to agree with that (and was about to say it myself).

I'd rather live in Saudi Arabia than North Korea.

Yep, and truth be told there's a lot that pluralistic societies leave to be desired. Threats of theocracy are largely just scare mongering with no real recognition that they, too, can run from relatively liberal such as the Persian empire was under Zoroastrianism to more totalitarian forms such as Islamic caliphates. Theocracy just isn't an inherently scary term to me.

 

[NxNW]

Realistically and historically, that's not the way "the government you get" usually works.

You usually get the government of whoever wielded the greatest preponderance of violence.

I think that's currently true in the US, too.

 

[rambot]

Yeah, my rejection of the categories as not demonstrative of the options doesn't really imply I want a theocracy before Jesus returns. I just don't find the categorization of "secular" governance a meaningful enough phrase to serve as a determinant.

What gravitas or clarity does it lack for you?

 

[Fervent]

What gravitas or clarity does it lack for you?

Any specificity of what form of governance it's supposed to represent. Even theocratic governments like Divine Right monarchies of the middle ages can be said to be "secular" in their political dealings. Secular governance is just not a type of government.

 

[Bradskii]

"Secular" could be any form of governance, since it just means worldly or related to the world. It's an empty term when it comes to government, and could describe anything from a democratic republic to a monarchy to a totalitarian communist government.

In this context it simply means 'not a theocracy'. You might remember that theocracies were brought up as a possibility should Muslims become the majority. Now if that happens where you live or where I live or in any country where it could happen then the existing system would be some type of democracy. You can't vote to change your system unless you live in a democracy to start with.

it's simply not a meaningful term. So I see no reason to give preference to a secular government purely on the basis of its secularity, as I would much rather live under a magnanimous theocracy than a totalitarian "secular" government.

If you lived under a totalitarian government then you wouldn't have the option to change. So the question is really 'Do you want the secular system that you have now OR would you want to change to a theocracy'. At which juncture all the points I made earlier stand.

Notwithstanding, if we were working from first principles then, as you rightly point out, there are many forms of secular governments. But all the ones where you and I would want to live are some form of democracy. Whereas all forms of theocracy are ruled by fiat by a divine figure. And we see on a daily basis the contradictions offered by umpteen Christian members in this forum as to what we should and shouldn't do. They seem to be interpreting what God wants differently.

Thank. But no thanks.

 

[Bradskii]

I have to agree with that (and was about to say it myself).

I'd rather live in Saudi Arabia than North Korea.

Me too. But that wasn't the option.

 

[rambot]

"Secular" could be any form of governance, since it just means worldly or related to the world. It's an empty term when it comes to government, and could describe anything from a democratic republic to a monarchy to a totalitarian communist government. it's simply not a meaningful term.

Interesting.
I see dictionary definitions that define secular as "eschewing or avoiding religion". This is the primary definition I have seen given.
Also, it seems surprising that you would not have assumed that there is a political scale that goes from "theoracy" to "secular" given that these terms exist on the same continuums.

I have seen the "related to the world" as part of that definition. But the crux of the definition is that it avoids religion. So a democracy, democratic republic and monarchy still could aptly be described as secular.

Webster definied it as:
of or relating to the physical world and not the spiritual world

You got the first half right but I think that 2nd half is very important.

And I think denoting a government that avoids religion IS, in fact, an appropriate marker for many governments (I do consider North Korea, essentially, theoratic though...just with a VERY unimpressive deity.)


I mean, all this as an aside that any political scholar or college student would know exactly what "secular" means.

 

[Fervent]

Interesting.
I see dictionary definitions that define secular as "eschewing or avoiding religion". This is the primary definition I have seen given.
Also, it seems surprising that you would not have assumed that there is a political scale that goes from "theoracy" to "secular" given that these terms exist on the same continuums.

I have seen the "related to the world" as part of that definition. But the crux of the definition is that it avoids religion. So a democracy, democratic republic and monarchy still could aptly be described as secular.

Webster definied it as:
of or relating to the physical world and not the spiritual world

You got the first half right but I think that 2nd half is very important.

And I think denoting a government that avoids religion IS, in fact, an appropriate marker for many governments (I do consider North Korea, essentially, theoratic though...just with a VERY unimpressive deity.)


I mean, all this as an aside that any political scholar or college student would know exactly what "secular" means.

