By Vorjack
Let me return for a moment to the post ”The Coming Evangelical Collapse“ on Internet Monk. Spencer acknowledges that he’s no futurist, but he makes a number of interesting predictions. Some seem like safe bets, like the suggestion that the non-religious (which would include the spiritual but not religious crowd) will hit 25-30% of the population. Other statements I am not knowledgeable enough to judge — like his statement that “the emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape.” But one statement in particular caught my eye:
Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become particularly hostile towards evangelical Christianity, increasingly seeing it as the opponent of the good of individuals and society.
This is my cue to start laughing maniacally, isn’t it?
Things to Come
Pullquote: We are soon going to be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.
We’ve seen this kind of thinking before. Here at Unreasonable Faith a number of Christians have made comments that predict a coming increase in Christian persecution.
It is not simply that evangelicals will have to deal with the suspicions and misunderstandings that are the lot of the religious minority — the kind of thing that atheists frequently have to deal with now. No, some Christians are expecting political and social disenfranchisement. To quote Spencer again, “We are soon going to be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.”
Perhaps this is entirely rhetorical. Nothing unifies people like a shared experience of persecution. Perhaps it is not an expectation so much as a hope; an unconscious hope, but hope nonetheless. Persecution would allow for a type of heroic expression of faith not seen since Rome converted. Or perhaps some people genuinely believe we’re headed into a time of religious suppression of Christians.
Reality Check
Pullquote: If you really think that Evangelical Christianity is about to become the minority, don’t you want a government that respects minority rights?
To the Evangelical Christians, let me make this as clear as I can: we are not planning to persecute you. If fact, the things that we’re fighting for are the very things you’re going to want if Evangelical Christianity is headed for the dustbin of history.
Atheists have spent the past few decades fighting to strengthen the separation of church and state. If evangelicals suddenly become a vanishing minority, this separation will protect you from government.
Atheists have been pushing to make religion a function of private life. If we succeed, you’ll be protected from the sorts who proselytize, the way you now inflict it on others.
Atheists are fighting for government based on secular values. Remember, “secular” is not the opposite of “sacred” — that’s “profane.” Secular is the opposite of sectarian, it means “universal.” A secular value is one that doesn’t require special revelation to appreciate. I suppose some would rather have a government based on their own sectarian values, but if you can’t have that, wouldn’t you rather have a secular government?
If you really think that Evangelical Christianity is about to become the minority, don’t you want a government that respects minority rights? Why don’t you send a donation to the ACLU, sign a petition against school prayer, and join us over here in secular America.
Vorjack is a librarian/archivist and a public historian, living with his wife in history-soaked Albany, New York.
I live in Amish country. They’re great, nice people and insular but in positive ways. They’re the exact opposite of the evangelicals – they’re worried about people leaving, rather than out there recruiting; they rarely even vote, let alone try to impose their beliefs on others; they already own all the land they need, don’t borrow money and don’t claim welfare (but do pay tax).
However … they have an expectation of persecution. They assume any question about them is a questioning *of* them. All their narratives are about the pressures of the outside world, European tyranny, how non-Amish are warlike and destructive and want to make the Amish like them.
This was probably true when their ancestors came over. And they used to face suspicion and pressure to conform
… then, in the fifties, suddenly the difference between them and the other Pennsylvania farmers became really marked, for all sorts of reasons (cars and other farm machinery; a lot of the young men had gone to war; a general increase in social mobility).
And the Amish expected an onslaught. The Federal government started imposing things like safety standards (so their buggies have to have reflectors and their construction workers had to wear hard hats), and the Amish expected the stormtroopers to come in, but other than that … they became a tourist attraction. They weren’t persecuted.
In recent years, the sustainable, tolerant way of life is seen by many as quite desirable and green … shame about all the weird religion stuff.
And this is (a) the exact opposite of what the Amish expected, (b) for them the ‘weird religion stuff’ is the one and only reason they do what they do so it belittles them and, most importantly, (c) admiration is something they find a lot harder to deal with than persecution.
I think persecution is deep in the meme pool of Christianity. It’s how the religion started, it’s how it manifested in Rome for a century or two. After that, of course, virtually every instance was Christian-on-Christian (as in the case of the Amish) or the Christians were ‘persecuted’ for marching an army into someone else’s country. I think the belief that the world is against them, that the government is five minutes away from rounding them up is utterly ingrained in Christianity, even when it’s their own brand of Christian in total control of the government.
