Secularism and Church Attendance

[Daxx]

I guess Bill O'Reilly hasn't heard of the moon.

Hilarious science!fail aside, this raises a more interesting question. In the UK many churchgoers only attend once or twice a year, and attendance has been steadily dropping for decades. How much of the US is privately secular, but conforms to social pressure to attend church? Is there anyone from the US who is willing to share their experience?

[TheCrazyMango]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI

I guess Bill O'Reilly hasn't heard of the moon.

Hilarious science!fail aside, this raises a more interesting question. In the UK many churchgoers only attend once or twice a year, and attendance has been steadily dropping for decades. How much of the US is privately secular, but conforms to social pressure to attend church? Is there anyone from the US who is willing to share their experience?

hmm probably its a bad idea commenting on this because it might become a flame war, but i am religious, but i dont go to church.
on the video, theres a magic man called the moon. and dave silverman came across wrong, if he was on these forums, it would be instant flaming.

[Daxx]

and dave silverman came across wrong, if he was on these forums, it would be instant flaming.

I'm not sure he came across any worse than O'Reilly did; shouting people down and not letting them finish is just bullying, not discussion. Though I suspect that's par for the course for O'Reilly, from what I've seen. It wasn't so much an interview as an excuse to rail on the guy for five minutes.

[jmizzle7]

and dave silverman came across wrong, if he was on these forums, it would be instant flaming.

I'm not sure he came across any worse than O'Reilly did; shouting people down and not letting them finish is just bullying, not discussion. Though I suspect that's par for the course for O'Reilly, from what I've seen. It wasn't so much an interview as an excuse to rail on the guy for five minutes.

While I agree that the guy should have the opportunity to talk, O'Reilly is right that what was said was insulting. Telling someone that they are misinformed about who played the lead role in a movie is a mild form of correction that doesn't have any bearing on personal belief. Telling someone that their spiritual beliefs are wrong and they aren't smart enough to realize it is insulting because it directly targets personal belief and faith. This is true regardless of whose faith is being questioned.

[Daxx]

Telling someone that their spiritual beliefs are wrong and they aren't smart enough to realize it is insulting because it directly targets personal belief and faith. This is true regardless of whose faith is being questioned.

Here's a question. Why is questioning a spiritual belief insulting? Because that attitude sounds an awful lot like special pleading to me.

If I believed that Santa Claus was real, wouldn't it be rude to tell me he wasn't? What if I believed in Thor? Allah? What if I seriously believed that homeopathy worked, or that psychiatrists are evil? Or that Harry Potter is leading people into satanic cults?

Plus, I think you missed the point entirely, which was that people were indeed smart enough to realise it and just didn't do anything about it because of social pressure.

So basically you're entirely wrong.

[PhuzzY LogiK]

I'm not sure he came across any worse than O'Reilly did; shouting people down and not letting them finish is just bullying, not discussion. Though I suspect that's par for the course for O'Reilly, from what I've seen. It wasn't so much an interview as an excuse to rail on the guy for five minutes.

Bill O'Reilly is terrible and your analysis is pretty much spot on.  In general, anything from Fox "News" should be taken with a grain of salt.

In the UK many churchgoers only attend once or twice a year, and attendance has been steadily dropping for decades. How much of the US is privately secular, but conforms to social pressure to attend church? Is there anyone from the US who is willing to share their experience?

There are a few dynamics at play in the US.  First, yes, your observation is consistent with my experience here.  A lot of people identify with the religion of their youth or the religion of their parents, but do not strictly adhere to doctrines.  A lot of my friends call themselves religious, but they engage in premarital sex.  Or are openly gay.  Or any number of other things their faiths forbid.  So while it provides an identity and a social group, it does not factor heavily into their daily priorities.  However, despite these inconsistencies, people still cling to that identity (ie, calling yourself an atheist is political suicide).

Second, in a lot of the US there is a trend towards diversity.  For example, within about an hour of where I live I can find respective places of worship for Christians of all denominations (including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc), Jews, Muslims, Buddhists of multiple traditions, Sikhs, Amish, Hindus, Scientologists, and probably a lot more that I haven't personally seen.  This trend does not hold in some areas, such as the southeastern US (the "Bible Belt"), but does for most of the country.  Many of these religious centers have just been established within the past 30 years or so, so they enjoy increased attendance from their founding generation.  However, almost all faiths I have interacted with show a decline in attendance by youth who were born here.

Last, as a reaction to the first two (among other things), in the late 70s there was a resurgence of religious fundamentalism.  This exploded in the mid-to-late 80s.  These are the geniuses who believe the world is only 5,000 years old, bomb abortion clinics, and protest the funerals of soldiers who have been killed in action.  Ironically, the emergence of this group has pushed many former moderates into the secular realm, feeding the first observation above.

So, to summarize, while our church attendance may appear to be higher in the US, we are also trending towards secularism. 

[jmizzle7]

Telling someone that their spiritual beliefs are wrong and they aren't smart enough to realize it is insulting because it directly targets personal belief and faith. This is true regardless of whose faith is being questioned.

Here's a question. Why is questioning a spiritual belief insulting? Because that attitude sounds an awful lot like special pleading to me.

If I believed that Santa Claus was real, wouldn't it be rude to tell me he wasn't? What if I believed in Thor? Allah? What if I seriously believed that homeopathy worked, or that psychiatrists are evil? Or that Harry Potter is leading people into satanic cults?

Plus, I think you missed the point entirely, which was that people were indeed smart enough to realise it and just didn't do anything about it because of social pressure.

Why don't you sugar coat it a little more, Daxx? I didn't understand your point.

