America is turning secular much faster than we realise

[SecularMotion]

Next week Jesus gets the full Hollywood treatment with the launch of Son of God, a movie biopic that Christian groups are determined will take America by storm, much like the History Channel mini-series on The Bible did last year.

From Los Angeles to Houston multiplex cinemas have been block-booked for the February 28 premiere, in what promises to be a stark display of mega-church muscle.

On days like that, it feels hard to argue that religion in America is really on the decline, but after our recent piece on secular groups in Virginia, I've been delving further into the data.

The decline of mainstream Protestantism in America over recent decades has been well documented, but for much of that period Evangelical Christianity appeared to be immune to that wider trend, as mega-churches continued to grow and George W Bush took the White House.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100260301/america-is-turning-secular-much-faster-than-we-realise/

[Loudly]

1. From your lips to God's ears.

To put it paradoxically.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. How far and how fast?

It couldn't be far enough fast enough.
Religion in the us is primarily a toxic force promoting bigotry and rightwing nuttery and general willfull stupidity.

[rug]

6. That's drivel.

It doesn't matter if the country is secular or religious if it's driven by the right wing. Conservatism can thrive in a secular society as well as in a religious society. They'll simply change their vocabulary.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. That's drool!

Conservative ideologies have been linked with religion for, well like ever. But go ahead and have your last insult rug.

[rug]

12. Did you find that post insulting?

You must find disagreement insulting.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. no really I found it amusing, like your insistence that christian mythology isn't composed of myths.

You stake out amazingly wrong positions, and then pretend that you are the smartest person in the room. Insulted? No, not at all.

[rug]

15. Ooh, that one must still sting. Put some butter on it.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

16. Calling someone's post "drivel" is insulting. Not that complicated a notion.

[rug]

17. If it is, it's not.

"Religion in the us is primarily a toxic force promoting bigotry and rightwing nuttery and general willfull stupidity."

If you're offended, select the synonym of your choice below.

driv·el

/ˈdrivəl/

noun

noun: drivel

1. silly nonsense.

"don't talk such drivel!"

synonyms: nonsense, twaddle, claptrap, balderdash, gibberish, rubbish, mumbo jumbo, garbage; informalpoppycock, piffle, tripe, bull, hogwash, baloney, codswallop, flapdoodle, jive, guff, bushwa; informal,tommyrot, bunkum; vulgar slangcrapola, verbal diarrhea

"he was talking complete drivel"

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

37. That's pompous poppycock.

Hope that doesn't offend you. I mean, it's true, so it shouldn't.

pompous
Syllabification: pomp·ous
Pronunciation: /ˈpämpəs /
ADJECTIVE

1.Affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important:
a pompous ass who pretends he knows everything

SYNONYMS
self-important, imperious, overbearing, domineering, magisterial, pontifical, sententious, grandiose, affected, pretentious, puffed up, arrogant, vain, haughty, proud, conceited, egotistic, supercilious, condescending, patronizing
• informal snooty, uppity, uppish

poppycock
Syllabification: pop·py·cock
Pronunciation: /ˈpäpēˌkäk /
NOUN

• informal
Nonsense.

SYNONYMS

rubbish, claptrap, balderdash, blather, moonshine, garbage
• informal rot, tripe, jive, hogwash, baloney, drivel, bilge, bunk, eyewash, piffle, phooey, twaddle, bushwa, malarkey, gobbledygook, mumbo jumbo
• informal, • dated bunkum, tommyrot
• vulgar slang crapola, verbal diarrhea

[rug]

40. Tsk, tsk. How rude.

[on point]

26. 1000+

[Rod Beauvex]

3. How times have changed.

These days even Justin Beiber is bigger than Jesus.

[skepticscott]

4. Insane and deluded people

tend to be as immune to trends as they are to logic and reason.

[rug]

7. So are assholes.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Even for you rug, your behavior in this thread is entirely

typical.

[rug]

14. So are the insane and deluded epithets.

Seriously, I can't fathom how anyone thinks that reflexive, stupid epithets, predictable as a sunset, have anything to do with discussion, let alone logic or reason. It's as tiresome and unproductive as a dog instinctively humping a leg.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Seems pretty enjoyable and productive to the dog, I guess.