I like the line (Ken MacLeod, I think), which says ‘yes, I want religion to end, but I don’t want to shoot anyone. I want poverty to end, and the way to do that isn’t to shoot the poor.’
Problem is, these people do not live in the real world. It doesn’t help to try an appeal to reason. They believe what they want to believe and no amount of logic and reason YOU try and argue with them will ever change that. The only way they will change is if it comes from them selves. You have to realise the truth for yourself, the more outside influences apply the more they will cling to their beliefs, like a sailor clings to the mast in a storm. As a recovering xtian I speak from experience.
I’ve heard Christians argue that, within a few years or decades, Muslims will be a majority in the US (a few years ago, it was “Mexicans”, and before that, “blacks”) and that the Wall of Separation between Church and State needs to be torn down because “The Founding Fathers were all Southern Baptists”.
I point out that if they’re right on the first point, then getting their way on the second would directly lead to America becoming a Islamic caliphate under Sharia law, but they don’t seem to understand…
This is an excellent (and perfectly fair and reasonable) bit of rhetorical ju-jistu – thank you!
Would it be heresy (pun intended) to say that Vorjack is a better blogger on the topic of religionand atheism than Daniel? (Sorry Daniel! I like you and your blog a lot, but your guest bloggers tend to delve more into actual substance – you providing them with a platform and an audience is highly commendable and I hope you continue to do so!)
Personally I think you have many cogent points, and I’m personally not afraid of any imminent doom. Also I’m not defending the pseudo attacks theories out there whether they about Islamic or Mexican takeovers. On the other hand though, when you hear people calling you delusional (Dawkins) or your religion is a poison (Hitchens) I can see why people may become defensive. You have to “cure” the delusional or at least isolate them, and don’t let poison lay around to be discovered by the innocent.
I think that Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins use inflammatory language strictly for shock value and attention; I don’t think they would personally harm anyone. But “fundies” run in all circles and I’ve met my fair share of atheists of different stripes who weren’t as well read or thoughtful as many on this site are. Those are the types of people who could turn on you and take your viewpoints to places you personally wouldn’t go. Regardless of what people say about Marx now, he had good intentions and insights but his theories were taken places by men (Lenin) that I don’t think he would have approved of. The same can still happen.
Having said all that though, Christians should welcome persecution, look at what it did for the early church and even now in places like China where true persecution still happens.
Because Christians have had cultural dominance in the US for so long, any demographic switch where Christianity is no longer the leading flavor could *feel* like persecution to Christians. Even I would feel tinges of it if I left a society where getting a day off for Christmas is a given to one where, instead, Ramadan is publicly and governmentally observed.
I could also see some sects of Christianity getting more extreme in response to population marginalization – a reactionary move. And maybe some of the practices of these extreme sects would be made illegal (similar to polygamy wrt Mormonism).
Get used to it. From the ‘War on Christmas’ to the ‘Athiest Religion’ Christians will cry persecution at the slightest hint of a policy that does not support them, despite the fact that they are a majority in American and have been persecuting others since they were able to.
I think it is fair to say that they are projecting their own behaviors upon their supposed enemies. They persecute, so they expect others to do so also.
You know me, I don’t fully agree with everything behind this post. BUT big deal, we disagree.
THIS is the kind of post I started reading UF for. Great post, Daniel. Good grammar, good spelling, and even a thoughtful argument or two. ha ha. Good stuff, really, whether I agree or not.
Thanks.
Christians have nothing to fear in the present IMO. Though I do believe that in time Alah, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and Satan will all go the way of the Sun, the Moon, Zues and Apollo. Imagine the world without them. When I do it makes me smile.
The thing is, for the Christians this is really addressed to, the game is rigged. The folks who will understand the reason behind an essay like this and agree with it are already pretty reasonable. For the rest, anything less than a de-facto theocracy where “freedom of religion” is reduced to “we’ll let you live and won’t make being a Christian a requirement for citizenship. But don’t test us. You’re welcome” automatically equates to horrible persecution that must be stood against.
For those people, the reasonable points you make here are just evidence of your plot to oppress them. It’s “oppression” as defined as “not automatically getting special privileges and authority over others”. When people buy into that definition, compromise is impossible. And that definition is appealing because, as you mentioned, persecution is unifying and (for those who have absolutely no experience with the real thing) even exciting. It’s their chance to be a great hero fighting injustice and the forces of evil. So much of the Christian persecution complex is bound up in Walter Mitty fantasies and I don’t think you can fight those with logic.
