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

[Hans Blaster]

Trump peddles in nostalgia and grievance but the agenda he represents (and such as it is), is pretty far from anything taught by Jesus of Nazareth.

That may be, but I'm not here to debate theology.

 

[rambot]

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.

By my own admission?
Sorry. What did I say that gave you that impression?

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.

I'm sorry; I don't see that. I say it can be an adjective used to describe a government though; and that is true.
A quick AI writeup on google:

A secular government is a
kind of government [1, 2, 3]. It is a system in which the state is officially neutral on matters of religion, does not have a state religion or church, and aims to treat all citizens equally regardless of their religious beliefs [1, 2, 3].


Key characteristics of a secular government include:

• Separation of church and state: There is a clear institutional separation between religious organizations and the governing body [1, 2].
• Religious neutrality: The government avoids promoting or inhibiting any specific religion [1, 2].
• Freedom of religion and belief: All individuals have the right to practice their faith, change their religion, or hold no religious beliefs, without government interference [1, 2, 3].
• Equality before the law: Laws apply to all citizens equally, regardless of their religious affiliation [2].

Secular governance is just not a type of government.

What is it about your understanding of the concept that surpasses all current political scientists that agree that a Secular government can exist? What is the "thing" they just don't get?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Critical Theory is the removal of economics from Marxism. That's not me saying so...the creators of Critical Theory stated that up front.

Critical Theory can thus be applied to a number of other movements. But one central component of Critical Theory brought over from Marxism is the proposal of eternal class conflict between Oppressor and Oppressed, which in Critical Theory is not economic class but other classifications such as race and sex.

Thus, in Critical Race Theory, the eternal class conflict is and will _always_ be between whites and non-whites. In this eternal conflict of Critical Theory, there can never be reconciliation, treaty, or compromise between whites and non-whites.

In Radical Feminism, the eternal class conflict is between males and females with males as the oppressors, and there can never be reconciliation, treaty, or compromise between them.

The only acceptable outcome in Critical Theory is vanquishing the Oppressor.

It's an analytic frame work in the social sciences. It is not the only one. I am not a social scientist, I am a regular scientist. I don't use it and am not interested in CT-related paranoia.

 

[FireDragon76]

That may be, but I'm not here to debate theology.

My point is that Trump doesn't represent a cultural triumph or a resurgence of Christianity. Quite the opposite.

 

[Fervent]

By my own admission?
Sorry. What did I say that gave you that impression?

In that post, where you recognize that it can manifest as a variety of forms of governance that have next to nothing in common.

I'm sorry; I don't see that. I say it can be an adjective used to describe a government though; and that is true.

An adjective that isn't very informative.

What is it about your understanding of the concept that surpasses all current political scientists that agree that a Secular government can exist? What is the "thing" they just don't get?

Who said a secular government can't exist? This seems to be a misunderstanding on your part, because my complaint is simply that "secular" doesn't add anything particularly informative about the government nor does it give any cause for blanket preference.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My point is that Trump doesn't represent a cultural triumph or a resurgence of Christianity. Quite the opposite.

And I've been talking (or at least at first [CT, phfft]) about the the politics of Christian nationalists taking their shot before Christianity fades away.

 

[Fervent]

And I've been talking (or at least at first [CT, phfft]) about the the politics of Christian nationalists taking their shot before Christianity fades away.

God tends to bury His undertakers.

 

[rambot]

In that post, where you recognize that it can manifest as a variety of forms of governance that have next to nothing in common.

Well....of course....That can be the case with a wide variety of types of government. It is still it's own ethos with its own characteristics.

An adjective that isn't very informative.

Sure. You could argue that.

Who said a secular government can't exist? This seems to be a misunderstanding on your part, because my complaint is simply that "secular" doesn't add anything particularly informative about the government nor does it give any cause for blanket preference.

Gotcha.
Well, if someone is comparing a dichotomy of theocracy and secular in a hypothetical, it seems reasonable to suggest that is a better government because that IS a spectrum.
I feel like if we lived in a theocracy where we were a minority religion, a secular government would sound utterly heavenly.

 

[FireDragon76]

The point being made was that you don't get to take a quick peek at the leader board to see what brand of theocracy you're likely to get. The decision is first: Secular governance or theocracy. Pick one and then you can decide on what type you'd like.

Would you first pick theocracy if the majority of citizens were Muslims? I don't think so. But me? My first choice is always secular. I don't want society run on the basis of 'what is written' in any given holy book.

Many ardent Trump supporters aren't seriously advocating for theocracy (the swing vote for Trump was among "barstool conservatives" more than the religious right). I think what some people resented, and rightfully, was the attempt to promulgate a more French-style secularism in a very forward and public way, in the face of the relative weakness of religious institutions in American life at the moment, and Trump was able to exploit that, and I would argue, rather cynically.

