Secular folks should worry.

[drumdude]

The danger is the breakdown of a cohesive civil society where most people can be trusted to do the right things for the right reasons. We are looking at a future where moral bankruptcy is ‘a thing’, even much more so than what we’re already seeing.

How moral was it for all the religious baby boomers to support the insurrection that tried to literally storm the capitol and overthrow a democratic election?

Their religion didn't seem to guide their compass North in that case. Their compass was pointed directly at Trump - right or wrong. If religious morality failed them at such a crucial time, what does it matter if GenZ doesn't attend church every week?

[honorentheos]

The danger is the breakdown of a cohesive civil society where most people can be trusted to do the right things for the right reasons. We are looking at a future where moral bankruptcy is ‘a thing’, even much more so than what we’re already seeing.

How moral was it for all the religious baby boomers to support the insurrection that tried to literally storm the capitol and overthrow a democratic election?

Their religion didn't seem to guide their compass North in that case. Their compass was pointed directly at Trump - right or wrong. If religious morality failed them at such a crucial time, what does it matter if GenZ doesn't attend church every week?

MG is effectively confirming that religion and rightwing politics are one and the same. The conservatism that oppresses and places loyalty over democratic values isn't problematic for it's positions to those who view this as a crusade. For some, this is literally a war between good and evil. To others, those same folks are blindly tearing at the foundations of society in the name of preserving their traditions.

But they can't see it for what it is.

[malkie]

...

If I was a secular humanist I can imagine I would have made the same donation. As a secular humanist, however, I’m not sure that I would have any firm bedrock principles and truths that I could reliably pass on to my children and grandchildren that would lead them towards continuing altruistic behavior out of love for their neighbor and concern for their well being.

I could give it a go, I guess, but there aren’t any reliable ‘track records’ on a large scale across the breadth and depth of humanity that would allow for secular humanism to be the ‘go to’ philosophy for encouraging and ongoing large scale community of like minded folks who’s main concern is others rather than themselves.

Religion and a belief in God and accountability to Him have always been the key catalyst for encouraging people to look beyond themselves in a spirit of love. Secularism, unless there was an agreed upon system of ‘spreading the love’, so to speak, would very possibly over time add to the natural tendency of human beings to choose the path of least resistance. Entropy. Dissolution. What religious folks still call sin.

Anyway, there’s the link. We may both have something that we can call a common good as we participate together.

Regards,
MG

I know several prominent LDS members who are/were extremely active and whose children have largely given up on Mormonism - for a variety of reasons.

So the idea that Mormonism provides "firm bedrock principles and truths that [one] could reliably pass on" doesn't seem all that great to me. How about, instead, passing on the idea of the value of every human being, regardless of religious beliefs. Perhaps that idea might survive a loss of faith in a religion.

When you talk about "Religion and a belief in God and accountability to Him ..." as a motivator, it makes me think about the idea that religionists sometimes express that they don't understand how people can be good without religion, and wonder what prevents atheists from murdering, raping, and looting, because they don't fear the punishment of a god.

...
The danger is the breakdown of a cohesive civil society where most people can be trusted to do the right things for the right reasons. We are looking at a future where moral bankruptcy is ‘a thing’, even much more so than what we’re already seeing.

GenZ is much more willing to let government leaders make the decisions as to what is right and wrong. And they find support among many millennials.

That’s dangerous.

I would expect a secular government to do a better job of protecting the rights of everyone than likely any religion - including the US religious right, who claim to uphold the US Constitution, but want to force their religious ideas on people who do not subscribe to their religion.

[Kishkumen]

Agreed. Although it seems that the religious folks may be the ones sounding the alarm.

If indeed we can see that civil society is at risk down the road with secularism possibly being a contributor towards that unwanted outcome, we ALL ought to at least take notice and determine the risk factors and then look at what can be done.

As it is, civil society seems to have deteriorated somewhat even at this juncture. Is it the gradual decline in religiosity along with other factors?

It’s worth exploring. There may be some other hard data sets to look out there that some here might find more reliable than that referred to in the Deseret News article. But this particular data set is a bit disconcerting.

Regards,
MG

I agree it is worth exploring, and I would submit that both secular and religious folk are to blame. Religious folk because many of the leaders among them and many average parishioner are ignorant and extreme in their wayward views and behavior. Giving religion a bad name, failing to justify fervor with substance and value, they have people shrugging and moving away from religion. It ceases to be a harbor and generator of civil society.

[Res Ipsa]

Agreed. Although it seems that the religious folks may be the ones sounding the alarm.

