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

[Fervent]

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

who gets to decide what an objective concern is in such regards?

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Separation isn't a solution? I think rather it is. Keep the churches out of government. As for the "private matter", I miss the days when it was considered polite to no ask about or tell about your religion in non-religious contexts. In my days in church the only way to know which one I went to was to be in the same parish. Oddly enough, no one ever asked (including my roommates).

[edit to fix missing ?]

 

[Fervent]

Separation isn't a solution. I think rather it is. Keep the churches out of government. As for the "private matter", I miss the days when it was considered polite to no ask about or tell about your religion in non-religious contexts. In my days in church the only way to know which one I went to was to be in the same parish. Oddly enough, no one ever asked (including my roommates).

I really don't care what you "miss", and no separation isn't a feasible solution because there is no way to exclude religious people from public life nor should it be expected of them to do so. Not allowing for the establishment of a state church is fine, as it is reasonable not to give one religion a privileged status in a pluralistic society, but demanding that religious folks separate their religion from their politics and their public life in general is an unreasonable demand and is nothing more than de facto giving a privileged status to a particular position on religion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I misread your foe-ah-net-ticks. Maybe it was because the middle "syllable" looked like the common word for Poles where I grew up and my brain put the world "pole" there. No, apologetics isn't the first thing I think of when I think of CS Lewis (which I'd rather not do anyway), but children's literature. I was surprised several years ago when Christians kept bringing him up as I was not aware of his Christian writings.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

Just like what happened to Rome when Christians were accepted. And here we are.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I really don't care what you "miss", and no separation isn't a feasible solution because there is no way to exclude religious people from public life nor should it be expected of them to do so.

That's not what separation is. SMH.

Not allowing for the establishment of a state church is fine, as it is reasonable not to give one religion a privileged status in a pluralistic society,

That's half of it.

but demanding that religious folks separate their religion from their politics and their public life in general is an unreasonable demand and is nothing more than de facto giving a privileged status to a particular position on religion.

Politic how you like. I don't care.

The other half is that government needs to stop privileging religious organizations. A church is a private, non-profit, let it file a 990 form like all the rest. Chaplains are fine for the military posted far from their co-religionists or out at sea, but no public school or government agency or legislative body needs one.

 

[Larniavc]

That's not really a solution, nor is religion a purely private matter.

Honestly this is half of the problem. If Christians stopped trying to get people to live the way their particular religion insists Christianity wouldn’t be so controversial.

 

[BCP1928]

I really don't care what you "miss", and no separation isn't a feasible solution because there is no way to exclude religious people from public life nor should it be expected of them to do so. Not allowing for the establishment of a state church is fine, as it is reasonable not to give one religion a privileged status in a pluralistic society, but demanding that religious folks separate their religion from their politics and their public life in general is an unreasonable demand and is nothing more than de facto giving a privileged status to a particular position on religion.

No one is asking that, and you are free to let your religious beliefs inform your political views. Christians even have the power to impose them on others, to the extent of one vote each, just like everybody else. Provided, of course, that the imposition is not such as to interfere with their Constitutional rights.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And have the Muslim majority of Dearborn turned that city into a theocracy?

No.

GOP candidate admits he was wrong about Muslims, calls off ‘American Crusade’ march in Dearborn​

Anthony Hudson promoted the rally with Christian nationalist rhetoric, suggested Marines and National Guard members would join him, and insisted 5,000 “patriots” were ready to march

After two weeks of warning that Dearborn was edging closer to “Muslim infiltration” and Sharia law, Republican gubernatorial candidate Anthony Hudson walked into three mosques, met with residents, and realized none of it was true.

“I can tell you in good faith right now today standing at a pulpit in a mosque that Sharia law does not exist in Dearborn, Michigan, nor do I believe it exists anywhere in the United States,” Hudson said in a video posted from a Dearborn mosque, a rare concession for an “America First” supporter for President Donald Trump.

