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

Fervent · 2025-11-17T17:01:27-0600

Larniavc said:
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.

Truth is controversial by nature, Jesus did say He came not to bring peace but a sword and people generally don't appreciate being called out for being evil.

BCP1928 said:
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.

It goes beyond that, to suppression of public displays or being able to express personal religious beliefs for educators or other public facing government jobs without fear of loss of employment. Even voluntary teacher led or coach led prayer is banned in schools, which to me seems to violate the spirit of the establishment clause.

Fervent · 2025-11-17T17:03:44-0600

rambot said:
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.

I'm not excusing it, it is atrocious behavior that shouldn't have happened. But it is an indictment of the folks who carried it out, not the religion itself. It absolutely matters whether or not the founding documents/central religious figures were emblematic of the behavior that is being censured because it is impossible to condemn the behavior within the religion if it is endemic to it.

rambot · 2025-11-17T17:27:31-0600

Fervent said:
I'm not excusing it, it is atrocious behavior that shouldn't have happened. But it is an indictment of the folks who carried it out, not the religion itself. It absolutely matters whether or not the founding documents/central religious figures were emblematic of the behavior that is being censured because it is impossible to condemn the behavior within the religion if it is endemic to it.

If it is happenning in the "name of the religion" what difference does it make if it's in the founding documents? You claim "Because it couldn't be condemned" as if that actually bears any weight.

I STILL don't hear MANY christians condemning the treatment of Native Americans or any other Native group that Christians chose to decimate here in America. And what of folks of other races? Nonsense like the Belgians in the Congo and the church's blind eye to that? I mean many Christians are desperately under informed (or at BEST, under appreciate) about how awful Christianity has acted in its name.

Fervent · 2025-11-17T17:27:38-0600

Hans Blaster said:
That's not what separation is. SMH.

It's what it amounts to in practice

Hans Blaster said:
That's half of it.

That alone is sufficient, especially if in keeping with the intent of the founders

Hans Blaster said:
Politic how you like. I don't care.

It's more than just politics. i have to be exceedingly careful about what I disclose to students, in a way that my irreligious colleagues don't. Even when asked directly, I am not free to engage in personal disclosure or relate to my students on that level. Not just a reasonable restriction on proselytizing or exerting undue influence, but any disclosure has the potential to land me in hot water. So its more than just politicking.

Hans Blaster said:
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.

This goes directly against the spirit of the establishment clause(and likely wouldn't pass judicial review given Marshall's words in McCulloch v. Maryland) by declaring religious institutions subordinate to state powers, in direct violation of your claim about separating church and state.

Fervent · 2025-11-17T17:34:19-0600

rambot said:
If it is happenning in the "name of the religion" what difference does it make if it's in the founding documents? You claim "Because it couldn't be condemned" as if that actually bears any weight.

Do republics bear the blame for the actions of totalitarian "Republics", or do they stand based on their intrinsic principles? Just because someone claims to be acting in the "name of religion" doesn't mean they're doing so, particularly in instances like the ones you highlight which cannot be separated from sentiments of European superiority.

rambot said:
I STILL don't hear MANY christians condemning the treatment of Native Americans or any other Native group that Christians chose to decimate here in America. And what of folks of other races? Nonsense like the Belgians in the Congo and the church's blind eye to that? I mean many Christians are desperately under informed (or at BEST, under appreciate) about how awful Christianity has acted in its name.

A lot of awful things have been done by people in the name of all sorts of identities. So while those actions are reprehensible, it is not an indictment of Christianity itself especially when there are other core identity markers and philosophical influences that were at least equally responsible for such mistreatment. Christianity must be judged on Christ, and Islam judged by Muhammad. Deflecting and equivocating based on injustices that people who claimed to be Christian engaged in is of little value in making an honest assessment.

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-17T17:48:25-0600

Fervent said:
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.

No thanks. No islamic caliphate, no presbyterian one either. No Sikh or Hindu governments that you. No religious governments at all, thanks.

