Beliefs Columns Culture Jana Riess: Flunking Sainthood Opinion Politics

New study of Millennials and GenZ points to a “massive religious realignment” in America

Daniel Cox, PRRI research director

PRRI and MTV recently released a study on the political and social views of more than 2,000 Americans ages 15 to 24, which includes younger Millennials and older members of Generation Z.

Diversity, Division, Discrimination: The State of Young America” suggests that as a whole, young Americans are more progressive than older ones, but that religion, race, and gender make a difference in how they view various issues. I talked with Daniel Cox, PRRI’s research director, to find out more.

 

RNS: The study is noting an uptick of divisiveness in America. Which issues feel most divisive in the eyes of teens and young adults?

Cox, PRRI: One of the interesting things is that politics seems to overwhelm everything. We asked about whether Americans were divided by race, by religion, by politics. Even though younger folks tend to be less politically engaged than older Americans, they are cognizant that the country is very divided by politics; less so by religion or race. Politics is by far the thing these young folks think America is divided by. Less so by class, and about half said we were very divided by race.

Only 38% say Americans are divided by religion. Which is interesting, when you look at some of the debates we are having, because certainly evangelical Protestants might say we are very divided by religion. Some of those issues are things this cohort might not have a lot of experience with, like over religious liberty issues. While society overall is wrestling with same-sex marriage, that’s more of a settled issue for this generation. Premarital sex, and a lot of other questions about sexual morality, are also fairly settled for this age group. So a lot of the cultural battles that we fight in our society are not viewed as being so divisive among this cohort.

RNS: Even abortion?

Cox, PRRI: This youngest generation doesn’t look that different on the issue of abortion than older Americans, which is pretty interesting because on all of these other issues of human sexuality, they look much more liberal. But abortion debates are not particularly salient for young people. There’s a feeling that it’s largely settled, despite the fact that there are lots of restrictions to abortion now on the state level.

RNS: If the divisions aren’t caused by same-sex marriage or abortion for this age group, what are the most important cultural issues or battles for them?

Cox, PRRI: That’s a really good question, and it may be that it hasn’t even emerged yet. That group that we looked at was really young. Certainly, increasing economic inequality will become increasingly salient. Nationally, the country is becoming more divided by education or class. So those divisions, if they are further exacerbated, could create significant tensions for this generation.

Politics will be a serious dividing line, and part of this is actually due to changing patterns of religious identity. The country is undergoing a massive religious realignment. We’re seeing the Republican Party becoming a predominantly white Christian party, while the Democratic Party has become the party of everyone else. This is not to say there are no white Christians in the Democratic Party, rather their size and influence in the Democratic coalition has fallen precipitously. The Democratic party has shifted in response to these tectonic religious changes—becoming more diverse—while the Republican party has remained rather static. They’re now composed of very different kinds of people, which is why we see such debates over fundamental questions about immigration and who counts as American. It becomes almost tribal.

RNS: In The End of White Christian America, PRRI’s CEO Robert P. Jones says that the GOP holds a strong majority of white evangelical Protestants, but that given the way America is changing, this is becoming a smaller and smaller share of the population.

Cox, PRRI: Right. And evangelicals are a group that is feeling increasingly embattled because of these shifting cultural changes. I recently wrote a piece at FiveThirtyEight about the challenges facing white evangelical Protestants in becoming increasingly out-of-step with the broader culture on issues of sexual morality. Young people simply have different ideas about marriage and sex than are found in most evangelical churches.

RNS: What else is different about this 15–24 age group?

Cox, PRRI: How they view family composition. I think it was Pew a few years ago that had a series of question about what counts as family: Do same-sex couples count? Does a single mother and her child count? Young people are much more likely to say that non-traditional families count, and that more expansive definition of family puts them at odds with older generations.

On a lot of the cultural questions around race and immigration, young white men look really different than young white women and people of color. We saw that again and again in this survey. There has been this idea that young people today are the “kumbaya generation” — because of their racial, ethnic and religious diversity they’re more accepting of differences, more aware of different types of experiences and broadly more tolerant of different viewpoints. But there is some limitation to that. Whether it’s self-selection or geographic isolation, being a member of this cohort is not by itself enough to change attitudes on many of these fundamental questions.

