How The 'Nones' Can Find A Sense Of Community Outside Of Religion

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/religiously-unaffiliated-nones-community_55afe508e4b0a9b948535f3a

Antonia Blumberg
Associate Religion Editor, The Huffington Post

Posted: 07/22/2015 | Edited: 07/22/2015 08:31 PM EDT


LEON NEAL via Getty Images

The "nones," or the religiously unaffiliated, are a rapidly growing "faith" group in the United States. They make up roughly 23 percent of the U.S. adult population and 35 percent of millennials and can be seen cropping up across demographic categories.

As the global population continues growing exponentially, the percentage of "nones" is expected to decline, though their actual numbers will increase. This won't be the case in Europe and North America, however, where the percentage of "nones" will likely continue to rise.

The “nones” now constitute the second largest faith-related demographic in the U.S. and are bound to have a powerful impact on American culture and politics as the years go on, as religion scholar Diane Winston wrote recently in Vice. Religious leaders, writers and scholars are tasked with understanding this rising trend, as "nones" seek out new forms of community.

In a pointed February column, New York Times writer David Brooks discussed the rise of secularism and questioned the "unprecedented moral burdens" people put on themselves by forsaking religion. He argued that most religions have developed moral philosophies over the course of centuries. Secular people have to start from scratch, he said. Essentially, he was asking: If it isn't broken, why fix it?

more at link

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Omfg David Brooks is very concerned.

What will all these nones do without the smothering insufferable blather of Sunday Sermon church life?

[trotsky]

3. "Secular people have to start from scratch!"

We've got nothing to go on! I mean, maybe if you had had a bunch of secular-minded individuals who crafted a document establishing a new government oh, I dunno, a couple of centuries ago, without any reference to religion, just to show that people might be able to govern themselves without resorting to gods... but that's just crazy thinking on my part.

Whatever shall the non-religious do without religions to tell us right from wrong???

[NeoGreen]

6. A related point that I think needs to be repeated...

...early and often, is that the crafting of the US Constitution was a fundamentally anti-religious act.

It ripped the authority to govern from the divine and set it squarely on a secular pedestal, ripped it from the god selected king and provided to the people.

Humanity is quite capable of governing itself without ANY appeal to the divine.

[djean111]

2. What an insufferable egotistical reeking pile of manure.

In a pointed February column, New York Times writer David Brooks discussed the rise of secularism and questioned the "unprecedented moral burdens" people put on themselves by forsaking religion. He argued that most religions have developed moral philosophies over the course of centuries. Secular people have to start from scratch, he said. Essentially, he was asking: If it isn't broken, why fix it?

Just because Brooks needed someone else to tell him the difference between right and wrong - does not mean everybody else lacks an internal moral compass.

I have plenty of community. Do not miss or need a church. What utter claptrap. And the total inability to see out of one's own box.

Atheists must just frighten some religious people, is all I can surmise.

[trotsky]

4. Most excellent response.

[cbayer]

5. While you represent one population, there are many "nones" who feel

differently than you.

David Brooks position is rather extreme and I also find if objectionable, but the rest of the article talks about groups and individuals who are seeking community that may not be available to them outside of the traditional religious communities.

I am glad that you have other opportunities, but why dismiss all those who do not and are working towards building meaningful and non-traditional communities?

This isn't about atheists, btw. It's about "nones", the majority of who do not identify as non-believers. I don't think it has anything to do with fear, though your response might lead one to wonder about who is frightened.

[djean111]

7. I admit I am afraid of organized religion. I am not afraid of my stance on the existence of a god.

[cbayer]

8. Your stance on the existence of god should not be frightening,

or you wouldn't have it.

Also, I understand your fear of organized religion and recognize that many share it.

I think the similarity that some of these groups have to organized religion triggers that fear in some, but in others it provides something that they genuinely miss from groups they may have been formerly affiliated with.

I am glad there are options for those that want them.

[eomer]

22. My stance on the existence of God is frightening but I have it nonetheless.

My stance is that there's no God and no afterlife. It's the most frightening thing I can think of and yet there it is.

[cbayer]

33. Why is that frightening for you?

[eomer]

43. I don't know.

Edit: but I should clarify that there not being any afterlife is what is frightening to me. I'm completely comfortable with there not being any God.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. there is no lack of community outside of religious institutions

the claim that this is some sort of problem is total bullshit.

