Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You ask me a question, and then go on to basically accuse me of being responsible for getting off topic as if you and others haven't been pressing me on the matter and I have repeatedly attempted to shut down the discussion. Given your clear biases, I'm not concerned with your opinion on how I present religiousity.
You aren't responsible for getting off topic. One cannot do that alone. However, on topic or not, you have gone to a lot of trouble to demonstrate that Islam presents an existential threat to Western society and it seems to me that you might least give a suggestion as to what you think we should do about it. And since the OP topic is about loss of religiousity in the US, I wondered if you could relate that in some way to the excessive religiousity of radical Islam.
I haven't gone to trouble to demonstrate it, I've maintained that it is based on my assessment of what is fundamental to Islam in its purest form. As for a solution, it requires first broad recognition of the danger and then we can start talking about solutions. The paradox of tolerance comes into play, and I wouldn't say that excessive religiosity is the problem in fundamentalist Islam but that Islam is a praxis-based religion with the central means of defining appropriate praxis being the behavior of a 7th century warlord.
Not all mambers of a religion interpret their founding documents "fundamentally." The same thing happens in Christianity. Christian Nationalist groups may base their ugly politics on what they think of as the "fundamental" truths of the Christian faith, but that doesn't't lead me to suppose that all Christians are a threat.
You're comparing apples with oranges, since Christian nationalists don't begin with theology/questions of Christian praxis but begin with religious tokenism where their "faith" is little more than an identity token not a genuine source of ideology. On the other hand, it is by sticking as close to the actions and mandates of Muhammad that fundamentalist Muslims draw their practices. And it's not that Muslims, in general, are a threat but the Islam is a threat. The difference is important, though it is of course Muslims who carry out the ideology of Islam that is the source of the problem.