RNS: How were young white men different from other people their age?

Cox, PRRI: Across a number of different questions, we noticed that young white men stood out as having very different perspectives. There is a stark divide between young white men and other young people in views about Obama. He remains incredibly popular among young people of color and young white women, but is viewed a little more ambivalently among young white men. Forty-five percent have an unfavorable opinion of him, which puts them in a different space.

President Trump is not popular with young people. Only one-quarter of young people have a favorable impression of Trump. Although most young white men still disapprove of Trump they express far fewer reservations with him. Forty-three percent have a positive view of the current president—while among young white women only 26 percent view Trump favorably.

Another is their views about the benefits of diversity — whether diversity negatively affects whites. Nearly half of young white men agree with that statement, and only 28% of women did. A slim majority of young white men say that the values of Islam are at odds with the fundamental values of America. And 41% of young white men say it bothers them to come into contact with immigrants who don’t speak English.

Young white men are still broadly more accepting than older white Americans, but they stand out when compared to white women and people of color their own age.

RNS: Do they believe that discrimination against Muslims exists?

Cox, PRRI: Yes, absolutely. There are few places where there is a broader consensus among young people than on the issue of discrimination faced by Muslims. Across all these different demographic groups there was agreement in this age group that Muslims were facing a lot of discrimination. Roughly three-quarters of young white men believe that Muslims are facing a considerable amount of discrimination in the U.S. today, more than for any other group.

Most young people also believe that discrimination against Muslims has increased over the last 12 months. And again there is widespread agreement on this point.

RNS: All in all, how would you characterize this age group?

Cox, PRRI: This age cohort is difficult to typecast. They have far more flexible views about sexual preference and gender identity. They are far more likely to buck societal conventions when it comes to ideas of masculinity and femininity—few young men identify as completely masculine while similarly few young women say they are completely feminine.

But their influence on our culture and the political system will be driven as much by who they are—more educated, and more racially, ethnically, religiously diverse—as it will be by any shared generational experience or ethos. They really are a transitional generation sitting between what America was and what it will become. And yet, the familiar fault lines of gender, race, ethnicity and religion are seen just as clearly among this cohort as they are in previous generations. This generation will not solve the country’s ongoing challenges when it comes to discrimination whether it’s based on gender, race or religion, but they may take us one step closer.

About the author

Jana Riess

Senior columnist Jana Riess is the author of many books, including "The Prayer Wheel" (2018) and "The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church," which will be published by Oxford University Press in March 2019. She has a PhD in American religious history from Columbia University.

61 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Quickly solving religion divisions once again:

    Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

    • A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinkerbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.

    Added details available upon written request.

    A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.

    e.g. Taoism

    “The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.

    Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother’s womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. “

  • And gen-Z is a pretty gay generation !! More to worry about for the Christians, Mormons, etc…

    https://www.dailydot.com/irl/generation-z-fluid/

    Quote:
    “…In fact, a 2016 survey by the consumer insight agency J. Walter Thompson Innovation Group found that only 48 percent of Generation Z identifies as “completely heterosexual,”

  • ” Do they believe that discrimination against Muslims exists?”
    Muslim’s greatest saboteurs – ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, Hamas,Hesbola et al.

  • I will agree that she is a passive aggressive little lollipop triple dipped in psycho. I’ve told her so.

    But I also have these feelings about her.

    She is just electrons on a screen, nothing more than that. She is capable of doing some damage, of course, because people like her are always capable of it, and revel in it. It makes them feel larger than they are, just like over identifying with god makes that kind of Christian feel larger than they are. I will occasionally point out her more outrageous comments, as I did here, but that isn’t for her benefit, that’s for other people to see. But it is pointless otherwise to engage her.

    I’m pretty sure her daughter is gay, and her daughter finally told her to f.o., rejecting both her mother and her version of Christianity. She has pretty much admitted that this is true, though she tends to be coy about it. Though I have a lot more sympathy for the daughter, having had and/or known parents like that, I feel a little sympathy even for sandimonious. That’s gotta hurt, and hurt badly.