[Grammy23]

10. Living in the south for my entire life (66 years) I know all too well

How essential the church is for the social life of people living here. Many churches today offer multiple opportunities to connect with other like minded people, often in a "Family Life" Center where family members and singles of all ages can come for activities. There are church services, family dinners, study groups, prayer circles, food pantries, youth groups...the list could go on and on. The notion of the church building only being used on Sundays and again on Wednesday night is outdated thinking.

When you are new to a community (in the south) often the first thing you will be asked is if you have a church home. Clearly, it is major source of socialization for those who are involved in a church. And it is expected that you will establish a membership ASAP.

However, it would be a mistake to think there are no other outlets for social interaction. Clubs, special interest groups, hobbies, classes, etc give a person just as many chances without having to subject themselves to the indoctrination and mind control they would be subjected to by attending a religious service.

One thing I have observed over the years......my husband and I would go buy groceries on Sunday mornings, often because the store was less crowded. This was because a huge percentage of people were attending Sunday services (Sunday School and the main preaching/singing/rituals) and would not be coming into the store until noon or later. Now, the store is apt to have many customers at 9 a.m. on a Sunday and it is obvious they are not going to attend church and are dressed for a day at the beach! If asked, many of these people would admit membership at a local church but their attendance is no longer a guarantee every single Sunday. Why is that? I suspect some of them are starting to question what they are being taught but the pressure to be a member of a church is so powerful that they can't cut their ties without lots of guilt and questions from others they would rather not answer.

[cbayer]

11. You present a great middle ground,

and i am glad you have other outlets available.

There are some who post here who describe communities where there truly are no other opportunities and where they are shunned for their lack of religious affiliation.

Statistics back up your observations. More and more people identify as having no religious affiliation. That does not necessarily mean that they are non-believers, though those numbers are increasing as well.

I am glad to see some of these groups forming that meet the needs of some of those people. I hope that they also take on the job of pursuing social and political goals that will push back against the religious right.

[Humanist_Activist]

12. At the risk of repeating myself, I'm going to repeat myself:

Since the author of this "deep thinking" piece is referencing an article I already demolished from Mr. Brooks, I'm just going to repost that post verbatim.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=180129

Here's the original article referenced:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/opinion/david-brooks-building-better-secularists.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers — arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action.

No it doesn't, indeed, by itself, secularism is nothing but a particular subject being without religion, and even that is somewhat fuzzy. To be secular is to not involve religion, it doesn't have to arouse anything. Not to mention that you don't have to be non-religious to be secular, indeed, I would say there is a strong argument to state that most people in the more developed nations follow morality and ethics that is far more grounded in secular philosophies of the enlightenment than any of there religious traditions, regardless of what those are.

Democracy, Egalitarianism, Feminism, Free Thought, Free Speech, Freedom of and from Religion, Human Rights, Civil Rights, LGBT rights etc. are all grounded in philosophies that date largely back to the late to middle renaissance(with rediscoveries from much older philosophers) and then the later enlightenment period and then further developed into the progressive era, all the way to the modern era. Our modern society was mostly shaped by these ideas, and these ideas are NOT grounded in any particular religion, being neither birthed by them nor their holy books. Much of the modern societies of what we call the "Western World" are secular in nature, which causes a collapse in his future arguments about the "struggle" of secularists.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"] Secular individuals have to build their own moral philosophies. Religious people inherit creeds that have evolved over centuries. Autonomous secular people are called upon to settle on their own individual sacred convictions.

Uhm, my argument from above? Non-religious people don't live in a vacuum, and neither do religious people. If you were the examine the life of a typical non-religious individual in the United States, and the typical Christian in the same country, as far as day to day behavior, I doubt you could find a difference. They may do something different on the weekend, but other than that, they will mostly act as largely rational actors behaving properly in society. Following the rules laid out, following their own moral codes, and not thinking about it much. I doubt a Christian is thinking about his reward in heaven when he holds the door open for a stranger to be let through at the restaurant any more than the non-religious person doing the same just because.

The only difference is after the fact, when people try to justify there behaviors . That's where religion is usually inserted, WWJD and all that.

Also, side note: I don't think of anything as sacred.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Secular individuals have to build their own communities. Religions come equipped with covenantal rituals that bind people together, sacred practices that are beyond individual choice. Secular people have to choose their own communities and come up with their own practices to make them meaningful.