 

[rambot]

The other half is that government needs to stop privileging religious organizations. A church is a private, non-profit, let it file a 990 form like all the rest. Chaplains are fine for the military posted far from their co-religionists or out at sea, but no public school or government agency or legislative body needs one.

I obviously have a bias but I think churchs (and religious institutions) should be tax excempt contingent on a couple things:
1) They work to support the needs of their community.

2) At no point EVER is politics or politicians appropriate to speak about politics in a church.

INSTANT status loss IMHO.

 

[Bradskii]

Beyond that, your sole complaint about theocracy appears to be that it involves religious texts.

Just because it involves religious texts? Good grief...

It doesn't just involve religious texts. You are governed by religious texts. You have no choice in the matter. Whatever beliefs you personally hold are irrelevant. You have no recourse to change anything whatsoever. Some select few (who selects them?) will interpret the Quran, the Veda or the old Testament and you'll have to obey whatever that interpetation is. You can't change it. It is fixed.

If you you prefer that, living under what the Qur'an or Vedas or Old Testament demands rather than in a western style democracy then that's your call.

So will it be your current messy democratic republic or Sharia Law for you? As is usual, I don't ask expecting an answer but only to show that the question will be ignored.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Ah, maybe the question has been answered...it seems that you'd prefer not to have a theocracy. You woudn't want believers to have 'preferential treatment'. You wouldn't want to be reduced to a 'second class' status. And because, well...it would allow 'all manner of abuse'.

Hey, we agree! Isn't it lucky that we both live in secular countries.

 

[rambot]

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...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... status.

[my edit]
Lol!
There are quite a few nonchristians and Aboriginal groups that would describe Christianity through that exact lens. Or frankly, FAR less flattering verbiage.

 

[Bradskii]

...the other will cut your head off if you refuse to convert.

No, they won't. Why on earth would you say that?

 

[rambot]

IT sounds like a poster doesn't want a theocracy and can list the reasons they wouldn't want a theocracy. But doesn't want the alternative....

which they haven't given a definition for (and which they've said doesn't exist anyways). Curious.

 

[Hans Blaster]

[my edit]
Lol!
There are quite a few nonchristians and Aboriginal groups that would describe Christianity through that exact lens. Or frankly, FAR less flattering verbiage.

Only flattering verbiage is allowed here...

 

[Fervent]

Ah, maybe the question has been answered...it seems that you'd prefer not to have a theocracy. You woudn't want believers to have 'preferential treatment'. You wouldn't want to be reduced to a 'second class' status. And because, well...it would allow 'all manner of abuse'.

Hey, we agree! Isn't it lucky that we both live in secular countries.

Not all theocracies are created equal. Just because I wouldn't want to live in an islamic caliphate doesn't mean I would mind living in a Society of Friends led presbyterian government, or even a Sihk or Brahminist government if I have to go with a non-Christian religion. The specific details matter, not just broad strokes categories that are barely informative.

 

[Fervent]

[my edit]
Lol!
There are quite a few nonchristians and Aboriginal groups that would describe Christianity through that exact lens. Or frankly, FAR less flattering verbiage.

This isn't about miscarriages of a religion, but a pattern set by its founder.

 

[Fervent]

Just because it involves religious texts? Good grief...

It doesn't just involve religious texts. You are governed by religious texts. You have no choice in the matter. Whatever beliefs you personally hold are irrelevant. You have no recourse to change anything whatsoever. Some select few (who selects them?) will interpret the Quran, the Veda or the old Testament and you'll have to obey whatever that interpetation is. You can't change it. It is fixed.

If you you prefer that, living under what the Qur'an or Vedas or Old Testament demands rather than in a western style democracy then that's your call.

So will it be your current messy democratic republic or Sharia Law for you? As is usual, I don't ask expecting an answer but only to show that the question will be ignored.

See post #217.

 

[rambot]

This isn't about miscarriages of a religion, but a pattern set by its founder.

OF course the benefactor of that miscarriage of their own religion would certainly excuse it thusly.

But the victims of the Christian church would not think the difference actually matters.

Cause it doesn't REALLY matter.