    Unlike her, I have a lot of empathy. But even my empathy has limits. I’ve known too many people like her— bomb throwers, trouble makers— to care too much. My brother is one of those. I did what I could to help him, but eventually, the costs were too great.

    sandimonious is like my dear, dear friend with what we call Alzheimer’s. He makes decisions which are going to hurt him. He gets very angry and upset if you push him too hard. I try to take care of him as best as I can, but in the end, if his bad decisions hurt him, they are only going to hurt him. I’m just there to clean up the mess afterwards. And I do.

    So, in her anger, pain, and over identification with god, she strikes out out her two great enemies, gay people and Christians who are not her sort of Christian. And of course, if you’re not a Christian, you’re just human trash. In my opinion, She does a great deal of damage to Christian witness. I don’t really care, because that kind of Christianity has been hurting gay people and Jews, my people, for 2000 years. There are far too many people that post on these very pages who agree with her, and who damage Christianity in the same way. I can’t stop them and I can’t fix them. So many Good Christians won’t stand up to her and her ilk, so they are complicit in that. again, I don’t care. It’s not my problem.

    So, I understand your sentiments. But she’s doing the lord’s work, whether it’s exposing the scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites for who they are, or as some of the hyper Christians here believe, pruning away the bad leaves off the vine of the real, true, and super duper Christians, who will await their lord’s coming as his only true believers, and be properly rewarded for it.

    It’s pretty silly stuff, all of it requiring a healthy dose of credulity, megalomania, and a highly imaginary and self assigned superiority.

    But again, it’s just not my problem.

  • You are more tolerant than I. Having seen the wreckage and loss of life that Evangelicals like Sandi has done to LGBT people, many of us are fed up with it. Continually dehumanizing gay people causes them to think their lives are worthless and some of them give up and kill themselves. As far as I’m concerned, the blood is on the hands of Evangelicals and especially Sandi. It’s pretty shitty to take out your anger (as she’s doing) on people who had nothing to do with her miserable life.

    Your niceness to Sandi has gotten you absolutely nowhere. Some people are so consumed by hate that they are unreachable and incurable. She’s become even more hateful and vile. She completely and repeatedly rejects every attempt by other Evangelicals to reason with her. She just damns them to hell. She is a lost cause.

    In any event, I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand by and let her spread her hate and damage other people’s lives. Doing nothing in the face of evil is cowardly and it hurts innocent victims.

  • Again, I cannot disagree with one word you are saying. I have been involved with our fight for 46 years. I won’t be stopping it. But to argue with Sandimonious is pointless. Pointing out her vileness is far more useful. People who are not irretrievably poisoned like she is can see her. People who are agree with her,

    It’s not a matter of being tolerant. It’s a matter of how much I want her vileness to rub off on me. I really don’t want to sink to her level. I think her actions have brought her a lot of pain— viz, her daughter— and will bring her even more.

    Butbyou have to do what you have to do, and I don’t fault you for it.

  • The question for us older people is the same question that applied to our parents and grandparents when we were young: Are we willing to learn from the Millennials and Generation Zers or will we use the obvious faults of the younger generations as an excuse for not listening to them?

    Of course, another question comes to mind. Will the next generation be named Generation AA?

  • There could not be a better explanation than sandi for why young people are walking away from Christianity in droves. The Christianity she promotes has long since turned from Jesus and the gospels as its foundation. It’s obsessed with hating, with fashioning enemies to attack in Jesus’ name — and with lying about those perceived enemies,

    It’s demonic, and I applaud every young person who is walking away from this as fast as his/her feet can take him/her.

    It’s astonishing that, in response to an article that’s about how a whole generation of younger Americans are repudiating the demonic version of Christianity sandi and her ilk peddle, she chooses to attack Muslims.

    Not to look at herself and how she represents Jesus and the gospels and to ask whether she is a huge part of the reason younger folks are walking away en masse . . . .

  • Perhaps the headline needs to be about “Religious Realignment” to justify the article’s presence here. But the story seems to be captured in the first graphic (“Figure 7” ????) which indicates that the biggest perceived problem of divisiveness is “Politics” — which outdistances #2 (“Wealth or Income”) quite significantly (while “Religion” is a ho-hummer).

    Given that graphic, it would have been much more interesting to hear what views the group has on overcoming political divisiveness. That might have made this article newsworthy.

    And, BTW, what’s the point of showing how groups feel about Obama as President? As far as I know, he went out of office a year ago….