 

[Fervent]

Well....of course....That can be the case with a wide variety of types of government. It is still it's own ethos with its own characteristics.

Not really, as I said even medieval divine right kings were technically "secular" governments that were separated from the religious institutions, though there were often political intrigues.

Sure. You could argue that.

Which is my point.

Gotcha.
Well, if someone is comparing a dichotomy of theocracy and secular in a hypothetical, it seems reasonable to suggest that is a better government.

On what basis? The two dichotomies can run the gammot and i see no reason to give a blanket preference to secularism. So perhaps you could suggest what it is about secularity that is supposed to make it preferable in such a blanket fashion?

Now if you were to say a secular government is better than democracy, then I'd agree that would be a silly statement.

Sure, but my point is that there isn't enough in the terms themselves to give blanket preference to one over the other. They both can take multiple forms that could tilt the preference in one direction or the other.

 

[FireDragon76]

And I've been talking (or at least at first [CT, phfft]) about the the politics of Christian nationalists taking their shot before Christianity fades away.

It was bound to happen. The internal contradictions in American society are coming to a head and the old consensus is dying- the center cannot hold. Fascists are awful, but the liberal consensus also was overbearing with its own brand of hollow moralism.

I don't think things bode well for America, but I also admit that might be a little too pessimistic. As long as social inequality continues to grow in the US, people will naturally gravitate towards these kinds of extremist movements and demagogues.

 

[RDKirk]

It's an analytic frame work in the social sciences. It is not the only one. I am not a social scientist, I am a regular scientist. I don't use it and am not interested in CT-related paranoia.

I've had a discussion like this with you before. Your position basically boils down to saying you don't know anything about the subject, you're not interested in finding out, but you're going to give your opinions anyway.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

NEXT!!!

"What" was trying to make head or tails of you odd request that the "Democratic Left Deconstructionists" analyze your second-rate apologetics and 4th rate "comedy". Unless you know that no such persons can be found here...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Many ardent Trump supporters aren't seriously advocating for theocracy (the swing vote for Trump was among "barstool conservatives" more than the religious right). I think what some people resented, and rightfully, was the attempt to promulgate a more French-style secularism in a very forward and public way, in the face of the relative weakness of religious institutions in American life at the moment, and Trump was able to exploit that, and I would argue, rather cynically.

I'm not clear on the fine gradiations between French and American secular government, but the French do understand the proper use of kings.

 

[Larniavc]

I had more in mind examples along the lines of a book, or even a youtube channel for instance, committed to explicating the "benefits" of Nietzsche's or Marx's thinking, or some such, proliferating as they have over the last quarter century.

If an idea cannot compete in the market place of ideas it quickly falls from prominence.

 

[Bradskii]

Many ardent Trump supporters aren't seriously advocating for theocracy...

It would be a foolish move. I don't think they're that foolish.

 

[Bradskii]

We have drastically different assessments of the existing systems and their living up to their supposed structures. It certainly seems an illusion to me...

I wish you'd stop saying that. It's imperfect. It's not ideal. There are many faults. But it does work in the way that democracies are meant to work. If more people vote for one party than the other then they get to rule the roost for the duration. It's that simple. But it's not an illusion.

It's the same for theocracies. I will guarantee that they're not perfect either at least due to the different interpretations of whatever holy book is being used to run society. But they work in the way they're meant to work. By divine fiat. And nobody gets to vote.

I'll go Option One, thanks.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I'm not clear on the fine gradiations between French and American secular government, but the French do understand the proper use of kings.

Laïcité, it is just a very strict separation. For example iirc marriages are only legal when done civilly in addition to religiously if one is so inclined.

 

[Fervent]

I wish you'd stop saying that. It's imperfect. It's not ideal. There are many faults. But it does work in the way that democracies are meant to work. If more people vote for one party than the other then they get to rule the roost for the duration. It's that simple. But it's not an illusion.'

I can't say how it is in Australia, but in the US it doesn't work and it's more than just not ideal. It's a broken system, which is why the vast majority of people are constantly displeased with congress yet the same congress people get elected year over year. The slop that is presented as choices are all related and part of the same monied interests. It's an illusion of choice, where the corporations and lobbyists present bad options who are going to serve their interests and not the interests of the people. To call it imperfect is far too minimal for just how broken it is and how much the supposed choices are not genuine choices at all.

It's the same for theocracies. I will guarantee that they're not perfect either at least due to the different interpretations of whatever holy book is being used to run society. But they work in the way they're meant to work. By divine fiat. And nobody gets to vote.

You put far too much stock into voting, but I suppose that's not surprising given your lack of recognition for the prison that you are in that has completely removed your desire to escape by giving you the emotional sense of ownership since you get to mark off a piece of paper as if your input makes a difference.

 

[Larniavc]

then when they've built up enough numbers they go full scale Sharia law

In which western democracy has this happened?