Seems fairly straightforward:
Israeli Jews becoming more religious, poll finds
Pew survey data suggests that this may be a Jewish phenomenon as much as a specifically Israeli one, since apparently American Jews are also becoming more religious:
That last bit corroborates what I was saying earlier: across all denominations, the moderately religious seem to be morphing into nonreligious while the strongly religious are becoming more hardline.
How about this one?
I get it that your point is that intolerant Christians are more aggressively pushing their beliefs.
My point is, and was, that religion is on the wane.
Within Christianity as a broad brush, tolerance–and not intolerance–is on the rise. Tolerance toward gays is an example; similar trends can be found with tolerance toward other religions and belief systems.
Religion, in general, is on the wane. It is going away as the standard against which daily lives are lived.
I do not doubt that shrillness is on the rise from the remnant of religious groups who generally see the world going to hell. 
(Nor do I doubt that you and I are both likely included in the ranks of the hell-bent. )
But religion as a daily interloper is going away for most western countries with most groups–perhaps with the exception of immigrants not yet exposed long enough for western values to have eroded the extent to which religion drives their daily behavior.
My point about Israel not counting has to do with the fact that it is clearly a country hell-bent on attracting and assimilating Jews, and preferentially Jews.
It’s hardly an archetype for the western world of secular countries.
I understand that that is your personal conviction. I don’t think you’ve convincingly supported it with evidence, and in fact I think that the increasing intrusion of rightwing-Christian intolerance into the public sphere is evidence to the contrary (or at least evidence that the current shifts in the role of religion in society are much more complex than a straightforward overall “waning”).
Fine, but you didn’t make that point at all clear when you asked your question that the example of Israel was offered as a response to:
You specified no condition that said “developed country” should meet any particular criterion as “an archetype for the western world of secular countries”.
Now that I know that’s your criterion, though, I readily agree that Israel doesn’t meet it.
Perhaps you would like to cite some evidence showing that, on average, laws have increased intolerance rather than diminished it (say, over the last 50 years).
Religion is waning, and the power of religious beliefs as the driver for law is waning. Fewer people give a shit what Moses thought.
A call for intolerance by the shrill is not a reflection of what is actually happening.
(The waning of religion’s grip is why the religious remnant is screeching more loudly, if in fact they are.)
I think you may be reading too many scaremongering pamphlets and confusing them with overall societal trends.
? But I am not claiming that, on average, laws have increased intolerance rather than diminished it (say, over the last 50 years).
If that’s all you mean by “religion is waning” then yeah, sure it is.
As I said, though, I think what’s actually happening is more complex. For example, there is definitely some recent and current legislation that does reflect increased intolerance (or at least the increased legal clout of intolerance), such as DOMA and RFRA.
Religion in society has never been about everybody believing exactly the same thing; it’s more about what concessions to particular beliefs the most motivated adherents of those beliefs can force everyone else to put up with.
Ugh. The proposition is not that religion will become less common, but that it WILL GO AWAY. So no, I’m not wrong.
Putting all this in perspective, back in February I ran this thread positing that Islam is about where Christianity was in the 17th Century and hoping that eventually it could “get better” as the Christian world did, i.e., modernize/liberalize/secularize. Some posts questioned the terms of the assumptions, like this one:
Well, sorta…I mean let’s face it: The ardent believers we will have with us always. Generally undereducated or at least, under-appreciative of science.
But the science juggernaut coupled with universal access to critical thinking will pretty much stamp out religion (meaning a belief system on the non-natural, and in particular, the writings of dead sages). It will morph into holiday traditions and stop being a conduit of truth beyond what we uncover scientifically. No almighty telling the masses what to do, directly or indirectly. No miracles. Etc.
It’s been going away since the scientific revolution, and it’s about to go away in spades, I think.
The chinese have pretty much managed to stamp it out on a mass scale. With an easing of commie sanctions, you’ll see a little rebound, but mostly from closet believers who now get to be more open.
Belief in the supernatural and belief in science as sources of truth are mutually incompatible. As long as children are exposed to science the erosion of a belief system based on an arbitrary acceptance of holy writ is inevitable.
Check out some of the 50 year trends in this Gallup poll:
Percent who think religion has most answers goes from 82 down to 60.
Percent that thinks it’s out of date goes from 7 to 30.
Percent who don’t care what the design is on a Starbucks cup: 99.99. 
And you are of the opinion that, more than ever, more people have been forced to put up with the beliefs of others?
Legislatively? By peer pressure? What? How?
What would be some good broad examples where these remnant zealots have been more successful than not in promulgating intolerance?
A few limited skirmishes? Sure.
But look at their losses: Blue laws. Interracial marriage. Abortion. Tolerance of personal freedom wrt to clothing, social mores, recreational drugs. Gay rights. Teaching evolution…need I go on?
The Christians, the Jews, the Mormons and their ilk have lost all those battles for translating their religious notions of Right into law. If we can keep the Muslims from winning theirs–and given the numbers, the west surely will–I see no chance religious ideals are going to surge back into a position of power from which they can coerce much of anything.
I hope you haven’t been fearmongered into making donations to the anti-religious society cause, 'cuz it just ain’t gonna happen that religion makes a broad comeback as the bible of how to live one’s life.
But hey, you made the assertion; you back it up.
Only the sillily naive think you could get by with publicly calling the Prophet (PBUH and his sorry ass) an idiot and handing out cartoons showing him to be a clown or an asshole and not face execution–either state sponsored or citizen-effected–in pretty much any Muslim majority country.
I have no intention of testing that with my own cowardly behind. 
If that failure reassures you that your Shangri-La notion that my position is nonsense, enjoy your delusion. Just don’t get lulled into trying to prove me wrong next time you visit a Muslim majority country…wait…I don’t care. Go ahead and give it a go.
Heck; why don’t you try it in the US? Get enough attention and you might even get your own personal Monty-must-die Fatwah without even buying an airline ticket.
LOL.
In other words: You have cannot prove your assertion, and, in fact, never had any intention of doing so; you just wanted to shoot off at the mouth. And that’s a rather lame bit of goal-post telekinesis you pulled in post #94.
Absolutist statements are almost always easy to disprove. Address the substance. If you want me to do the work of rephrasing it for you - Organised religion as a widespread, powerful and influential force has gone away in many developed countries, and as it continues to lose adherents and more of the world becomes richer and better educated, this trend is likely to continue. For all intents and purposes, this is the same thing as religion GOING AWAY. We don’t care whether religious nutcases exist or not. We care about whether they exist in large enough numbers to influence public policy and the public sphere at large.
That…actually does count, and is one more cite than I expected. But this claim…
still needs supporting beyond that one cite.
What do you mean “according to science”?
I don’t see how “science” can prove or disprove anything at all about the existence or non-existence of Allah or any other meta-empirical being, nor about the validity or non-validity of Muhammed’s claims about said meta-empirical being.
Few in the West, certainly not the governments, are serious about doing anything about salafism, Wahabbism, whatever. They can’t, it’s integral to Saudi Arabia and integral to the oil supply. France is still selling piles of weapons to the country that birthed ISIS, and gets about 40% of its oil from the Gulf.
Did they refuse to trade until Saudi sorted out it’s terrorism sponsors ?
If the most extreme variant is permissible, then the rest of it is here to stay, you’re quite right.
This explains a lot about your appeals to “science” on various topics. Could you provide a citation for where “science,” (or even a particular science), has ever made this claim?
True, it is a quite poor understanding of the idea even of the science (I note I do not share with my coreligionists the equally silly idea that the science proves the Islamic religion - science does not say anything one way or the other).