    Based on this article, it looks like Daniel Cox might need a new job ….

  • Til Tuesday, although I understand your frustration with fundamentalist Christians, we have to admit that angry and hateful responses are just as repugnant. This is an interfaith news site where everyone has a right to post their beliefs and should be shown respect.

    By the way, no one is evil and sandi is certainly not damaging lives. Lets skip the hyperbole.

  • I question why we should trust demographers, when not only could they not come up with a more imaginative way of naming “generations” than the next letter of the alphabet, but they failed to anticipate an analogue of the Y2K problem.

  • But, Til Tuesday has a point. I know that young people, like my daughter see the religious right as horrible people. Why? Because they seem to disrespect everyone but themselves. Their constant whining and arrogance is why so many in Gen Z turns against them and religion as well. The feel that if this is Christianity, then better to leave it.

  • The study itself

    https://www.prri.org/research/mtv-culture-and-religion/

    seems to support somewhat different conclusions than the ones you propose.

    It does NOT support the notion that “young people are walking away from Christianity in droves”.

    It DOES support the conclusion that it is politics, not religion, that divides the young.

    Nowhere in the study is there a reference to a “demonic version of Christianity”.

  • But aren’t the religious right discrediting themselves? I have family who are evangelicals and received many the lecture, religious pamphlet, etc. I can’t understand their view of religion but they are far from horrible people. I guess my point is why add to the hate.

  • Weird….I thought Race was just a Social Construct. Why do “white” people continually get singled out. Strange. And they say ‘white genocide’ is a conspiracy theory. Your lying eyes!

  • The question about Obama’s presidency is used as a proxy. The fact that young white men have the lowest approval rating among this age group is revealing in itself and may give an insight into how they feel about Trump, immigration, women, LGBT, Islam, etc.

  • There we disagree. She is damaging lives, every time she pulls her gay people are child molesters crap out of her dark heart,

  • That’s the question you should be addressing to evangelicals, as they continue to call gay people enemies of god, threats to civilization, degenerate, perverts, threats to children, family and marriage…

    And on and on and on and on and on.

  • The only viable conclusion from the stats is that young white men (and young white women, for that matter) had a lower “approval” rating of Obama than their peers of color. There is nothing in this article that “explains” what that might mean as a revelation about anything else.

    For instance, I’m a white person and I view Obama’s performance as pretty mediocre. That’s because I see him as being relatively ineffective in leading the country toward the “agenda” of his mandate. And, as eloquently as he could speak, 44 did a pretty poor job as “Explainer-in Chief”. That said, I’d rate him heads and shoulders above 45 in every respect.

    There is an old saw about statistics: “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” Think about it — it explains the danger of interpreting stats as “proxy” info. It’s statistical malpractice.

  • “White Genocide”… is laughable, a white-nationalist term !! But if anything, it’s a self-genocide…The main reason people of European descent are declining demographically in N. America and globally — is because they don’t have very high birthrates.

    Gen-Z in the US, will be the first generation where whites are less than 50% of the population…that scares you, doesn’t it ??

  • I agree their moralizing is repulsive (and in the Trump era, hypocritical) but I also don’t believe that adding insults to insults works very well; Just entrenches both sides.

  • Yes, when I want real data I go to CNN, speaking of comic, with Burke describing the “collapse of American Christianity”, with 70.6% (!) of those surveyed reporting adherence to Christianity. This is known as “spin”.

    The comment you made was not, as I pointed out, in the article or the survey it cited.

    For your information “Carioca” is a demonym used to refer to anything related to the City of Rio de Janeiro as well the State of Rio de Janeiro. The word comes from the indigenous Tupi language’s “kara’i oka” meaning “house of carijó”, a native tribe of Rio de Janeiro in the vicinity of the Carioca River, between the current neighborhoods of Glória and Flamengo.

    The carioca accent and sociolect are the most widely recognized in Brazil, and cariocans are very proud of their role historically and currently.

    I’m not sure how to take some lily white Arkansan holding “carioca” up to ridicule, but I don’t get the impression you’d like it if I responded in kind, “Guillermo”.

  • That’s sort of like saying “Shep is a dog; Shep is a German Shepherd; therefore all dogs are German Shepherds.”

