But wouldn’t that apply equally to any country on Earth?
America has been the leader in free enterprise.
In the time since capitalism has become the major global economic activity, the US has had a much higher baseline of religiosity than any other country offering comparable opportunities.
If exploiting the affluent and gullible is your thing, the US has to be the place.
Reminds me of this thread I started almost a year ago: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=286068
The inquisition, war of religion, etc… are perceived as remote historical events. They aren’t closer to home in Europe than in the USA. Nobody’s fearing a new inquisition.
And Phelp’s style gay bashing and abortion clinic bombings aren’t an european issue. So if it were related to a fear of religious (christian) violence, the USA should be the post-christian country.
You miss my point. First, the Inquisition and so on are in the past but they happened, and that fact has had centuries to have an effect. Second, the state religions have been doing quite a lot even in more recent years; not as dramatic, but enough to make it clear just how nasty religion really is.
Third, Phelps isn’t much of an issue here either, which is my point. People like him have been restrained by the law; they haven’t been allowed to do the things they want to do.
As a Catholic, lemme just say I feel really guilty for laughing at this. But then, I’m Catholic, so I pretty much feel giulty for everything. 
Such as?
Well (to clumsily mix my metaphors) we might clutch at any old straw and shoehorn it into an explanation - I guess I’ve been as guilty of this here as any. So I’ll do so again, but a bit more fundamentally 
I think this question is tied to a deeper one, which is that of why the US is so much more conservative in all kinds of ways than the rest of the industrialised democratic world. Obviously, its history and creation are where to look first: I’d suggest that the sheer homogeneity of the US, culturally, politically and linguistically speaking, is an important factor. Where no two states are linguistically isolated, it is difficult for one state to become that much different to another to the extent of adopting a particularly different religion, and indeed difficult to develop such an enmity with another state that outright war ensues (which has the unfortunate habit of throwing out all kinds of babies with the bathwater, from dominant religions to entire systems of government, as Europe’s turbulent 20th century demonstrated). But again, that’s just speculation on my part really.
It depends. In some ways the U.S. is more conservative then Europe in others Europe is more conservative. For instance several European countries still have official religions. In some the clergy are even state employees. This is unimaginable in the U.S. No American will be elected Pope in the lifetime of anyone on these boards. Europeans still rule the roost in the Roman church.
On to a bigger point though. Despite the perception that the U.S. has become a citadel of Christianity, the fall of religion in the U.S. has been rapid and stunning. Today about 25% of Americans attend church weekly as far as I can tell. In 1960 around 90% of Americans went to church weekly. The Catholic church in the U.S. faces a shortage of priests so acute that churches that used to have three or four priests now have one and that one may be shared with one or two other churches. Time magazine felt compelled to ask “Is God dead?” on its cover in 1966.
The unforced rejection of the majority religion in the U.S. and Europe has been really unprecedented in history. The decline in Europe has just been a bit faster.
It also is notable that the general public indifference to Christianity does not mean the end of religion. I notice a lot of people, both European and American who ignore or are hostile to Christianity still embrace astrology, alternative medicine and other such belief systems.
Weirdly enough, I’ve been thinking in the opposite direction: That US is much more heterogenous than Europe, and that this might explain some of the differences in religiousity. What I mean is that a US state is (I’d guess) more heterogenous than a European nation, and that this is especially true in matters of religion.
A European nation will typically have one main church organisation, which in some cases is even a state church. Most people will belong to the national church. This means that most people never make an active choice about church membership. This also means that the national church must have room for a very wide range of opinions. There has been quite a lot of debate in the Church of Norway about female priests and about homosexuality, to take a couple of examples. And since the church of Norway needs to have room for the majority of Norwegians, it has tended to choose compromise solutions on controversies. Conservative Christians became dissatisfied when Rosemarie Köhn was appointed bishop (female and pro-gay), and radical/liberal Christians became seriously annoyed at the appointment of the anti-gay bishop of Oslo (I forget his name). In US, the number of different church organisations would (I assume) mean that it’s easier to find a church which actually shares your views. That would be more likely to lead to stronger ties to your chosen church.
All things in this physical world go through their life cycle. Even as people are born, grow up, grow old, and die, so do belief systems such as Christianity, so do countries, so do civilizations, so do cities, etc. Everything has a life cycle.
So, yes, this country will experience a post-Christianity, if it don’t fade first.
I found the link in the OP very interesting. I noticed that over ninety percent of people believe in God or a universal spirit. This hasn’t changed much in the last 60+ years they have surveyed.
My opinion is that the world is not losing it’s spirituality, just changing it to conform more accurately with reality. More people are having spiritual experiences than ever before, and these experiences are revealing spiritual truths. Not that these truths didn’t already exist. They were just ignored to order to build up churches instead of building up people.