By your own admission its not a form of government and covers a wide range of governmental structures, and I see no reason to prefer it purely on the basis of secularity. There are magnanimous, liberal theocracies, and dictatorial, oppressive secular governments. Nothing about it being secular provides any reason to recommend it over and above a theocracy purely on that basis. In fact the only reason to prefer it is an inherent suspicion of religion, which of course I do not share with you.

 

[Fervent]

In this context it simply means 'not a theocracy'. You might remember that theocracies were brought up as a possibility should Muslims become the majority. Now if that happens where you live or where I live or in any country where it could happen then the existing system would be some type of democracy. You can't vote to change your system unless you live in a democracy to start with.

Arguably, even within democracies there isn't the option to vote to change the system.

If you lived under a totalitarian government then you wouldn't have the option to change. So the question is really 'Do you want the secular system that you have now OR would you want to change to a theocracy'. At which juncture all the points I made earlier stand.

That wasn't the question, and even if it were I don't find theocracy inherently suspect or robust enough of a term to make such a determination.

Notwithstanding, if we were working from first principles then, as you rightly point out, there are many forms of secular governments. But all the ones where you and I would want to live are some form of democracy. Whereas all forms of theocracy are ruled by fiat by a divine figure. And we see on a daily basis the contradictions offered by umpteen Christian members in this forum as to what we should and shouldn't do. They seem to be interpreting what God wants differently.

Thank. But no thanks.

You assume I have a preference for democracy, but I'm honestly not all that enthralled with them. Particularly because at a large enough scale they become loaded down with corruption and effectively function as oligarchies run by monied interests, to the point where the democracy functions more as a prison without walls with an illusion of control. So while you may be sold on the myth of democracy, even if we're comparing theocracy with democracy I don't see any inherent reason to prefer one to the other on a blanket statement and plenty of reason to get into the nitty gritty of what the structures and institutions of the theocracy are.

 

[RDKirk]

Both Clinton and Obama had more in common in terms of actual politics. Both were committed to managerial neoliberalism, and both heavily shaped by the New Left consensus that tried to come to terms with the Reagan revolution. Clinton could just pour effusive southern warmth into everything, whereas Obama was seen as aloof (and largely that was correct).

That's what Obama seemed like in his first term. But he was a Critical Theorist in his second term. It was during his presidency that the DNC was turned to Critical Theory, and we saw the shake-out between then and the 2024 election. You really have to ask yourself how the candidate that was firmly rejected by rank-and-file Democrats in 2020 was nevertheless selected that same year to be the Democratic Party's 2024 candidate.

 

[Bradskii]

Arguably, even within democracies there isn't the option to vote to change the system.

We're using broad brush definitions here. A democracy is when people can vote to support or reject proposals. I can't see that happening in a theocracy. Again, broad brush definition means that decisions on how we live are by divine fiat.

 

[Fervent]

We're using broad brush definitions here. A democracy is when people can vote to support or reject proposals. I can't see that happening in a theocracy. Again, broad brush definition means that decisions on how we live are by divine fiat.

I prefer how things function in practice, rather than idealistic hypotheticals. Democracy tends more to be illusion than fact with regard to having a say in governance. At least a theocracy is going to be open about its controlling tendencies, rather than pretending the inmates are running the asylum.

 

[Bradskii]

LIn fact the only reason to prefer it is an inherent suspicion of religion, which of course I do not share with you.

It's not an inherent suspicion of religion in itself. It's that in a theocracy I'd have no say in how I live. Neither would you.

 

[Fervent]

It's not an inherent suspicion of religion in itself. It's that in a theocracy I'd have no say in how I live. Neither would you.

Seems to me not much changes. Other than the dissolution of an illusion.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's what Obama seemed like in his first term. But he was a Critical Theorist in his second term. It was during his presidency that the DNC was turned to Critical Theory, and we saw the shake-out between then and the 2024 election. You really have to ask yourself how the candidate that was firmly rejected by rank-and-file Democrats in 2020 was nevertheless selected that same year to be the Democratic Party's 2024 candidate.

Harris wouldn't scare the corporate donors, unlike somebody like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

Harris actually did have better economic policies, unfortunately she spent too much time focusing on Donald Trump's personality and abstractions like "democracy".