  • In short, you just plain hate her, so you are okay with doing really intense and personal “Reviling & Slander” towards her. Got it.

    We all have our own posting styles anyway. As for me, I’m always looking for friendly and courteous ways to throw Spike Strips in the path of Gay Goliath’s bus.

  • I doubt that any of our friends in question here realize what they look like, trying to psychoanalyze a complete stranger — and an entirely innocuous one — at tiresome length, and screaming strawmen-and-brimstone for her banning. Methinks the “I-don’t-care-about-religion” crowd doth protest too much. For myself, it always gives me a chuckle.

  • “Why do “white” people continually get singled out. ”

    Because of the ridiculous belief by a small % of them that their skin color grants them special favors and benefits over others.

    “White genocide” is just a glorified admission that racist men are sexually inadequate. They have low birthrates because few white women want to mate with them. Mixed race parentage is on the rise.

  • No. Dear. Thay’s your story. It’s always your story when someone says enough of the lies, the condemnation, the fear, the fear mongering, all of the things you do to harm us. It’s always “you’re bigoted because you are not accepting our bigotry.”.

    I don’t even hate you, and you can be just as vile as she is. “Gay plantation… indeed!

  • BTW, she’s provided more evidence my little bit of personality reading than anyone has ever provided for the entirety of her beliefs.

  • Like I said… at tiresome length.

    Here’s an idea: What you don’t care about, won’t hurt you. In fact, it won’t disturb you in the slightest.

  • I care about gay people. I care about the harm inflicted on us in the name of your god.

    you’ve said many times you don’t care about it, beyond your general concern over sin. And yet, here you are. But you have NEVER called out the vicious antigay bigots who post her regularly, except when I unrelentingly prodded you to do so.

    As for sandimonious being innocuous? As she repeats lie after lie about gay people, condemns every other sort of Christian who is not her, I’d hardly call her innocuous— not for gay people, not for your faith either.

  • You should probably talk to all of the white people marrying outside of the purity of the white race. If only they hadn’t gotten rid of all of those nifty miscegenation laws, like decent Christians.

    There is your white genocide— really, white suicide. Probably one of the most common sights in every urban area of our country, is white men with people of the brownish persuasion. Especially with Asian women.

    As always, you’re blaming the wrong people for your in this case imaginary problem.

  • “As for sandimonious being innocuous? As she repeats lie after lie about gay people…” Telling you that the scriptures condemn same sex behavior is not a lie, it’s simply scripture and church history. Which you don’t care about.

    “…condemns every other sort of Christian who is not her…” That touches you not at all, being no Christian of any sort. Nor do I see any particular threat to other Christians simply from having their positions refuted from scripture — in fact, the NT tells us to be prepared to do this. It is how we hold each other accountable and keep the faith pure. I know I am not the slightest bit troubled when I am “condemned” by Christians not of my “sort,” as you put it. But of course, I am an adult and confident in what I profess and why. The proper response is to rebut from scripture if possible — not to whine about being “hurt.”

  • And you’re right. I don’t care about scripture. I do care how it is used as a weapon, and about her lies about gay people.

    Of course her condemnation for people not her sort of Christian touches me. But then I’m not an extra special super duper true Christian like you. I have empathy, I care about other people. I respect all people’s faith,even when I don’t agree with any of their beliefs, as long as they are not using it as a weapon to harm other people. I’m quite consistent about that.

    At the same time, if you want your religious beliefs to be respected, you can start by having respectable beliefs.

  • “Of course her condemnation for people not her sort of Christian touches me. I have empathy, I care about other people. I respect all people’s faith“. ? Nah, you don’t. I have been condemned by several here for being “not their sort of Christian,” and so have some others, and you’ve responded with either complete silence or outright approval. Which is entirely fine by me, of course, but at the same time reduces claims of “consistency” and “empathy” to merely pretentious and hypocritical officiousness.

    IOW, you’re a garden-variety busybody.

    “if you want your religious beliefs to be respected, you can start by having respectable beliefs.” I believe I’ve made it abundantly clear that I am completely indifferent to whether you find my beliefs respectable or not. When God-haters start telling me how great I am, THEN I’ll worry.

