[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…i agree with you that secularization is followed by a drop in birth rates. What i don’t get is your question: “What is the point?” as if there is a point to be had with secularization…
If there isn’t a point, then why promote it? If it’s self defeating (can’t replace, outreproduced by religious), why actively promote it?
…who’s promoting it then? All i know is that the Catholic Church failed to adapt to changes in people’s perception during the '60s in Holland, and lost a lot of members because of it. There was no one actively promoting secularism. Where did you get that from?
[/quote]
Come now. You’re taking the position that secularism hasn’t been promoted? Not in the increasingly sexual and violent media? Not in schools that make choices about what children will be taught regarding gender, sexual orientation and activity? Not in lawsuits that remove even the most innocent of religious symbolism from the public square? Or, movements to make, say Christmas, a holiday about winter? In this nation, there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth over moments of silence in schools. After all, a subversive child might say a prayer in his head. We have serious discussions about removing religious phrases from pledges and currency. It is one of the, if not the, most highly evangelicized belief systems today.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Another point, what makes you think that there is a causal relationship between religion and birth rate? There certainly seems to be a correlation but that is not the same thing.
Religion provides cohesion. Marriage, family, offspring, are cherished (and expected) treasures for adults coming of age within such a society. Religion provides the morality and norms neccessary for strong, intact, productive families, society wide. It provides the culture and guardianship underpinning it’s importance. I don’t think atheists and agnostics can ever replace this. So, I see the ongoing secularization of Western nations as temporary. Some new religion will replace that old time religion. They might not be as tolerant of the mocking, however.[/quote]
…i admit there’s somewhat of a vacuum left by not believing anymore, by no longer belonging to a church anymore. But there’s no turning back. Once religion’s deception is clearly seen one can’t just embrace religion that way. Your ideas about religion and society sound very oldfashioned to me, and tbh, misguided. Yes, religion offered a framework, but it doesn’t have to be the only one. We simply haven’t found one yet (-:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Another point, what makes you think that there is a causal relationship between religion and birth rate? There certainly seems to be a correlation but that is not the same thing.
Religion provides cohesion. Marriage, family, offspring, are cherished (and expected) treasures for adults coming of age within such a society. Religion provides the morality and norms neccessary for strong, intact, productive families, society wide. It provides the culture and guardianship underpinning it’s importance. I don’t think atheists and agnostics can ever replace this. So, I see the ongoing secularization of Western nations as temporary. Some new religion will replace that old time religion. They might not be as tolerant of the mocking, however.
…i admit there’s somewhat of a vacuum left by not believing anymore, by no longer belonging to a church anymore. But there’s no turning back. Once religion’s deception is clearly seen one can’t just embrace religion that way. Your ideas about religion and society sound very oldfashioned to me, and tbh, misguided. Yes, religion offered a framework, but it doesn’t have to be the only one. We simply haven’t found one yet (-:
[/quote]
Let’s agree to disagree on the ability to replace the ‘framework,’ and on the issue of me being misguided. I will accept the old-fashioned label, though. I’m just glad we got on the same page so we might have an interesting problem to think on.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…i agree with you that secularization is followed by a drop in birth rates. What i don’t get is your question: “What is the point?” as if there is a point to be had with secularization…
If there isn’t a point, then why promote it? If it’s self defeating (can’t replace, outreproduced by religious), why actively promote it?
…who’s promoting it then? All i know is that the Catholic Church failed to adapt to changes in people’s perception during the '60s in Holland, and lost a lot of members because of it. There was no one actively promoting secularism. Where did you get that from?
Come now. You’re taking the position that secularism hasn’t been promoted? Not in the increasingly sexual and violent media? Not in schools that make choices about what children will be taught regarding gender, sexual orientation and activity? Not in lawsuits that remove even the most innocent of religious symbolism from the public square? Or, movements to make, say Christmas, a holiday about winter? In this nation, there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth over moments of silence in schools. After all, a subversive child might say a prayer in his head. We have serious discussions about removing religious phrases from pledges and currency. It is one of the, if not the, most highly evangelicized belief systems today.[/quote]
…not where i live at least, it’s not actively promoted. Religion over here has become largely inconsequential; i guess those struggles happened here in the '60 and the '70s and became part of history. Ironically, we have a couple of christian politicians in our government and their meddling in free choice and enforcing subjective morals on the people is stirring bad blood. It’s an upside down world…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It seems the forum void obliterated part of my post, losing the thought behind it.
