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

[BCP1928]

Yeah, which is why I suggested a need for contextualization that is sensitive to the cultural paradigm that dominates our culture, i.e. emphasizing the elements that are important to people dealing with shame and social censure.

Wait. What? Who is being shamed and censured? And for what?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Most are somewhere between stage 1 and stage 2. We already see blasphemy laws starting to be enforced in the UK covertly...won't be long until Islam has a privileged status there, and then they'll start pressing towards stage 3.

Blasphemy laws are not permissible under the 1st amendment. Period. UK doesn't have that restriction. They have a state church with its own legal protections.

 

[Fervent]

Imagining gas where there is none does nobody any good. Christians having to tolerate other faiths is a good lesson.

Please illuminate them for me? In your own words if you could?

This isn't about "tolerating other faiths", this is about recognizing a persistently beligerant "faith" that has been engaged in a campaign for totalitarian control for 1400 years, following a basic pattern set out by the originator of that faith where when small and powerless the preaching focuses on peaceful cohabitation, then when large enough to be successful agitators seeking a special status through blasphemy laws and other preferential treatment, to finally seeking outright dominance and reducing all others to a 2nd class dhimmi status that allows for all manner of abuse. To reduce it to an issue of tolerance is incredibly myopic, and likely ignorant of the history of Islam both in its inception and over the course of its existence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I wasn't doing "ah-pollock-jetticks," Hans. Just because someone drops a name like C.S. Lewis in their sentence doesn't necessarily imply a 'defense for the Christian faith' is being presented. But you have my sympathy, though; I can understand your confusion.

Did your friend Mr. Screwtape write on politics?

 

[Fervent]

Wait. What? Who is being shamed and censured? And for what?

Shame and censure is the mode of social control that is becoming dominant as hierarchical authority is being replaced with peer-based social dynamics.

 

[RDKirk]

And you claim that is the sole and entire driver of Demcratic policy.

Can you quote me on that?

 

[Fervent]

Blasphemy laws are not permissible under the 1st amendment. Period. UK doesn't have that restriction. They have a state church with its own legal protections.

1st amendment protection is a protection, but whether it will hold is questionable particularly with increased rhetoric about "Islamophobia"

 

[BCP1928]

This isn't about "tolerating other faiths", this is about recognizing a persistently beligerant "faith" that has been engaged in a campaign for totalitarian control for 1400 years,

Don't you mean 500 years?

following a basic pattern set out by the originator of that faith where when small and powerless the preaching focuses on peaceful cohabitation, then when large enough to be successful agitators seeking a special status through blasphemy laws and other preferential treatment, to finally seeking outright dominance and reducing all others to a 2nd class dhimmi status that allows for all manner of abuse. To reduce it to an issue of tolerance is incredibly myopic, and likely ignorant of the history of Islam both in its inception and over the course of its existence.

Oh, I see--you were talking about Islam.

 

[BCP1928]

Can you quote me on that?

Not you--I took you as supporting another poster who made that claim.

 

[Hans Blaster]

1st amendment protection is a protection, but whether it will hold is questionable particularly with increased rhetoric about "Islamophobia"

A rhetoric you seem to be reinforcing.

The solution is to be aggressively secular in government and leave religion to its proper, private realm. What we need is some sort of wall... a wall of separation ... a separation between religion and government. Let the people believe on their own a their private beliefs. (I liked it better when people minded their own business and kept their religions to themselves.)

 

[Fervent]

Don't you mean 500 years?

Oh, I see--you were talking about Islam.

Haha...very funny. Though Protestant beligerantism is certainly problematic, but its a different sort of beligerance from that exemplified by islam. One will write scathing letters and call you a heretic, the other will cut your head off if you refuse to convert.

 

[Fervent]

A rhetoric you seem to be reinforcing.

The solution is to be aggressively secular in government and leave religion to its proper, private realm. What we need is some sort of wall... a wall of separation ... a separation between religion and government. Let the people believe on their own a their private beliefs. (I liked it better when people minded their own business and kept their religions to themselves.)

That's not really a solution, nor is religion a purely private matter. Religious folks have every right to make their convictions a matter of public discourse as any secular individual, and the separation between church and state is not a license for the state to run roughshod and suppress religious sentiment by relegating it to private convictions.

 

[BCP1928]

Haha...very funny. Though Protestant beligerantism is certainly problematic, but its a different sort of beligerance from that exemplified by islam. One will write scathing letters and call you a heretic, the other will cut your head off if you refuse to convert.

Yes, Christians don't do that kind of thing much any more.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did your friend Mr. Screwtape write on politics?

 

[Fervent]

Yes, Christians don't do that kind of thing much any more.

Outside of Michael Severus, it's never really been an issue in Protestantism. And while there have been instances in the broader church, those were exceptions rather than a general rule. Whereas in Islam it appears to be fairly SOP, especially among those who are most informed about the life of the "prophet" and full of zeal to emulate it.

 

[BCP1928]

That's not really a solution, nor is religion a purely private matter. Religious folks have every right to make their convictions a matter of public discourse as any secular individual,

They do have that right, and exercise it continuously.

and the separation between church and state is not a license for the state to run roughshod and suppress religious sentiment by relegating it to private convictions.

It is a private conviction. All religion is a private conviction.

 

[Fervent]

They do have that right, and exercise it continuously.

As is proper.

It is a private conviction. All religion is a private conviction.

All convictions are private convictions, but that doesn't mean they can be relegated to private concerns. Particularly when we're dealing with totalizing beliefs that speak to every aspect of human life.

 

[BCP1928]

Outside of Michael Severus, it's never really been an issue in Protestantism. And while there have been instances in the broader church, those were exceptions rather than a general rule. Whereas in Islam it appears to be fairly SOP, especially among those who are most informed about the life of the "prophet" and full of zeal to emulate it.

Actually, the Quran does not allow the execution of those who won't convert. Some forms of Islam allow it for apostasy, but there is not universal agreement about it.

 

[Fervent]

Actually, the Quran does not allow the execution of those who won't convert. Some forms of Islam allow it for apostasy, but there is not universal agreement about it.

Properly understood, it absolutely does. But that takes engagement with Islamic scholarship and the Sunnah material, where it is clear that Muhammad used the threat of conversion or death against the people of Mecca when he overthrew the city. And forms that deny death for apostasy are the exception, whereas it is the prescriptive punishment by pretty much all mainline divisions(sunni, shia, sufi)

 

[BCP1928]

As is proper.

All convictions are private convictions, but that doesn't mean they can be relegated to private concerns. Particularly when we're dealing with totalizing beliefs that speak to every aspect of human life.

I think you mean that those concerns are being dismissed as objective concerns.