Religious "Nones" are now the Largest Religious Group in the Country.
We are getting there.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
For the first time "No Religion" has topped a survey of Americans' religious identity, according to a new analysis by a political scientist. The non-religious edged out Catholics and evangelicals in the long-running General Social Survey.
Ryan Burge, a political scientist at Eastern Illinois University and a Baptist pastor, found that 23.1% of Americans now claim no religion.
Tags
Who is online
104 visitors
It was only a matter of time. Expect that number to continue to grow. All it takes is Evangelicals to keep talking and priests to keep molesting (which are certainties).
Hehe, soft atheist myself. But I do count the "nones", even if they believe in a deity, to be allies because at least you all aren't the kind of pricks who think it is your place to dictate how everyone should live their lives.
Now that I think about it though, you could be a "none" because you don't think any of the organized religions are prickish enough...
No, that's not me, lol.
I gives me hope that there are some people in the US who are still rational thinkers. We will start to treat religious conservatives like they treated unbelievers. They can't claim that treatment is discrimination because they previously said it wasn't discrimination when they did it to others.
How soon will we hear claims of religious persecution from the Christian conservatives, how unbelievers/unaffiliated people don't have any morals, and how this study is rigged by secular progressives........
We've already heard such claims.
That is music to my ears on the day before Zombie Jesus Sunday.
I wonder if religious conservatives will do a 180° on Hispanic immigrants coming to the US when they discover that they are almost always Catholic.
As appealing, and deserved, as that idea is... that is not the way. We have to be better than them otherwise we are no different. They need to be welcomed out of the weeds, gently, not shot on sight (even though for centuries that was their policy towards us).
Not long, and it will be the usual suspects. At least I hope it is, you know I am always up to shit talk them.
They aren't the right color of Catholic, did you miss that part in the Bible?
Most everyday on NT...
[delete]
I will only agree to support that idea if the religious conservatives give a full, complete, and unqualified apology of their past behavior with constitutional protections to make sure it cannot happen again to any minority for any reason, ever.
How could I possibly forget that critical detail and their different language?
Again, I understand where you are coming from, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I just don't want us to be the USSR 2.0, fuck the USSR.
Shit, I sound more like Jesus than most Christians.
The language issue is a result of the skin color. How many conservative "christians" have you heard bitch about the Spanish?
I don't want the USSR Ver 2.0 because that tramples on the religious rights of almost everyone and gives the state too much power. I want a strict and absolute separation of church and state where the state is absolutely neutral on the issue of religion/religious belief, and all religions enjoy completely equal religious and secular rights in all aspects of government and society.
Okay, now we agree!
In such a system you would have to have secular folks in charge though, since they are the only ones who can view the various religions in the most unbiased fashion. That would be a good thing I think.
It cannot be limited to just secular people in charge. We would be open to finding religious people who understand the difference between their religious beliefs and where the 1st Amendment draws the lines of the state beginning and that the equal religious and secular rights of others must be protected.
My only issue with that is that they are, inherently, biased towards their religion and against others. It is impossible for them to judge all situations equally and upon merit.
Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland(D.) was a Methodist minister and yet he was very careful about the separation of church and state. He refused to take part on the national day of prayer because he was both an ordained minister and the Governor.
Liz Warren is also a Methodist and I've never heard her try to evangelize or use her position to further her religious beliefs.
Hah, now I am letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I concede, you are in the right.
How easily we fall into that trap, even when we know it is there and can see it.
I feel the same way, but I also know it would not be constitutionally permitted or pragmatically workable
If only we lived in the perfect world....
That is the world of Plato and his ideal forms. I'd be ecstatic if we could seat 9 absolutely logical, rational, and unemotional judges on the SCOTUS.
Amen !
We already hear screams of persecution from Christians everytime they feel slighted in the least, some coming from certain members here on NT too. And we've also heard them declare nonbelivers to be immoral and such just because of nonbelief.
Are you trying to get me to divorce my wife?
Busting out Plato like it is nothing...... Of course we have to consider Aristotle's opinions.
Of which, there were many.
I have a minor in philosophy. The epistte of my moniker is a reference to the field of epistemology, or the study of knowledge. What is knowledge, how do we acquire it and why do we do it? I have books in my bookshelf that could cure even the most determined insomnia. Kant, Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Hobbs, Neitschze, Kierkegaard, Nozick.