Basically, I think you have to change people’s minds about how they approach religion from a different angle. Only once they start questioning other things do they usually let go of pretending they’re martyrs in the arena.
“I believe that we are on the verge- within 10 years- of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity”
Within 10 years???? lol no way. It will take at least another 3 or 4 generations to reach the numbers he’s talking about. Remember, logic and reason provide zero comfort when your child is dying of a terrible illness. Reading a science book does not make you feel whole or one with the universe, or provide you with a higher purpose than yourself. There will always be some form of religion, to fill the voids that science, logic, and reason cannot.
I read part of the article. As soon as they start with terms like “secular onslaught”, they lose me.
Of what I did read – predictions about the decline of evangelicalism, the increasing defection of their younger generations, who come to see evangelicalism as bad for individuals and society, and so on – all I could think was “WHEN?”
Religion, in its cultural context and Christ (those IN Him) have nothing in common. So while you are correct that “religion”, endless rule keeping dogma devoid of the motive of love is going away (thankfully) it actually and paradoxically represents a strengthening and re-positioning of true Christianity which is spiritual (internal) in nature and not external like we see with hypocritical religion.
The buildings and subsequent attendence are fading, this is true. Its all part of the plan. But the Truth will never go away…He is eternal…thankfully.
Now, let the “true Scottsman” jokes begin.
We’re already at, or close to 20%. See my post on the same topic today here:
http://meatofthematter.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/great-news/
I just read a blog post today by Incertus on the same subject
http://incertus.blogspot.com/2009/03/about-religious-persecution.html
A point that stood out: “So while 84 out of 100 people may claim to be a Christian in a general sense, they identify more with their individual churches, and there’s no group in the US that can claim more than a plurality, and a small one at that. And since the smaller the church you belong to, the more likely that your beliefs will be considered extreme (think Amish or Quaker, Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness), it’s easy to look at yourself as a potential victim of persecution.”
What we can expect is Evangelical Christians growing more extreme as they become even more marginalized.
What drives modern Evangelicalism – the vocal, anti-science, pro-lunacy version of Christianity – is the fear experienced by a group of people desperately struggling to find their place in a society that rejects most of what they believe.
If you think they’re crazy now, wait until their political influence has been stripped entirely away.
If you think they’re crazy now, wait until their political influence has been stripped entirely away.
I’m very much afraid you’re correct. As their influence continues to wane, they’re going to act increasingly like cornered animals, fighting desperately to survive, lashing out at anything that comes near them.
It’s going to be awful. The only thing they’re right about is that this is a war – and for the sake of human continuity, we’d better win.
A quick update: Michael Spencer now has an article up in the Christian Science Monitor. It’s a condensed version of the three posts in this series from his blog.
This is starting to get him a fair amount of attention. I suspect we’ll be hearing a great deal more about this in coming months.
“I think that Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins use inflammatory language strictly for shock value and attention; I don’t think they would personally harm anyone.”
I don’t know enough about Harris, but I think Dawkins is just professionally cranky. I think Hitchens is trying to be the next H.L. Mencken, which is instructive.
Mencken’s was skewering the religious during a time when religion was prominent and powerful in America. After the death of Bryan and the scandal around Aimee Semple McPherson, evangelical Christianity faded from the spotlight. Mencken turned to other pursuits, died, and was not replaced.
Since the 80s, the “moral majority” has placed Evangelicals back in the spotlight, and we get another Mencken. This is vastly simplified, but I think there’s a core of truth to it: the “New Atheism” is largely a backlash.
Dawkins is speaking out because religion is intruding into his lab and classroom. Hitchens is attacking religious piety because it is a prominent target that earns him a reputation for being fearless and subversive. If Evangelical Christianity were to step back a bit from the political spotlight and stop pressing to have their sectarian beliefs accepted as science without evidence, I think most of this would fade.
I think you (and the rest of us, for that matter) experience a form of selective perception.
Imagine visiting an airport. By the time you’ll have arrived at your destination, you will have forgotten about 99.99% of all the people present at the airport. But you most surely will remember the guy hitting you on the shin with his briefcase, or the person you had a little flirt with while waiting for the boarding.
It’s just how our brains work. Everything that stays inside a certain threshold is not consciously perceived, let alone remembered. This process seems to be altered or non-existent in some people. But I’m once more digressing.