 

[RDKirk]

That's what Obama seemed like in his first term. But he was a Critical Theorist in his second term. It was during his presidency that the DNC was turned to Critical Theory, and we saw the shake-out between then and the 2024 election. You really have to ask yourself how the candidate that was firmly rejected by rank-and-file Democrats in 2020 was nevertheless selected that same year to be the Democratic Party's 2024 candidate.

Harris wouldn't scare the corporate donors, unlike somebody like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

Harris actually did have better economic policies, unfortunately she spent too much time focusing on Donald Trump's personality and abstractions like "democracy".

I think you missed the point of what I said.

Harris was put into the position to be the 2024 candidate in 2020.

 

[Bradskii]

Seems to me not much changes. Other than the dissolution of an illusion.

Look, I prefer to see how things work out in practice as well. I like to make practical decisions based on real life situations. Heading into the weeds looking at philosophical questions about governance or morality can be interesting, up to a point. But a lot of it is semantics. All we should really need to do is to see if something we already do works in practice. In real terms. In the here and now. And then give it the ol' thumbs up if it does work. We don't often say 'Well, I'm not sure about this. Let's just give it a go and see what happens'. We can investigate possible, in fact probable results using hypotheticals and discuss likely outcomes. Yeah, I know, horrifying. And you'd be excused from any of the discussions because you don't want to deal with them. But...

...in real life, in the actual here and now, we are both living under governments that were decided democratically. Are either systems perfect? No, there's a lot that could be improved. But under the existing democratic systems, if the majority don't like what the present incumbents are doing, then at some point they can vote for someone else. That is not an illusion. It works. It gets a thumbs up (so please take any ancillary complaints that you have about the Great Unwashed being able to decide how you have to live your life elsewhere).

On the other hand, using those handy hypothetical suggestions, we can investigate how a theocracy would work. And it's not a democratic process. Period. 'It Is Written' becomes the basis for our society. You don't get to choose anything and neither do I. It's already been decided. And if you don't agree with the people who are interpreting What Is Written (and who votes for those guys anyway?) then tough luck.

Maybe then you'll remember the good old days when, if you were in the majority, you could do something about it. And welcome the votes of others who agreed with you. However uneducated and ill informed they were.

 

[Fervent]

Look, I prefer to see how things work out in practice as well. I like to make practical decisions based on real life situations. Heading into the weeds looking at philosophical questions about governance or morality can be interesting, up to a point. But a lot of it is semantics. All we should really need to do is to see if something we already do works in practice. In real terms. In the here and now. And then give it the ol' thumbs up if it does work. We don't often say 'Well, I'm not sure about this. Let's just give it a go and see what happens'. We can investigate possible, in fact probable results using hypotheticals and discuss likely outcomes. Yeah, I know, horrifying. And you'd be excused from any of the discussions because you don't want to deal with them. But...

...in real life, in the actual here and now, we are both living under governments that were decided democratically. Are either systems perfect? No, there's a lot that could be improved. But under the existing democratic systems, if the majority don't like what the present incumbents are doing, then at some point they can vote for someone else. That is not an illusion. It works. It gets a thumbs up (so please take any ancillary complaints that you have about the Great Unwashed being able to decide how you have to live your life elsewhere).

We have drastically different assessments of the existing systems and their living up to their supposed structures. It certainly seems an illusion to me, especially since everyone seems to think that everybody but their guy is the problem and actual quality candidates can't break through due to monied interests and the cost of entry. The supposed choice is an illusion, meant to placate the masses while they are robbed through a variety of macro scale economic forces and lobbyist influence. It's far beyond just imperfect, at least in the US, it is downright broken.

On the other hand, using those handy hypothetical suggestions, we can investigate how a theocracy would work. And it's not a democratic process. Period. 'It Is Written' becomes the basis for our society. You don't get to choose anything and neither do I. It's already been decided. And if you don't agree with the people who are interpreting What Is Written (and who votes for those guys anyway?) then tough luck.

Again, I'm not enamored with democracy for the sake of democracy. Honestly, I lean towards Plato's solution of the philosopher king, for many of the same reasons he found republic intolerable.

Maybe then you'll remember the good old days when, if you were in the majority, you could do something about it. And welcome the votes of others who agreed with you. However uneducated and ill informed they were.

I think you are far underselling the role of money and corporate lobbying in democratic governance, and far too idealistic about a sense of input in such systems. It's a psychological game to keep people mollified by giving them a sense of ownership, but it's mostly illusory.