  • Condemned or disagreed with? Not the same thing at all. When someone calls you a flaming bigot because of your religious beliefs, AND I happen to see it, I’ll try to remember to call them out on it.

    Meanwhile, my atheism doesn’t required me to counsel people about their sins, like slandering and reviling, which your religion most assuredly does. I do, of course, defend other religious people from the attacks of the right wingers present here. And you know that. So your what-aboutism is simply a case of more pretend persecution because someone disagrees with you, like this bullbleep about the God Haters. It’s simply a way for you to be a victim, rather than the bully.

    As far as I can tell, most of the atheists here don’t “hate god.” I’m sure that there are a few that do: as Eleanor of Aquitaine said, in a world where carpenters can be resurrected, anything is possible. No, They disagree that your god exists, or that your god is the god you claim he is. Like myself, we simply don’t care about your god. What we care about is what you and your fellow travelers do with your religious belief. Sandimonious, for example, can spout off any nonsense about god she wishes, and other people are free to disagree with her according to their own theological preferences.

    When she attacks other people with lies and viciousness, she should expect some pushback. And if she is not a big enough girl to deal with it, then perhaps she should spend some of her time actually helping others, as Jesus commanded, rather than attacking others.

  • “Condemned or disagreed with?“. Told that we are not “real Christians.” But this coming from those who possess the requisite views on homosexuality, and are therefore above reproach.

    “It’s simply a way for you to be a victim, rather than the bully.“. Kindly refrain from telling me what I think. I am not a victim and have no interest in being one. This is not about my being a victim but about you being a hypocrite. Which you have just compounded by speaking of “what aboutism,” which is in fact your own special signature look—along with its derivative, “I’m-rubber-you’re-glue.”

    “And if she is not a big enough girl to deal with it…”. Please spare us the projection. Sorry to disappoint but I have not noticed that she is any more disturbed by your “pushback” than I am. The secure have little need of validation.

    “As far as I can tell, most of the atheists here don’t “hate god.”“.

    “The world [that means you] cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify that its works are evil.” John 7:7. I’ll go with His assessment, thanks just the same.

    “and other people are free to disagree with her according to their own theological preferences.” Tee Tee’s little screed up above rather negates that. He is not “disagreeing” with her according to ANY theological preferences, or anything else substantial, but demanding that she be silenced altogether because he doesn’t like her views. Given that she does very little more than present the relevant passages of scripture, there is only one reason why the “don’t care” camp would want to ban her — because they suspect she might be right. Otherwise they would simply refute as we do.

  • Yes indeed. We all have our ways of responding, so please don’t tell me what I think, or what I should think if I’m going to get right with you or your god.

    I certainly understand Tuesday. Like so many gay people, I’m very tired of being called a child molester, a danger to society, and all of the rest of the theogarbage that evangelical Christians, conservative Christians, and the rest of your fellow travelers have been spewing at us for 2000 years. If you don’t like the pushback, stop spewing.

    It’s pretty simple.

    I’m equally tired of kids killing themselves, political campaigns directed against us, and All of the rest of the paid Theo-political garbage spewed at us. If you don’t like the pushback, stop spewing.

    It’s pretty simple.

  • “If you don’t like the pushback, stop spewing.”

    I’m afraid the point continues to elude you. Read slowly: Nobody cares about your “pushback.” Push back all you please. I didn’t post to tell you to stop because you’re hurting our fee-fees, much less to whine for your banishment. I posted to remark to Floyd about the entertaining spectacle you and Tee Tee are making of yourselves, gnashing your teeth helplessly at a complete stranger that you can neither refute nor bully into silence nor demand that the teacher put into time out. To the point of brooding over the details of her private life and discoursing at length about her psychology — which not only screams desperation but is also unethical.

    Get it now, or do we need to rinse and repeat? Get some dignity, already.

  • I think we should both agree that neither of us is going to convince the other. But I’m not here to convince you of anything, merely to point out to others what I see.

    As for not caring about the pushback, and whining about fee fees being hurt, exactly who is doing all that whining about your conscience being violated if you have to make a cake, the very same cake you are more than happy to make for anyone else? That’s the pushback: no more special rights for religious people to treat other people like crap and call it religion. We have laws against that for a reason. Your fee fees are not a reason to abrogate them. Nor would I call for anyone’s banishment. I want your spew out there for all to see.