Personally, I’m a bit torn between blessing and condemning the work of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et.al. because on the one hand I believe that making people question their position is more effective for most religious people (after all, fundamentalists are a minority). On the other hand, however, I feel the frustration myself when confronted with people so irrational and sometimes deluded that no discussion of any kind is possible. Those are the times I tend to grab my rhethorical hammer and try to smash them into pieces myself ;-)
It very well could be! I wish I could write more essays — and I have many in the works — but I have been so busy lately that I have been forced to work mostly on smaller posts. That is one of the reasons I have asked for guest posts. Though that left me with even less time, as I had to go through them and then edit the ones I decided to post. So I can’t win. :)
Hopefully I’ll be posting more of my own essays with more substance soon. But blogging tends to favor shorter posts — that’s why I try to keep a balance of short/entertaining to longer/deeper. I’m sure it’s not perfect, but my wife likes it, so I must be doing something right.
However, your suggestion is still heresy and I sentence you to 10 trillion years in purgatory.
“Would it be heresy (pun intended) to say that Vorjack is a better blogger on the topic of religionand atheism than Daniel? ”
I hope you’ve all enjoyed what will likely be my LAST essay for Daniel …
I’m expecting the UF ninjas at my door any moment now for daring to outshine the glorious leader.
To be fair to Daniel, it is hard to find actual substance in Christian beliefs…
VAT?!? YOU ARE STILL ALIVE?!?
It’s hard to find reliable hitmen in this economy.
I think your note about even something as simple as holidays makes sense. My best friend is studying in Turkey, and although the Christian sector there decorates a street in Istanbul and you can theoretically go to a special mass in the Turkish Orthodox church, he’s written about how odd it feels to know that the majority of the people in the city aren’t celebrating it, even in a secular way. He says it just feels strange–not good, not bad–to be less than drowned in pre-Christmas buildup.
I disagree, partially.
Revealing logic and reasoning, even if it’s rejected, is still a very important thing to do for those who still have their eyes shut.
I imagine it like forcing their eyes open just a crack, and the light that comes in is so bright that it hurts and forces them to close their eyes tighter.
However. They’ve seen it, they can’t unsee it. The arguments will take root, even if it’s just the jist, of it, and it will rattle around in their mind. They may encounter something that brings to the forefront that brief flash of light, and it will cause them to peek of their own free will. The instinct will be to shut their eyes tighter, but that’s still a start.
I believe that logic and well founded reasoning that people can understand will, OVER TIME, lead to many converts. But it will lead to very, very, very few immediately.
It seems to me to be like any group that has held more of the power in society, crying, “Reverse discrimination!!!!” as soon as they feel a shift away from their good, privileged position.
Bravo! Bravissimo! Bravississimo!
Religions never collapse quite that quickly, absent a genocidal event, for one simple reason.
Old people.
That is all.
It’s interesting that this post appear here today, because completely unrelatedly in today’s news, I read that religions in the U.S. are experiencing a defection rate like never before.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm
“Remember, logic and reason provide zero comfort when your child is dying of a terrible illness. Reading a science book does not make you feel whole or one with the universe, or provide you with a higher purpose than yourself. There will always be some form of religion, to fill the voids that science, logic, and reason cannot.”
I disagree. Logic and reason may not provide much comfort when your child is dying of a terrible illness, but that does not mean that religion is the only option. What about human empathy? Nearly everyone around us has also experienced pain, suffering and loss in some form or another, and helping ease another’s pain can help us cope with our own. A suffering parent does not need a higher power to tell them that things will be alright — there are plenty of people who have been through the same thing have that can tell them about it first-hand, and are happy to do so.
And can reading a science book make someone feel whole or one with the universe, or provide you with a higher purpose than yourself? You’d better believe it! Every scientific discovery expands the knowledge and understanding of our entire species, elevating us all. What higher purpose does a person need? And if their discovery is revolutionary enough, their name and ideas will be immortalized for all time. How does that sound for fulfillment? And what better way to feel oneness with the universe than learning about what we really are and how we really fit into the natural world? That sounds better than deluding ourselves into believing the universe was created just for us.
Of course, that said, I think you are right that religion is not going to go away quickly. But religion does not have to go away in order for the power wielded by religion to weaken. Personally, I think it is a matter of popularity: we spent eight years in the US with an openly religious president, and that made being openly religious fashionable. However, his policies and the leadership of his party has left this country a mess, so the fashion he promoted has lost ground. Now we have a president who, while open about his religious beliefs, makes no claims, at least that I have heard, about being guided by them (much less claiming that he is receiving direct commands from the Almighty). Sure, there will be backlash from those who stand to lose power, but it is starting to look like momentum may be on our side.