We would be open to finding religious people who understand the difference between their religious beliefs and where the 1st Amendment draws the lines of the state beginning and that the equal religious and secular rights of others must be protected.
I don't know many religious people-- but the ones I know do feel that way. (But I suppose that's due to the type of people I choose to associate with...)
Stop giving me a hardon.
I've never been accused of arousing men with dull writing but whatever works for you is fine by me.
When they go low...we go lower?
Hopefully, we can elect some representation that reflects as much.
All it takes is a few candidates to realize that they don't have to gargle a priests balls (granted they are too old) to win an election, that they can win on this issues, and I think you will see a lot more open "nones" in office.
I hope you're right.
So do I.
I'd like to see a few "NOTB" on the federal judicial bench.
They are all Catholics or Jews right now aren't they?
As far as I know. I want a Humanist, a Buddhist, a First Nation believer and a Pastafarian on the bench.
What makes you think that they would necessarily be more open minded than people of any other belief system?
That comment reminds me of the people who are unhappy that the current racial makeup of the Supreme Ct, mostly white, and wish there were more "people pf colour" so the court would be more "progressive". (Those critics who seem to forget that we do have an African-American on the bench-- Clarence Thomas. Not exactly the most progressive of jurors, eh?)
Thurgood Marshall was a liberal, but Clarance Thomas would not be accused of being a liberal by anyone who has read his opinions.
I'm not sure how having more people of color on the bench would be more progressive when African-Americans tend to be socially conservative because of the role the evangelical Christian church plays in their community. They might be more liberal economically but I wouldn't consider them to be overwhelming progressive.
I'm not sure how having more people of color on the bench would be more progressive
That's exactly my point! The racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual orientation of a justice is no guarantee of how they'll vote. And of course the same applies to their religion (or lack thereof)
And speaking of logical fallacies-- here's something to think about: if its true that the current court is composed entirely of Catholics and Jews, that means in all those split decisions, every single person voting for the "progressive" side of the argument was either a Catholic or Jew!
when African-Americans tend to be socially conservative because of the role the evangelical Christian church plays in their community. They might be more liberal economically but I wouldn't consider them to be overwhelming progressive.
In elections, African-Americans generally vote for the more progressive of the two candidates in higher percentages than any other group....
Again-- a common logica; fallacy (IMO especially in online discussions) is to over-generalize about a person's values, beliefs , etc based on the colour of his/her skin or other racial, religious, ethnic, sexual identity-- rather than the content of their character....
The African American demographic may have voted liberal/progressive in the general election, but they did not vote for a progressive in the Democratic primaries. Bernie has struggled with the black vote.
OTOH, if the entire electorate was African-American, trump would not have been elected...
However this misses the point I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to make: that while sometimes people tend to over-generalize (especiially when it comes to stereotyping groups of people by their identities or belief sysytems) over-generalization can lead to very "fuzzy-thinking".
Appointing more people to the Court who are not of one of the dominant religious (or other grou) group would in and of itself be no guarantee of a change in Court rulings. But what their views are would be...
Are you by any chance aware of the situation re: the Rohingya?
(This comment is not off-topic-- before any over-zealous mods delete this comment as irrelevant, please learn a bit about what it refers to).
Yes I am. I followed the crisis on a daily basis via BBC/NPR.
If all of the Bernie voters who stayed home would have voted Trump would also not be POTUS. Many non-republicans stayed home in November of 2016 and we have trump as a result.
I was trying to suggest, somewhat in jest) that is the court was more reflective of minorities we would have more diversity and less of a WASP view to our laws. I am not saying that all of those various beliefs don't also have their problems but it would be refreshing if our courts weren't so Abrahamic in their worldview.
I think this number will grow as many people will not feel pressure to call themselves religious
The internet was the best thing to happen to the "none" group.
"None group." ? ?
In too many religions The Money Changers have risen again.
Besides, religion has simply become sort of weird and hostile.
Besides, religion has simply become sort of weird and hostile.
I wonder if its any different than it ever was-- or if its just that the rise of the Internet has provided an easily accessible platform for the more extreme nutcases to spread their views?
I humbly stand corrected.
My thoughts were in the right place though.
Well, I'm not disputing that.
Actually I just had a discussion about that with a group of (very intelligent) friends. Obviously the Internet has had (& continues to have) a major impact on society. There are good arguments to be made that the Internet has had many extremely positive effects-- and also that its had some very negative ones.
Both politically as well as in other areas.