    No one is trying to bully her into submission. As I said, and clearly, she’s just electrons. She, like you, like Floyd, don’t have to read any comments. You could block me and anyone else you Iike. So could they. But they enjoy the charge they get out of it.

    As for inethical? She volunteered the information. I feel fine commenting on what she put out there. Just as you so called Christians are fine about speculating on who is going to burn In hell forever, who god hates, and all the rest, and just as she is fine with calling people she doesn’t know child molesters. Just as Floyd is fine talking about the gay plantation, and calling gay people violent violent violent.

    If you want to talk about immoral, inethical, vile, and contrary to what you claim you believe, let’s talk about THAT.

    But you won’t.

  • “exactly who is doing all that whining about your conscience being violated if you have to make a cake” So now we’re talking actions? I am talking about SPEECH — what TT wants shut down, evidently with your sympathy, hence this thread. Nobody considers SPEECH a threat unless they can not refute it.

    “No one is trying to bully her into submission.” I didn’t say bully into submission but into SILENCE. Which is TT’s stated objective here — silencing her SPEECH.

    “She, like you, like Floyd, don’t have to read any comments. You could block me and anyone else you Iike.” Um, why? We’re not threatened by you. You and TT are threatened by her — hence these demands for banning.

    “As for inethical? She volunteered the information. I feel fine commenting on what she put out there.” Makes me wonder if you ever finished that psychology degree you claim.

    “Just as you so called Christians are fine about speculating on who is going to burn In hell forever, who god hates, and all the rest,” As far as I know none of us claim the profession of psychologist, and the last time I looked there were no standards of professional responsibility regarding dialogue about the Bible.

    “just as she is fine with calling people she doesn’t know child molesters. Just as Floyd is fine talking about the gay plantation, and calling gay people violent violent violent.” I think something’s been lost in communication here…as I’m suddenly reminded of Sandi’s flippant remark about having “nothing to confess” which you waved around for six months and which turned out to be nothing but a joke.

    Now read back over your rant, composed of nothing but whataboutism, false equivalence and bile, (I know you know better, you’re just operating on emotion right now and not logic) and if you’re able to step back out of yourself even a little you might see what I found so amusing in the first place. For someone who posts here for show, the show you’re putting on right now is hardly doing you any favors.

  • Doesn’t matter. According to Pew Research, “by 2050 atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population.”
    (The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050)

  • Actually, for the record, I’ve only discussed — and **fully ** documented in this forum, which called for some sincere homework — what the gay community did after the initial passage of Prop 8.

    Also did a good look at gay mass shooter Omar Mateen. But mass shooters come in all flavors. In contrast, there is NO exact parallel to the large-scale anger, hatred, violence, and threats that the gay community pulled after the voters made their democratic choice.

    I don’t harp on it, for we people-groups have all got issues. But clearly the full story (-ies) of that event have impacted you. Or I hope it did. No apologies for that, Ben. No church, no Christian, no voter of any label, should ever forget that simmering acidic underground pool of gay activist hatred & anger. It’s still there, waiting.

  • Fully documented to you is a long list of stuff that was at best asserted. That was pointed out to you, consistently.

    If I made the same comments about black people that you feel free to make about gay people, you’d be howling that I am a racist bigot. But I wouldn’t make those comments, because IT IS WRONG TO HOLD UP WHAT SOME PEOPLE DO AS A DCRIPTOR OF AN ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE.

    Unless you are you. and you are.

  • Good points. I agree. Hitchens gets it right in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Is it polemical in style? Sure. But it’s a robust and rational response to many assumptions that people never question. To the extent religion continues consistently in its historical role as question-ender and debate limiter, intolerant of anything but absolute agreement with its dogma, it is poisonous.

  • I am very interested in the life of Emma Smith. She is an example of the humanity we find in people who have played significant roles in the Mormon Movement. And through her, see the vulnerabilities of her husband, the prophet Joseph Smith with a remarkable human side as well.

    Some time ago I visited her burial site, next to Joseph and his brother Hyrum. It seems that the High Ranks of latter day saints leadership believe that their marriage, will be perpetuated in eternity.

ADVERTISEMENTs