I fully understand the arguments suggested by both individuals. I personally think creating a billboard saying "YOU'RE WRONG AND YOU KNOW IT!" is an insult, no matter how you choose to spin it. I don't like Bill O'Reilly at all, and I think that he shouldn't have started the conversation with, "why the insult?" My issue is with the nature of the subject material and how it was handled by both men. We are talking about spiritual beliefs, one of the most core parts of what makes up personal character. You can't expect to change someone's beliefs by telling them they are wrong, because to challenge the core of a person's character is to challenge them directly. This often is interpreted and treated as hostility, and more often than not will be considered, at the very least, rude.

Santa Claus? Really? We're not talking about a secular holiday mascot that lives in a cottage in the North Pole with little elf workers and reindeer that fly. We are talking about spiritual beliefs that hold deep meaning in one's life. People have waged war over stuff like this. Why are you surprised that someone found a billboard offensive?

So basically you're entirely wrong.

...really? I mean.... really?

[QuantumT]

I fully understand the arguments suggested by both individuals. I personally think creating a billboard saying "YOU'RE WRONG AND YOU KNOW IT!" is an insult, no matter how you choose to spin it.

I don't really see how it's different than the billboards that tell me that I'm going to hell.

I'm not particularly fond of that specific billboard, but I don't see why christians can do it and atheists can't.

One thing I find ironic is the general reaction to the billboards by the groups is how they react to the billboards. One particular example that comes to mind happened a little over a year ago in Cincinnati. The billboard in question?

Don't believe in God? You are not alone.

The landowner requested that it be removed less than a day later. The reason? They had be been receiving death threats. So much for christianity encouraging morality.

I don't like Bill O'Reilly at all, and I think that he shouldn't have started the conversation with, "why the insult?" My issue is with the nature of the subject material and how it was handled by both men. We are talking about spiritual beliefs, one of the most core parts of what makes up personal character. You can't expect to change someone's beliefs by telling them they are wrong, because to challenge the core of a person's character is to challenge them directly. This often is interpreted and treated as hostility, and more often than not will be considered, at the very least, rude.

I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't treat religion with kid gloves. It's something that people need to think about precisely because it's important, but instead people ask for it to be put on some sort of special pedestal.

Santa Claus? Really? We're not talking about a secular holiday mascot that lives in a cottage in the North Pole with little elf workers and reindeer that fly. We are talking about spiritual beliefs that hold deep meaning in one's life. People have waged war over stuff like this. Why are you surprised that someone found a billboard offensive?

His point is that most religious people will get offended if you challenge their religion, but will turn around and dismiss the beliefs of others. It's incredibly hypocritical.

So basically you're entirely wrong.

...really? I mean.... really?

I think he was just channeling O'Reilly.

[jmdt]

How much of the US is privately secular, but conforms to social pressure to attend church? Is there anyone from the US who is willing to share their experience?

I had a long post typed, but figued it best to answer in a more simple manner.

There's no correct general answer to the question.  Much is dependant on the particular region and the beliefs of particular brands of christianity.  A good example of the contrast is between say catholocism and mormanism.  As far as catholocism is concerned, as long as you attend church on 'days of obligation' and go to confession several times, you are ok for the year.  My cousins live in Utah, and have shared a few insights into mormans.  In Utah, there is a great deal of social pressure for mormans to attend church.  As 95% + are morman, it is very difficult to succeed in the community and in business if you do not have strong ties to the church.

In between these examples are every possible variation.  So the answer is it depends.

[johannhowitzer]

I die a little inside whenever anyone says "everyone knows X is true," and I have a hard time believing the speaker's motives are honorable - whether the speaker is religious or not.  There's something intensely hypocritical about the person who cries foul, then uses the same fundamentalist language used by the people he criticizes.  Although I suppose he's not really aware he's doing it...

Take this into the political arena; say I go up to Obama and co. and say something like, "everyone knows healthcare can't ever be made affordable because of the imbalance of supply and demand."  Regardless of whether everyone does know that, it's a simple begging the question fallacy, pointless to bring up in debate of any kind and likely only to spark defensiveness.  Whether Mr. Silverman is right or wrong, he's going about this completely the wrong way.  Of course he'd be a bit dense if he didn't see it coming, and I suspect part of his reasons were to rock the boat and get media attention (and if that's true, it makes him a bit of a liar), but that aside, his logic needs some work.

So does Bill's - being taken in by a scam doesn't make someone stupid.  Scams are designed to take in people who consider themselves fairly intelligent.  If religions are scams, they'd have to be very poorly run scams if they didn't have droves of followers.

In other words... it's a perfect example of why I don't watch network television.  Usually I end up screaming in my own head, "are both of you oblivious to the fact that you're missing the point by a mile?"

[jmizzle7]

I don't really see how it's different than the billboards that tell me that I'm going to hell.

I'm not particularly fond of that specific billboard, but I don't see why christians can do it and atheists can't.

I don't want to be misunderstood, so I'll clarify. I never said that the billboard was offensive because it was targeting Christians. I think it's offensive because it's targeting a specific group of people and calling them idiots. Ignore who wrote it and who it was addressed to... it's offensive in its own right. I am a Christian, and I can say that I have seen plenty of offensive billboards posted by other Christians with the typical "turn or burn" message. Whether or not the words on the billboard are true, the way it conveys the message is controversial and offensive. Nobody will listen you if you call them an idiot or a heathen.

[johannhowitzer]

And yet under all this, I wonder how much we're falling victim to the politically correct movement.  Hard to tell with all the hot tempers.