True to form succeeding generations move closer and closer to the “heaven” society.
hildea, what you said makes sense to me.
lekatt, I question your premise. I think it’s based on a false analogy. Christianity has been around a long time, as have other major religions and belief systems, some of which are even older. I see no good reason to assume that belief systems such as these (or science, or logic) have an expiration date (unless you’re thinking of the heat death of the universe or something like that).
Religions, or “belief systems,” make claims about truth. Some of these are subjective and some are objective truths. The subjective truths may change or evolve or become reformulated over time, but the objective truths (including historical truths such as that Jesus actually lived, and said and did certain things, as well as metaphysical ones such as whether there is an afterlife and, if so, what it’s like) either will remain true forever or were never true in the first place.
Perhaps it’s simply the fact that many sects in the U.S. aggressively recruit new members.
The U.S. will most certainly be post-Christian at some point. In fact it’s already begun. What’s been missing from this thread is the fact that, whatever ulterior motives like power may do with the social institution of organized religion, religion itself is nothing more than one type of moral order (the dichotomy of good/bad, right/wrong that every human society must have). Earlier this year I spent some time researching the state of religion in America over the past century in order to predict where it will be heading in the future. In my studies I came across one book in particular, The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival & Cult Formation, by Stark and Bainbridge. The authors conducted extensive empirical studies of “religions,” “sects,” and “cults” (using their own definition of each term), and came up with this conclusion:
It seems to me that only some of these new religions will have an effect on the moral order of America (and thus America’s position on subjects like the work ethic and the purpose of government), because some of the breaking away from old religions will be purely on the grounds of the supernatural promises that one religion makes as opposed to another, without touching the underlying moral order. So a post-Christian USA is probably, but not necessarily, a post-conservative USA.
About a year ago I started a thread: “Will the American religious-conservative movement ever include Muslims?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=282394 It only lasted eight posts and no consensus emerged.
So, out of curiosity… why would you disclude the epistles of Paul? I can only assume here, but my guess would be his seemingly anti-female stance. I’m right, aren’t I? Do I get a cookie?
Yes – your choice of chocolate chip, peanut butter or oatmeal raisin! (I don’t deal in macaroons.) But that’s only part of it. Yes, Paul turned Christianity into an anti-female and generally sex-phobic religion, which is bad enough. But he also introduced the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, not works – and how could that be could good for social health, as FriarTed suggests? But it goes deeper. Christianity as Jesus himself preached it could do little good to any society, no more than it could do good to any individual. Here my reasons are more spiritual than sociological: Jesus believed in Hell and damnation (we’ve discussed that point in GD and I know there are dissenting POVs, but I see no other construction to put on certain red-letter verses). Even worse, Jesus commanded his followers to love God – not some philosopher’s abstraction, either, but a specific cultural entity, the Lord God of Israel. And the Lord God of Israel is fucking EVIL! The most cruel and evil abomination of a god humanity has ever envisioned! Even the fierce and hungry gods of the Aztecs are all sweetness-and-light by comparison! If there is such a thing as sin, in the spiritual sense, then surely to love or honor or worship such a god would be the vilest sin of all. One could never do it without hopelessly polluting and corrupting one’s soul (I’m talkin’ to you, FriarTed! :mad: ). Shame and disgrace on all who do so, and blessed be he who uses such a god’s holy places as Jehu used the temple of Baal!*
Historically, the introduction of Christianity did little to improve the social health or moral standards of the Romans. They learned new and different standards of sexual morality – by no means better standards, just different – and they gave up their ancestral religion – and that’s about it. Slavery continued to fluorish under Chritian Roman rule right up the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453. Even gladiatorial games survived for decades after Constantine. How, really, was that society improved by Christianity?
*(A mere rhetorical fluorish, I’m not actually advocating vandalism on churches and mosques.)
There certainly have been anti-female and sex-phobic strains within Christianity, though I would trace these not to Paul but to some of the early “Church Fathers.” The impression of Paul I get is of someone who personally didn’t have much use for sex but didn’t think of it as evil per se (as some later Christian writers did).
Strong words! Can you elaborate on this: can you point to something in Jesus’s conception of God that characterizes God as evil?
In what way? The God of Israel is a bit of a hardass who won’t let you eat bacon cheeseburgers or wear wool-linen blends, and he gets pissed if people fuck with the Jews, but he’s not that bad, as far as Gods go. No human sacrifices, commandments to be charitable and take care of the unfortunate, and he’s fine with non Jews so long as they don’t go around stealing, murdering, or eating living animals.
That’s a lot better than the Aztec gods, who divided mankind into two segments, “Aztec” and “people to lay on the altar and rip their beating hears out”.