Actually when you’re dealing with trauma, religion is merely a prosthesis for psychotherapy.
As is any drug.
I really don’t think the United States is going to see a Muslim majority in the near future, if ever. They make up less than one percent of the population, and in order for them to approach 50%, we would have to see an immigration equivalent to the entire population of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon, Palestine, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, and Afganistan. Basically, all of the Middle East, plus a few other Muslim countries, would have to pack up and move to the U.S.
It’s a lot more likely that some European countries, like France, would see a Muslim majority, only because their populations are smaller (France’s population is only 60M).
Just sayin’, those Christians you mention don’t have a point with #1, so it would be senseless for them to even consider #2.
Well, no. No more than they were right when they said that Mexicans would be a majority some time soon, which is why I made that comparison. But they honestly believe it. And they also honestly believe that the majority needs to be able to force their religion on anyone else. They don’t seem to understand that the two together are really bad for them.
On a related issue, I once heard a conversation about a Hindu missionary in the local area: The consensus was that they should have stayed in India instead of trying to force their religion on people who believed differently. The irony is that two members of this group had returned from Christian missions to the Far East and South America just a few months earlier….
@Vorjack
To complete your trifecta, Harris’ shtick is primarily removing religion from our political discourse. I think that all three want to see an eventual demise of religion, but Hitchens and Harris seem more serious about it. Harris also dotes on Islam in a way the others don’t.
I do find Harris a little unstable, perhaps it owes to that ecstasy overdose he had in college. Unlike the other two, I wouldn’t consider him a candidate for my surrogate father.
“Now, let the “true Scottsman” jokes begin.”
It’s really hard to parody self parody. So no jokes.
But I’ll take your brand of god bothering over the existing one, if I have a choice. If all I have to worry about is internet rambling about Jesus=love, I’ll be a happy man.
I am always amused when I see this religion and spirituality are different’ argument.
Religion and spirituality are both superstitions that are based on faith and wishful thinking. So what if the horses are 2 different colors…they are both horses.
10 trillion years?! Oh noes! Faced with this horrendous condemnation, I have no other choice…. I must simply live my life as usual.
RobG – I didn’t say religion was the only option. I don’t doubt that what you say is true – for you. But for many Christians there is great comfort and peace in knowing Jesus is there for you, helping you. Imagine your child is dying and you pray to Jesus for help. You feel him answer you and he says – Do not worry my child, all will be okay. Go now in peace. Your close friends are there for support, and they too pray with you and reassure you that Jesus will take care of things. A great sense of calmness comes over you. Jesus will save your baby.
Then a day later your child’s health improves and within a week she is cured! The doctor calls it a miracle. Jesus saved your baby. Trying to convince you otherwise would be like me telling you 1+1=3 or that the sky is really red. You know Jesus saved your baby and no amount of reason will ever convince you otherwise.
As far as “their name and ideas will be immortalized for all time. How does that sound for fulfillment?” That sounds completely meaningless to me. What do you care what your reputation is when you’re dead? What people think of you is the least fulfilling thing I can imagine. My point being, there is a place for religion in society, mainly to provide comfort to those who are prone to seek that comfort or who were raised knowing nothing else.
My point is that you do not need religion to have happiness, fulfillment and a sense of wholeness and oneness with the universe, nor do you need religion to feel comforted in times of suffering: the desire for those things is no reason to keep religion around. The fact is, we choose what comforts and fulfills us, and we have the freedom to choose something else if we want. The only thing stopping Christians is the belief they were raised with that theirs is the only way to find fulfillment. What I am trying to show is that plainly, it is not.
“I live in Amish country. They’re great, nice people and insular but in positive ways. They’re the exact opposite of the evangelicals – they’re worried about people leaving, rather than out there recruiting; they rarely even vote, let alone try to impose their beliefs on others”
Oh, yeah, only their communities are governed by religious preachers, and have their own courts with preachers being judges.
Definitely not imposing anything, not brainwashing their kids, not tying them to the only sin-free and safe place in this dangerous dangerous world.
Let me quote Wikipedia for you:
“Mary Byler was raped more than a hundred times between the ages of 8 and 14 by her brothers, and then she was excommunicated and shunned for reporting her abusers.[80] Another young woman was repeatedly raped by her brother-in-law, who was eventually punished by being shunned for two-and-a-half months.”