Religiousness in America, 2000 v. 2012

[TheGlobalizer]

Religion is weaker and right-wing religion is less right-wing.

Not overly relevant in 2012, IMO, except that a Mormon could probably get the GOP nom with no issues where it would have been a problem in the past.

I do think that Perry, and to a lesser degree Bachmann, will come off as rather tone deaf with their extreme right-wing religiosity.

[TheGlobalizer]

I think the metric that should be most indicative is church attendance.  In years past, everyone or nearly everyone was marginally affiliated with a denomination whether they believed any of it or not.  In the last 15+ years it has become much more trendy to say you are spiritual, agnostic or atheist, where in the past spiritualists/agnostics (and probably atheists) may have said Catholic, Presbyterian or simply "protestant". 

That being said, it appears to me church attendance has been relatively steady.  It may now be a little lower than during the post-WWII years, but probably higher now than it was during the days of our country's founding.  The religious right maybe does not now have the cache it did in the 1980s, but I think that is cyclical.  The 1920s were socially wild, the 40-50s were tame; the 60s and 70s were wild again, the 80s more tame. 

Bottom line is I think the level of serious, practicing Christians are unchanged, but there are more non-practicing Christians who currently do not look to Christianity for a moral compass.

This sounds like a pretty fair assessment; I do think most of the movement has been by soft/non-religious and non-churchgoers, more than the hardcore religious types.  And I do sense a significant uptick in unrestrained atheist/agnostic self-ID.  I certainly feel more comfortable about having conversations about atheism than I did when I was younger, and find myself running into more atheists.  I also hear a lot more of the "well, I believe in God..." response to religion questions, rather than categorical answers.

Welcome to the forum!

[TheGlobalizer]

Yes, most atheists are very comfortable with who they are and aren't afraid to say what they (don't) believe, and they should feel comfortable doing so.  I don't recall many Christians afraid to trumpet their beliefs.  Why do atheists have to hide theirs.

Well, in polling atheists are still pulling in numbers roughly equivalent of the seedy guy down the street who hits on college girls (just ahead of the similar guy who hits on high school girls).  Cain would probably put a Muslim in his cabinet before an atheist.

I agree in principle, but my experiences do not give me comfort going around talking about my non-belief in public.  Not that I'm overly inclined to, but still.

[TheGlobalizer]

I think there is a general difference in someone who doesn't believe in a deity and meets the definition of an atheist and someone who runs around proclaiming he's an atheist and is generally snarky of others religious beliefs.  I think this is evident in religious polling questions in which only 1-2% self-label as "atheist" while 15% or so say "none."  Granted not all "nones" are atheists, but I'm sure a decent percentage are.  How the person labels themselves (as opposed to what they actually believe) seems to be the deciding factor as to whether they gain general public acceptance.   

I'd say that's probably the next stage in the evolution of the public face of atheism -- respectable self-identifying atheists with a live-and-let-live mentality.  There's quite a few of us out there, and after having our heads down for a long time, we're starting to get more vocal, both against religious excess as well as anti-religious excess.

All it takes is a few notable people who "happen to be an atheist" and the anti- perception will fade.

[TheGlobalizer]

I think there is a general difference in someone who doesn't believe in a deity and meets the definition of an atheist and someone who runs around proclaiming he's an atheist and is generally snarky of others religious beliefs.  I think this is evident in religious polling questions in which only 1-2% self-label as "atheist" while 15% or so say "none."  Granted not all "nones" are atheists, but I'm sure a decent percentage are.  How the person labels themselves (as opposed to what they actually believe) seems to be the deciding factor as to whether they gain general public acceptance.   

I'd say that's probably the next stage in the evolution of the public face of atheism -- respectable self-identifying atheists with a live-and-let-live mentality.  There's quite a few of us out there, and after having our heads down for a long time, we're starting to get more vocal, both against religious excess as well as anti-religious excess.

All it takes is a few notable people who "happen to be an atheist" and the anti- perception will fade.

Vocal and live-and-let-live are contradictory.

Reread what I said, vocal against religious/anti-religious excess.

I know from a technical perspective it's not pure "live and let live", but that's sort of like saying that it's an infringement on liberty for a rape victim to say 'no' to her rapist.

[TheGlobalizer]

First up, please excuse my poor english.

I have never understood why it is considered disrespectful to critize religion or religiousness. People critize ideologies all of the time. If you're an outspoken conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist, whatever, you better be able to handle criticism and that's the way it should be. In a democracy we discuss important issues and hopefully, through discussion, become wiser. People like to present faith as this deeply personal thing that is the business of no one else. But that's rarely true. Religion is just as much a guideline of thought and behaviour as ideology is. Infact it is more influential than ideology, partly because it is unacceptable to critize it. It's like we're in North Korea when talk falls on religion. What's even worse is that religion is not based on rationality. All ideologies are based on rationality, whether or not you agree with said ideology, they're based on internally consistent ideas, which can be challenged. Atheists like myself are stupified and deeply concerned about having presidents who has "God" as his main advisor. Rationality is flung out the window. When religion is mixed with politics, we should all be deeply concerned. Even the religious amongst us, because they can not be sure that their imagined God is the same as the imagined God of the political leaders.

It mostly has to do with how religious Americans, particularly southern conservatives, express their religiosity.  It can be offensive, oppressive, illiberal, antagonist, judgmental, mean, and too often guides public discourse in a manner that allows a small minority to co-opt a 2000-year old tradition for non-religious social engineering ends.  It has also been used as a shield for defending all sorts of hateful behavior.

I despise the vocal religious conservative movement in this country, just as I despise the vocal religious conservative movements in Saudi Arabia and Iran, as they seek similar ends.  (In Saudi Arabia/Iran, theocracy; in the US, de facto theocracy.)

[TheGlobalizer]

90-95% of what is in the Bible is not controversial or in conflict with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.

More than 5-10% of the notable substance of the Bible is pretty controversial, IMO.  Especially when taken literally and used as a guiding principle for government activity.