So, if increasingly secular societies are approaching, or, have already fallen below replacement level fertility rates, where’s the win? Especially when this is used to justify the mass immigration of people who very often have strong religious beliefs. Who then outreproduce the increasingly secular natives by large margins in many cases. Isn’t the secular society just replacing itself with a fertile religious one? So what’s the point?
…sub-replacement fertility rates is hardly a tenet of secularism, but merely a consequence of shifting priorities…
Doesn’t need to be a tenet. It just needs to follow.
Edit: And it doesn’t answer the replacement question.
…as i said: it’s not a correlation but a consequence, if that makes sense. No society becomes secular with the intent to slowly fade out due to dropping replacement births. Iow, even now when we see that, for instance, Italy’s birthrates are at an all time low church attendance is still dropping: Italian church attendance lower than thought and Italy Birth rate - Demographics
…so what exactly is your point?
I’m not sure I can be any clearer, sorry. But oddly, you seem to have supported my point.
…i agree with you that secularization is followed by a drop in birth rates. What i don’t get is your question: “What is the point?” as if there is a point to be had with secularization…
[/quote]
Exactly, I don’t choose to be secular for the good of my people. I just am not convinced by any argument about any God therefore am without religion.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Exactly, I don’t choose to be secular for the good of my people. I just am not convinced by any argument about any God therefore am without religion.[/quote]
My posts don’t depend on why you chose to be secular.
…fair enough. It’s going to be difficult solution to find though; the dutch aren’t overly patriotic, are highly individualistic, rational and pragmatic. So what’s left: our shared human beingness?
…but getting back to your idea that one religious subculture will eventually subdue it’s secular host society: if that happens, then it happens. Nothing is for ever and everything changes. We like to believe that reality as we live it is how it should stay, but never happens, does it?
…every society and culture at one point in history ended. Man lived on. I think it’s that simple…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Another point, what makes you think that there is a causal relationship between religion and birth rate? There certainly seems to be a correlation but that is not the same thing.
Religion provides cohesion. Marriage, family, offspring, are cherished (and expected) treasures for adults coming of age within such a society. Religion provides the morality and norms necessary for strong, intact, productive families, society wide. It provides the culture and guardianship underpinning it’s importance. I don’t think atheists and agnostics can ever replace this. So, I see the ongoing secularization of Western nations as temporary. Some new religion will replace that old time religion. They might not be as tolerant of the mocking “brights”, however.[/quote]
I don’t see it that way at all. My family is as loving and cherishing of my daughter as any I know. Her secular school provides a far warmer and more natural environment than any of the religious schools here in Mexico. She will not be saddled with unnatural guilt or impossibly high expectations of perfection that she has to live up to.
Religion is not the reason that the Church provides a warm welcome and needed refuge for many people, humanity is.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…i agree with you that secularization is followed by a drop in birth rates. What i don’t get is your question: “What is the point?” as if there is a point to be had with secularization…
If there isn’t a point, then why promote it? If it’s self defeating (can’t replace, outreproduced by religious), why actively promote it?
…who’s promoting it then? All i know is that the Catholic Church failed to adapt to changes in people’s perception during the '60s in Holland, and lost a lot of members because of it. There was no one actively promoting secularism. Where did you get that from?
Come now. You’re taking the position that secularism hasn’t been promoted? Not in the increasingly sexual and violent media? Not in schools that make choices about what children will be taught regarding gender, sexual orientation and activity? Not in lawsuits that remove even the most innocent of religious symbolism from the public square? Or, movements to make, say Christmas, a holiday about winter? In this nation, there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth over moments of silence in schools. After all, a subversive child might say a prayer in his head. We have serious discussions about removing religious phrases from pledges and currency. It is one of the, if not the, most highly evangelicized belief systems today.[/quote]
Christmas was a holiday about winter before it was a holiday about the Birth of a Jewish kid.