It seems to most accurate conclusion is that its had a lot of both positive as well as negative effects! (An interesting discussion but off topic here so I won't pursue it
"have risen"?
Do you actually believe it was ever any different?
In my experience, if anything the trend is towards much more of a reaction against the influence of "big money". The rejection of Amazon's re-location to NY was one example. Another is the large amount of money collected by the Bernie Sanders campaign. And so much of that was in vast numbers of small donations).
If religious 'nones' means irreligious based on the observation that we do not know if there is a creator entity; much less a divine plan then I would say this is progress. It is always best, IMO, to pursue truth and that means following the evidence to wherever it leads. Progress is to recognize that this life seems to be our only shot and that if there is more, what we think we know about an afterlife is pure speculation.
I think it depends upon what the word "Nones " means! A person who is not a religious believer (and/or is not a believer in the existence of a god) might be a firm believer in the notion that there is no such thing as a god-- that no "god" exists. However someone is not a believer in the existence of a god could also be some sort of agnostic-- i.e. while not convinced that god exists (and therefore a "none")-- they may also not be sure that god doesn't exist!
Unlike some folks in this discussion , my own personal preference is that a nominee's religious views not be taken into consideration when choosing Supreme Court justices (for more information about my opinion on the matter, see Article VI clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution).
BTW that's just my opinion-- which appears to be a minority view here
I suspect most of the nones are agnostics: agnostic theists (believe in some higher power but realize they do not know) and agnostic atheists (not convinced that a higher power exists but realize they do not know).
FWIW, generally speaking, regardless of which way they are leaning (God exists or God doesn't exist) the people I respect the most are the one's who "realize they don't know".
(Well, there's one exception-- the people who are sure that God exists, but not because of "blind faith" or strict adherence to some religious guru, but rather because they have experienced God. Its hard to argue with that!).
Hmmmmm.
Of course this goes beyond the question of whether or not a god exists. It goes to whether or not one wants to be in the position of telling someone that they didn't have an experience that they did.
In addition its really a bit much to say you know what things a person did and did not experience-- and that you know better than they do what they experienced Shaky ground indeed!).
When one of them can provide objective evidence of what they claim to have experienced, I'll listen. "I felt God in my heart" is pretty much what most say, or something similar, and that's not objective in the least.
"Revealed truth" is shaky ground.
Only if true. Until it is established as truth (proof or at least convincing evidence) it is far more sensible to hold that they do not KNOW either. How convinced one is of a fact does not (of course) make it true.
Reading your comment I realize I was not being clear in what I was trying to say. Apparently it came across as my saying that while I wouldn't accept peoples' arguments as that a god exists as proof, if they had an "experience" of god I would accept that as proof that god exists.
But that is not what I meant-- in fact I would not accept another persons experience of anything (or what they claim is their experience) as proof of anything.
Rather, what I was trying to say is that if someone says that they have had a particular experience, it would be a "slippery slope" to deny that they had the experience!
I personally have had experiences that I've mentioned to other people and had them tell me I didn't experience what I experienced! That's really annoying...I don't do that to other people. Telling someone that they didn't experience something that they did experience IMO is stupid-- to say nothing of being pretty obnoxious.
I agree. We have no way of knowing that a particular mind did not experience something that produced a particular communicated interpretation. Even if someone makes a claim such as seeing and talking with Jesus, that experience might be entirely real to the person. Of course that does not mean that Jesus actually appeared (or even exists) but the experience (as interpreted by the individual) could have been quite real to the individual.
Ultimately when people make claims, the claimer should bear responsibility for backing up the claim with more than: 'it really happened' and the audience hearing the claim should avoid deeming the claim false unless they can deliver justification for this declaration. So 'Jesus spoke with me' cannot be deemed false unless it is proved that Jesus does not exist, but one can certainly express disbelief that Jesus spoke without some evidence.
Sorry, this result is quite disingenuous. Christians are a religious group and they are the largest group in America. Catholics and Evangelicals are both Christians.
You might as well separate the "nones" out by "atheist", "agnostic" and "apathetic' and see where that gets you.
Catholics and Evangelicals are both Christians.
I suppose some people might disagree, LOL!
But lets not go there! :^)
You might as well separate the "nones" out by "atheist", "agnostic" and "apathetic' and see where that gets you.
I agree-- there is a problem with the word "nones"-- specifically it includes both those people who are convinced that god doesn't exist as well as more open-minded people who really aren't sure either way.