Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does it say? I can't read it without disabling my ad blocker (which pretty much defeats the purpose in having an ad blocker).
Democratic societies that have experienced the greatest degrees of secularization are among the healthiest, wealthiest and safest in the world, enjoying relatively low rates of violent crime and high degrees of well-being and happiness. Clearly, a rapid loss of religion does not result in societal ruin.
*****************
The organic secularization we are experiencing in the United States is a progressive force for good, one that is associated with improved human rights, more protections for planet Earth and an increased sociocultural propensity to make this life as fair and just as we can — in the here and now — rather than in a heavenly reward that fewer and fewer of us believe in.
Democratic societies that have experienced the greatest degrees of secularization are among the healthiest, wealthiest and safest in the world, enjoying relatively low rates of violent crime and high degrees of well-being and happiness. Clearly, a rapid loss of religion does not result in societal ruin.
*****************
The organic secularization we are experiencing in the United States is a progressive force for good, one that is associated with improved human rights, more protections for planet Earth and an increased sociocultural propensity to make this life as fair and just as we can — in the here and now — rather than in a heavenly reward that fewer and fewer of us believe in.
It is correct, that secularization does not cause ruin because it is not correlated with ruin.
The rest however is insinuating that secularization is causing these other positive sociocultural trends. I think that's too broad a claim. The author doesn't explicitly say it as such, but the framing is suspect.
Personally I think all these positive sociocultural trends and secularization are mostly caused by increasing wealth. Wealth allows more free time to learn, which leads to secularization. You can see in the order that these sociocultural trends occurred historically that secularization is pretty far downstream. We have been prosperous and free for centuries and only now are getting around to ditching religion.
It is correct, that secularization does not cause ruin because it is not correlated with ruin.
The rest however is insinuating that secularization is causing these other positive sociocultural trends. I think that's too broad a claim. The author doesn't explicitly say it as such, but the framing is suspect.
Personally I think all these positive sociocultural trends and secularization are mostly caused by increasing wealth. Wealth allows more free time to learn, which leads to secularization. You can see in the order that these sociocultural trends occurred historically that secularization is pretty far downstream. We have been prosperous and free for centuries and only now are getting around to ditching religion.
Wealth does not accoybt for it eithrr. Compare the lack of belief in religion in countries like the Nordic ones and the Czech Republic with that of the USA. In religion and many of the attributes listed as things of a secular society as well as some other attributes of nations the States is the outlier on the graphs
And it is the most religious as well as the most wealthy of rich nations. I am not convinced that as it becomes less religious it will become less of an outlier or that it needs to become even richer to become more secular.
A note to AA before the attack comes. I did teach Human Geography at college and outliers are a term used to descibe a point on a graph that is significantly outside of where one would expect it to lie. It is not an opinion or judgement but an observation. I am using these side notes to attempt to prevent attavks on what i have not said.
It is correct, that secularization does not cause ruin because it is not correlated with ruin.
The rest however is insinuating that secularization is causing these other positive sociocultural trends. I think that's too broad a claim. The author doesn't explicitly say it as such, but the framing is suspect.
Personally I think all these positive sociocultural trends and secularization are mostly caused by increasing wealth. Wealth allows more free time to learn, which leads to secularization. You can see in the order that these sociocultural trends occurred historically that secularization is pretty far downstream. We have been prosperous and free for centuries and only now are getting around to ditching religion.
I agree with this. Secularization does not cause prosperity or even an equal society. it is just a pragmatic approach to conducting civil affairs in a democratic way. it is not removal of religion form society. Israel, a Jewish state, and becoming more right wing, is prosperous.
Some religious cultures are naturally secular, such as Hinduism which respects all religions. But this has made India neither equal or all that prosperous.
I agree with this. Secularization does not cause prosperity or even an equal society. it is just a pragmatic approach to conducting civil affairs in a democratic way. it is not removal of religion form society. Israel, a Jewish state, and becoming more right wing, is prosperous.
Some religious cultures are naturally secular, such as Hinduism which respects all religions. But this has made India neither equal or all that prosperous.
Tru e but are you not ignoring tjat maby countries considered secular have shown ro also beco me m uch less religious? Less religious in church attendancd, influence i n politics or but polling.
There is also whwb a country bwcomes maybe hit relugioys but religioys in a more fundamental nature it becomes much less secular.
I agree though tjat becoming more secular does not define the direction on the political spectrum it is.
It is correct, that secularization does not cause ruin because it is not correlated with ruin.
The rest however is insinuating that secularization is causing these other positive sociocultural trends. I think that's too broad a claim. The author doesn't explicitly say it as such, but the framing is suspect.
Personally I think all these positive sociocultural trends and secularization are mostly caused by increasing wealth. Wealth allows more free time to learn, which leads to secularization. You can see in the order that these sociocultural trends occurred historically that secularization is pretty far downstream. We have been prosperous and free for centuries and only now are getting around to ditching religion.
It is correct, that secularization does not cause ruin because it is not correlated with ruin.
The rest however is insinuating that secularization is causing these other positive sociocultural trends. I think that's too broad a claim. The author doesn't explicitly say it as such, but the framing is suspect.
Personally I think all these positive sociocultural trends and secularization are mostly caused by increasing wealth. Wealth allows more free time to learn, which leads to secularization. You can see in the order that these sociocultural trends occurred historically that secularization is pretty far downstream. We have been prosperous and free for centuries and only now are getting around to ditching religion.
It does not really matter if secularism is the cause, result or neutral. The point is that when a democrstic nation becomes more securar it does not spell ruin and tragedy or the loss of democracy.
It does not really matter if secularism is the cause, result or neutral. The point is that when a democrstic nation becomes more securar it does not spell ruin and tragedy or the loss of democracy.
The exact same thing can be said for freedom of religion.
The exact same thing can be said for freedom of religion.
Im sure you are making some point. Not related, one is a right and one is a change in peoples views and beliefs.
Freedom of religion is different from freedon to force your religious views upon others.
I wonder if you quoted me because you have falsely accused me if trying to end religion in the Ubited States. I want people to use their religion as a tool for themselves not as a weapon upon others.
Tru e but are you not ignoring tjat maby countries considered secular have shown ro also beco me m uch less religious? Less religious in church attendancd, influence i n politics or but polling.
There is also whwb a country bwcomes maybe hit relugioys but religioys in a more fundamental nature it becomes much less secular.
I agree though tjat becoming more secular does not define the direction on the political spectrum it is.
India is a secular democracy and 98% believe in god. Does that sound less religious? Secularism means only one thing, there is no state religion and all religions are equal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