If indeed we can see that civil society is at risk down the road with secularism possibly being a contributor towards that unwanted outcome, we ALL ought to at least take notice and determine the risk factors and then look at what can be done.

As it is, civil society seems to have deteriorated somewhat even at this juncture. Is it the gradual decline in religiosity along with other factors?

It’s worth exploring. There may be some other hard data sets to look out there that some here might find more reliable than that referred to in the Deseret News article. But this particular data set is a bit disconcerting.

Regards,
MG

I agree it is worth exploring, and I would submit that both secular and religious folk are to blame. Religious folk because many of the leaders among them and many average parishioner are ignorant and extreme in their wayward views and behavior. Giving religion a bad name, failing to justify fervor with substance and value, they have people shrugging and moving away from religion. It ceases to be a harbor and generator of civil society.

I'd say that civil society is at risk today -- not just down the road. Part of that problem is those who purport to be Christians, and yet build communities powered by hate of the other. MG 2.0 has already told those of us who are not people of faith that we are the agents of the adversary. He has staked me and others out as his enemies in the existential battle he imagines is going on. That's not building civil society. The self-proclaimed Christian politicians like the MTGs and the Bohberts are not promoting civil society; they are promoting hatred and division.

That's not to blame the threat to civil society on religion. There are also lots of religious believers, including friends of mine, who reject division and are trying to build communities based on values that are not unique to religion. And there are non-believers who promote division.

But when MG 2.0 starts out by trying to turn me into a scary bogeyman that will destroy society, he isn't building a community worthy of any degree of praise. His community is based more on fear and hate of others than the types of values he claims to hold.

[Morley]

GenZ is much more willing to let government leaders make the decisions as to what is right and wrong. And they find support among many millennials.

That’s dangerous.

How so?

[canpakes]

As a secular humanist, however, I’m not sure that I would have any firm bedrock principles and truths that I could reliably pass on to my children and grandchildren that would lead them towards continuing altruistic behavior out of love for their neighbor and concern for their well being.

It would seem that the firm bedrock principle and truth that you’re looking for to reliably pass on would be to ‘practice altruistic behavior out of love for their neighbor and concern for their well being’.

[MG 2.0]

MG 2.0 has already told those of us who are not people of faith that we are the agents of the adversary. He has staked me and others out as his enemies in the existential battle he imagines is going on. That's not building civil society.

I do think that atheism and secular humanism are an enemy of religious faith and ultimately civil society as we have known it. I’m doubtful that I have literally called you an agent of the adversary. I do see Hitchens and other prominent atheists as enemies of religious belief.

The self-proclaimed Christian politicians like the MTGs and the Bohberts are not promoting civil society; they are promoting hatred and division.

I agree. I’m a Romney guy.

There are also lots of religious believers, including friends of mine, who reject division and are trying to build communities based on values that are not unique to religion. And there are non-believers who promote division.

Again, I agree.

But when MG 2.0 starts out by trying to turn me into a scary bogeyman that will destroy society…

If you can point out contextually where I have literally done this I’d appreciate it. Actually, you for the most part come across as a pretty reasonable guy.

…he isn't building a community worthy of any degree of praise.

I’m in favor of calling out atheism as being essentially anti religious. If you’re taking that personally, that’s on you.

His community is based more on fear and hate of others than the types of values he claims to hold.

I’m not a Trump guy. Or far right. I’d consider myself to be a moderate.

The dangers of secular humanist extremism and GenZ’s attachment to liberal values (not classical liberalism, but leftist views) that are being promoted by secular humanists at universities, and the failure of these same universities to allow diversity of thought, are slowly decreasing the attachment of younger people to the religious impulses of their fathers. A humble belief in God as their maker and our accountability to Him for our actions and behaviors.

If I have personally offended you either directly or indirectly, I apologize. If the fact that I strongly believe you are mistaken in your position as an atheist offends you…I’m not sure there is much I can do about that.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

As a secular humanist, however, I’m not sure that I would have any firm bedrock principles and truths that I could reliably pass on to my children and grandchildren that would lead them towards continuing altruistic behavior out of love for their neighbor and concern for their well being.

It would seem that the firm bedrock principle and truth that you’re looking for to reliably pass on would be to ‘practice altruistic behavior out of love for their neighbor and concern for their well being’.

Yes, that is absolutely true. But my concern is that the younger generations are now being conditioned to see moral relativism as being their god. It is less likely that over time the same values taught within religions will continue to be passed on from generation to generation.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

GenZ is much more willing to let government leaders make the decisions as to what is right and wrong. And they find support among many millennials.

That’s dangerous.

How so?

Simply put…I’m a less government intrusion guy.

Regards,
MG