Larniavc · 2025-11-17T17:59:56-0600

Fervent said:
Truth is controversial by nature, Jesus did say He came not to bring peace but a sword and people generally don't appreciate being called out for being evil.

But people simply would rather Christians leave them alone to live their lives. Christians don’t have a right to tell people how they must live their lives.

Let Christians live as they like as long as it doesn’t affect people who do not care about what religious beliefs said Christians have.

Fervent · 2025-11-17T18:02:25-0600

Larniavc said:
But people simply would rather Christians leave them alone to live their lives. Christians don’t have a right to tell people how they must live their lives.

Let Christians live as they like as long as it doesn’t affect people who do not care about what religious beliefs said Christians have.

Sounds like you're telling Christians how to live their lives. Normative ethics is a part of public life, so why should Christians sit silently while baseless "moral"s run rampant instead of holding firm to the normativity of their ethical principles?

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-17T18:03:31-0600

Fervent said:
Truth is controversial by nature,

Actual truth is not controversial as it is clearly evidenced.

Fervent said:
Jesus did say He came not to bring peace but a sword and people generally don't appreciate being called out for being evil.

I don't have the details, but I feel relatively confident that religion was passed down through indoctrination from parents to child and that chain goes back until a conversion at the point of a sword.

Fervent said:
It goes beyond that, to suppression of public displays or being able to express personal religious beliefs for educators or other public facing government jobs without fear of loss of employment. Even voluntary teacher led or coach led prayer is banned in schools, which to me seems to violate the spirit of the establishment clause.

Generally speaking, all employers can restrict the on-the-job behavior of their employees. Public employees work on behalf of the state. When they are on the job they must follow the restrictions on "the government". If they want to pray to Mecca on their breaks in the break room, they can.

Bradskii · 2025-11-17T18:05:13-0600

Fervent said:
Not all theocracies are created equal. Just because I wouldn't want to live in an islamic caliphate...

So it sounds like you'd vote against an Islamic theocracy. But would you vote to maintain the status quo or vote for a Sikh theocracy?

Fervent · 2025-11-17T18:06:03-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Actual truth is not controversial as it is clearly evidenced.

Uh huh. You keep telling yourself that.

Hans Blaster said:
I don't have the details, but I feel relatively confident that religion was passed down through indoctrination from parents to child and that chain goes back until a conversion at the point of a sword.

Your famous evidence, I suppose.

Hans Blaster said:
Generally speaking, all employers can restrict the on-the-job behavior of their employees. Public employees work on behalf of the state. When they are on the job they must follow the restrictions on "the government". If they want to pray to Mecca on their breaks in the break room, they can.

And by privileging a particular religious persuasion, such restrictions are in violation of the spirit of the establishment clause.

Fervent · 2025-11-17T18:07:00-0600

Bradskii said:
So you'd vote against an Islamic theocracy? But would you vote to maintain the status quo or vote for a Sikh theocracy?

There you go with your futile thoughts of "voting"

Bradskii · 2025-11-17T18:13:16-0600

Fervent said:
Christianity must be judged on Christ...

Oh dear me, no. Christianity is judged on Christians and how well they follow the teachings of Christ.

Bradskii · 2025-11-17T18:16:32-0600

Fervent said:
There you go with your futile thoughts of "voting"

How else do you think there could be a change of government? We're not talking of force here. It's what might be described as a peaceful transfer of power. As a citizen, if the US was considering becoming a theocracy, then would you like a say in that or would you leave it to others to decide?

Fervent · 2025-11-17T18:27:21-0600

Bradskii said:
Oh dear me, no. Christianity is judged on Christians and how well they follow the teachings of Christ.

Christians should rightfully be judged on how well they follow the teachings of Christ, but failure to live up to an ideal is no discredit to the pursuit of that ideal.

Fervent · 2025-11-17T18:28:49-0600

Bradskii said:
How else do you think there could be a change of government? We're not talking of force here. It's what might be described as a peaceful transfer of power. As a citizen, if the US was considering becoming a theocracy, then would you like a say in that or would you leave it to others to decide?