[rug]

44. I'm sure it is.

I doubt no more than a handful of people watching it get much out of it.

[skepticscott]

8. And like clockwork

the world provides.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

27. One can say the same thing about bigots

[skepticscott]

28. Yes, sexist and homophobic Catholic bigots

can certainly be characterized that way. Wouldn't you agree? Or are you an apologist for them too?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

38. I suspected that you would pop off with the "Tu Quoque" fallacy

And you did not disappoint. For those one or two of you who ask "What does 'Tu Quoque' mean?", the Latin literally translates to "you, also". "You're another" has the same meaning in English.

In formal debate, use of a fallacious argument is taken as an admission that one does not have a meaningful response.

[skepticscott]

39. Too funny

Since your post 27 is a perfect example of what you're trying to accuse me of. And it deserved no other response than what it got.

[el_bryanto]

30. Insane and deluded? You usually stop at deluded. nt

[skepticscott]

31. Very profound of you

Do you wish to dispute my statement with any actual facts?

[el_bryanto]

32. You mean do I want to prove that religious belief isn't insane with facts?

Is that what you are inviting me to do?

Bryant

[skepticscott]

33. Show me where I said

that religious belief is insane. Otherwise, stop lying about what I said.

What I said was: "Insane and deluded people tend to be as immune to trends as they are to logic and reason." Do you care to dispute that? Anything else is just your projection and dishonesty. You might find me more civil if you'd stop trying to put words in my mouth just so you can attack them.

[el_bryanto]

34. Now that's quite a response

But I guess you didn't technically say that, although it easily inferred from the flow of the conversation. The trend we are talking about is the move from religious belief to secularism and your response tends to imply that insane and deluded people will be immune to this trend, which would seem to imply that religious folk are insane and deluded.

But of course that's just an inference - a logical one - but obviously I was wrong, and I apologize. You don't see religious belief as akin to delusion and insanity. Or at least you didn't say that.

As for you being civil - I don't think I expect to ever find you civil unless I stop defending religious belief and start attacking it, and as that isn't likely to happen, I'm not holding my breath.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

35. You remind me

of another blatant liar on this board, who feels free to attribute any statement to someone else, and when shown that they're lying, they justify it by saying something like "well, they didn't exactly say that, but I don't care, and I'll feel free to invent anything I like."

But you go right on being a paragon of civility, dude. And intellectual honesty. And you go right on being an apologist and defender of the horrible abuses and wrongs perpetrated by religion.

[el_bryanto]

36. I did apologize didn't I?

Was my apology insufficient?

Also when have I defended the horrible abuses and wrongs perpetuated by religion? Specifically that - not religion itself or religious practice or belief - but when have I defended "horrible abuses and wrongs perpetuated by religion."

Such is not my intent; I don't think that religion is perfect and flawless.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

5. What will be will be.

[cbayer]

11. American is not turning secular, it is secular.

It was founded as a secular country and the laws of the land insure that it will stay secular, despite desperate attempts on the parts of some to make it a theocracy.

If what the author really meant is that there is a marked decrease in religious affiliation and an increase in those that identify as non-believers, that is true. And, to be honest, I think the religious right can take a lot of credit for that.

The use of the word "secular" interchangeably with "atheist" really bothers me. One can be both religious and secular. It's misuse is confusing and divisive. The authors repeated misuse of it really detracts from his article, which is otherwise pretty well thought out.

[eomer]

18. "Secular" can properly be used the way they used it.

"Secularist" or "secularism" always have to do with government being secular but "secular" can be used in a more general sense, meaning that something is not related to religion (and saying nothing about government). So a secular event would be an event that is non-religious, it would not be an event promoting government that is non-religious. Similarly one could say that a population is secular, which would properly be taken to mean that the population is not religious - again in this usage one is saying nothing about government. When applied to a country the meaning may be ambiguous - it might mean that the population of the country is not religious or it might mean that the government is not based on religion or perhaps both. But in the case of this OP I believe that ambiguity is cleared up by the rest of what it says.