Why not? I see governments all over the world starting to let common sense take over from outdated mysticism and I see radical extremist religious evangelists helping more and more people realize the outdatedness of religion.
Christmas was a holiday about winter before it was a holiday about the Birth of a Jewish kid.
Random fact of the day?[/quote]
You were complaining about movements to make Christmas a holiday about winter even though it always has been a holiday about winter, the difference is now we are being more honest about that fact.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I don’t see it that way at all.
Well, ok. But it isn’t looking good.
Why not? I see governments all over the world starting to let common sense take over from outdated mysticism and I see radical extremist religious evangelists helping more and more people realize the outdatedness of religion.[/quote]
I’ve been making the case that religion is in fact not outdated. That if anything secularism is destined to be. That it can only enjoy short lived success in socities before an irreversible tipping point is reached. That is, your society, which is having trouble even replacing itself (if not actually shrinking), is simply being replaced by the religious. Anyways, it comes back to the religious inheritating the earth, one way or the other.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Christmas was a holiday about winter before it was a holiday about the Birth of a Jewish kid.
Random fact of the day?
You were complaining about movements to make Christmas a holiday about winter even though it always has been a holiday about winter, the difference is now we are being more honest about that fact.[/quote]
No sir, Christmas is about the celebration of the birth of Christ.
edit: Take note ephrem, this is what I meant by active promotion.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Christmas was a holiday about winter before it was a holiday about the Birth of a Jewish kid.
Random fact of the day?
You were complaining about movements to make Christmas a holiday about winter even though it always has been a holiday about winter, the difference is now we are being more honest about that fact.
No sir, Christmas is about the celebration of the birth of Christ.
edit: Take note ephrem, this is what I meant by active promotion.[/quote]
…if telling the truth is promoting secularism, then you are right. I’m off to bed, goodnight…
I shouldn’t allow myself to be so easily distracted, but because the Christmas point raised is clearly false, I will.
The Celebration of Christmas having been worked into a period when other festivals and celebrations were held, even borrowing symbols and pagentry from these, has no bearing on what Christmas celebrates. This alone raises the question why the response to my statement was made.
It’s rather clear that Cockney and others see Christmas as a religious celebration, specifically a Christian one. If it was just ‘winter’ holidays, we wouldn’t see the anti-Christmas movements in the first place. There would be no movements or efforts to secular up the holiday with new names and new greetings. The Nazis even understood this and made efforts to change it. Swastikas and Tinsel: How the Nazis Stole Christmas - DER SPIEGEL
Well of course it looks like religions going to “inherit the earth” 99% of this earth is religious, unless you are talking about a specific religion. In that regard, christianity as I am assuming you mean, is relatively young by human standards of time. 2000 years. If man is still around, it is doubtless that new religions will emerge and maybe christianity will become obselete. I am atheistic, that is how I see it from human historical perspective.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…if telling the truth is promoting secularism, then you are right. I’m off to bed, goodnight…
The truth? [/quote]
…truth, as in: the antropomorphic god of Abraham does not exist, but it’s religion offers it’s believers answers, hope and purpose through beliefs in a time when almost nothing was known about the fabric of reality and the universe…
…pantheism gives people too much choice. It’s easier to control the masses [the tribe] if they adhere to one set of rules laid down by one god. A radical change won’t work too well, so the budding religion must absorb familiar elements of existing religions for it to make sense…
…incorporating the winter solstice celebrations as the birth of Christ, which before was to mark the rebirth of Ra, the sun, during the dark days of winter, was vital. Adding to that the virgin birth, boy prodigy, the killing of said prodigy and his rise from death and subsequent ascencion to heaven, are all element borrowed from earlier religions to make the one huge difference, monotheism, palatable…
…the Romans ran with Christianity in the end, seeing it’s enormous potential for controling and manipulating the masses. But nothing i just said invalidates the value Christianity has for it’s believers, because ultimately it’s not about whether it’s all true, it’s how the religion affects it’s believers in a positive way…
…religion is a powerful tool that is hard to replace. But funnily enough, just as many on this board loath big government and feel they’ll be better of without it, i feel the same about religion. It’s ironic though that those who are allergic to [the idea of] state control seem to have no problem with submitting to some ghost in the sky. But that’s a different topic…