I don't believe there truly is such a thing as a peaceful transfer of power, just a change in nominal leadership pursuing the same basic program under a different heading.

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-17T18:29:27-0600

Fervent said:
It's what it amounts to in practice

That alone is sufficient, especially if in keeping with the intent of the founders

It's more than just politics.

it was politics of which you wrote.

Fervent said:
i have to be exceedingly careful about what I disclose to students, in a way that my irreligious colleagues don't. Even when asked directly, I am not free to engage in personal disclosure or relate to my students on that level. Not just a reasonable restriction on proselytizing or exerting undue influence, but any disclosure has the potential to land me in hot water. So its more than just politicking.

It sounds like you are a teacher of some sort at a public school. I'm not sure why you would need to tell them anything about your private life at all. I knew some of my teachers were married (because they went by "Mrs."). I knew some of them had kids (because they were in my classes). I knew a couple were Catholic (because they went to our church, or in one case was a my mom's second cousin and went to our church). Thre really isn't any need to tell them these kinds of things anyway. If a student does ask you can give a short and answer and go back to classwork ("Are you, like um, a Christian Mr. Fervent?" "Yes, I am. Now back to our lesson..."). If it had ever come up for me it would have been ("Are you a Christian, Dr. Blaster?" "No. Now back to our lesson...").

Fervent said:
This goes directly against the spirit of the establishment clause(and likely wouldn't pass judicial review given Marshall's words in McCulloch v. Maryland) by declaring religious institutions subordinate to state powers, in direct violation of your claim about separating church and state.

Religious institutions are already subject to all kinds of state power. Filing a tax form is not some extraordinary request. McCulloch is about federalism.

Fervent · 2025-11-17T18:43:12-0600

Hans Blaster said:
it was politics of which you wrote.

No, I wrote of religious participation in the public square. Politics is merely a portion of that.

Hans Blaster said:
It sounds like you are a teacher of some sort at a public school. I'm not sure why you would need to tell them anything about your private life at all. I knew some of my teachers were married (because they went by "Mrs."). I knew some of them had kids (because they were in my classes). I knew a couple were Catholic (because they went to our church, or in one case was a my mom's second cousin and went to our church). Thre really isn't any need to tell them these kinds of things anyway. If a student does ask you can give a short and answer and go back to classwork ("Are you, like um, a Christian Mr. Fervent?" "Yes, I am. Now back to our lesson..."). If it had ever come up for me it would have been ("Are you a Christian, Dr. Blaster?" "No. Now back to our lesson...").

It's called building rapport/relationship. Teaching is far more than just conveying academic instruction, and to properly motivate and manage classrooms it requires the ability to engage the students to some degree both in their private lives and our lives. While there is a theoretical amount of tolerance for religious disclosure, even answering student questions can land us in hot water if some parent decides to object.

Hans Blaster said:
Religious institutions are already subject to all kinds of state power. Filing a tax form is not some extraordinary request. McCulloch is about federalism.

McCulloch certainly is about federalism, but the reasoning transfers(the power to tax is the power to destroy) in such a way that tax exemption is part and parcel to true separation of church and state.

Bradskii · 2025-11-17T18:50:07-0600

Fervent said:
Christians should rightfully be judged on how well they follow the teachings of Christ, but failure to live up to an ideal is no discredit to the pursuit of that ideal.

It's easy having an ideal. Anyone can have one. We can all expound on the very best way to live a good life. But I don't judge people on what they say they should do. I will judge them on what they actually do. Their belief system is frankly irrelevant to that.

Fervent · 2025-11-17T18:59:05-0600

Bradskii said:
It's easy having an ideal. Anyone can have one. We can all expound on the very best way to live a good life. But I don't judge people on what they say they should do. I will judge them on what they actually do. Their belief system is frankly irrelevant to that.

There's a difference between judging people and ideologies. And belief systems are far more relevant than you give credit for, as they inform character and competence. But then again, your judgment is more or less arbitrary so why should anyone care how you judge them?

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I march with Sherman

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Well-Known Member

I march with Sherman

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I march with Sherman

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Well-Known Member

Similar threads