[cbayer]

19. I completely disagree and can't find a definition that would support that.

It also doesn't detract from the argument that people can be both religious and secular. The author uses it in an either or kind of way - someone is either religious or secular. That's just not the case.

He muddies the water with his sloppy use and sets up a division where there is not one.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Some definitions:

OED:

secularism, n.

1. The doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state.

secular, adj. and n.
...
2. a. Belonging to the world and its affairs as distinguished from the church and religion; civil, lay, temporal. Chiefly used as a negative term, with the meaning non-ecclesiastical, non-religious, or non-sacred.
...
4. Used for: Pertaining to or accepting the doctrine of secularism; secularistic.

Collins English Dictionary

secular

adjective
1. of or relating to worldly as opposed to sacred things; temporal.
2. not concerned with or related to religion.
3. not within the control of the Church.

I think the normal use is that 'religious' and 'secular' are antonyms. But someone can be religious themselves, while being in favour of secular government.

[eomer]

21. All the dictionaries I've consulted do say that.

Oxford dictionaries online:

secular

1 Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis:

'secular buildings'

'secular moral theory'

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/secular?q=secular

Merriam-Webster online:

secular
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns>
b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music>
c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular

So to say that a person is secular is to say that the person is not religious. To say that is person is a secularist, on the other hand, is to say that the person favors secular government (government not based on religion).

You would be right if the term used were "secularist" or "secularism", which both have to do with the position that government should be secular. But the term "secular" has a more general meaning, as used correctly in the OP.

[cbayer]

22. Yes, secular is a term to describe those things that have no basis in religion, but

not to describe individuals or groups who are not religious. Do you see the difference?

Most, if not all, religious people are also secular in other parts of their lives.

The problem is that the author uses it to distinguish religious people from non-religious people, and that's just not the case. Secular does not mean atheist or agnostic or non-believer or anything like that. It's divisive in an entirely unnecessary way, particularly since some prominent leaders promoting secularism are also religious.

I disagree with both you and the OP and think that it is particularly important that we refrain from using this word in this context.

[skepticscott]

23. Blatant horseshit

All anyone has to do is Google "secular organizations" (which you could have done if you weren't determined to close your mind to anything that disrupts your agenda) to see how silly your statement is.

Why don't you try that, and show us that you're on board with the principle of intellectual honesty?

And who the hell is this "we"? You're free to refrain from doing anything you want, but don't presume to tell anyone else how to express their thoughts.

[eomer]

24. I understand your distinction, it just isn't correct.

Take for example the phrase "secular humanist". In this phrase "secular" is used exactly the way you say it can't be. Humanists can be either religious or secular. Secular humanists are the not-religious ones.

[cbayer]

25. It leads to confusion and I would suggest that we may need to refine the nomenclature.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a decidedly secular organization by definition, has a president who is a rabbi, a reverend as vice president and at least one reverend on it's board. The Executive Director is an ordained minister.

I suspect that they all might object to secular being used to describe, and only include, non-religious people.

It's an unnecessary and divisive definition that can be easily avoided by simply talking about believers and non-believers.

[skepticscott]

29. Again, who is this "we"?

You're the one who continually scolds people here for presuming to speak for anyone other than themselves. Apparently when you do it, it's perfectly all right, though.

Still more hypocrisy.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. so secular that every president feels compelled to make religious pronouncements with

every public speech. The author was clearly referring to American society, not the official status of its government with respect to religion. But even there you have it wrong. While the US is nominally secular, it has become increasingly non-secular over the last 50 years. "Desperate attempts on the part of some" includes largely successful efforts across the country to roll back abortion rights, divert public funds to religious schools, and now push for legalized bigotry under the guise of religious freedom. These "desperate" people have managed to become a major voice, perhaps the largest faction of the Republican Party. They are one election away from being able to enact, at the federal level, much of what they hope to achieve.

[WovenGems]

42. Logical

Given the rights pushing for discrimination in every state and justifying it by saying God and Jesus is leaving many young with the idea that their parents religion ain't the one for them.