On this one, why? Why would non-religious people have to form communities at all? Isn't that something that is different for every individual, and in addition, not limited to the non-religious? Ask Wiccans how hard it is not NOT be a solitary practitioner, or those of practically any minority religion in the United States. This brings up another point, there already are, at least in larger cities and metro areas, quite a few options in secular and non-secular organizations and groups to join that can fill both the ritual and community side, if you feel you need either. I'll use a couple of examples in my metro area alone:

Greater St. Louis Coalition of Reason

http://unitedcor.org/greater_st_louis/page/home

The Ethical Society of St. Louis

http://ethicalstl.org/

If you live more in the western Ex-Urbs there's also:

Ethical Society of Midrivers

http://www.ethicalsocietymr.org/

There's also the classic UUA congregations:

http://www.firstuustlouis.org/

http://www.eliotchapel.org/

http://www.emersonuuchapel.org/

Some of these are quite old, the Ethical Society of St. Louis dates back to 1886, while the First Unitarian Church of St. Louis was the first Unitarian church west of the Mississippi, founded in 1835.

And this isn't including other secular activities people participate in from sports to politics and activism. You don't need a "church" to have a community, after all. So unless said non-religious/religious minority person lived on an island isolated from the rest of society, his claim is untrue.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Secular individuals have to build their own Sabbaths. Religious people are commanded to drop worldly concerns. Secular people have to create their own set times for when to pull back and reflect on spiritual matters.

This makes no sense, sorry, this is not only not true, but shows gross ignorance of non-religious people. Religious people may be commanded to do what he's talking about, non-religious people are under no such obligations.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"] Secular people have to fashion their own moral motivation. It’s not enough to want to be a decent person. You have to be powerfully motivated to behave well. Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him. Secularists have to come up with their own powerful drive that will compel sacrifice and service.

Uhm, again, untrue, and I bolded part of it, and want to ask the author, why not? I can only speak for myself, but I already have a drive, he mentioned then dismissed it, but I would also add in empathy and love for my friends, family and humanity at large, if he doesn't consider those good motivations, then I guess he doesn't understand humanity, does he?

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]The point is not that secular people should become religious. You either believe in God or you don’t. Neither is the point that religious people are better than secular people. That defies social science evidence and common observation. The point is that an age of mass secularization is an age in which millions of people have put unprecedented moral burdens upon themselves. People who don’t know how to take up these burdens don’t turn bad, but they drift. They suffer from a loss of meaning and an unconscious boredom with their own lives.

Actually I would argue that he was arguing exactly the opposite of what he is claiming. Also, and I'll put this bluntly, but people can handle the burden, and do, every day, even religious people. You want to know why? Because its not hard to be a decent person. I swear, every time I talk to a really religious Christian, I honestly think that they think everyone is a sociopath with how they talk about human behavior. Its disturbing, I don't require conscious thought to NOT go on a murder spree, or to not snatch a purse while walking down the street, and I doubt most people have to think about it either. Also, if we have an unconscious boredom, then we aren't aware of it, so no great loss.

This opinion piece has to be one of the most convoluted and dishonest attempt at a deconstruction of non-religious people's morality/ethics/spirituality?/religion? whatever the fuck he's talking about, I have ever read. At this point, I don't even know who he's talking about, certainly no one who currently exists.

[trotsky]

14. Just wanted to say, well done.

And also note that his desperate plea for the non-religious to come up with some way to "powerfully motivate" people to be moral is easily dispatched by noting that even with this "powerful motivation," religious people still commit atrocious deeds. His case is laughably pathetic.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. I don't even understand what he means, I don't need "powerful motivation" to not to bad things...

I mean, seriously, what type of mindset does he have?

Whenever I'm around other people, I don't need motivation to prevent me from hurting them, in fact, it simply doesn't occur to me at all.

[trotsky]

17. I'm far more frightened by someone who insists they need that "powerful motivation" to behave.

Yikes.

[Humanist_Activist]

18. Honestly, I feel its projection of his own religious beliefs, I've debated with plenty of...

Christians who buy, wholeheartedly, into the whole "everyone deserves hell because of sin" belief. The issue is that they think all sin is equally pleasurable when committed, because they are suppressing their own empathy due to the above belief. These are the idiots who ask with a straight face why torturing a baby is bad. They argue as if everyone is a sociopath because they honestly think they are sociopaths, and the power of belief can be powerful in this case.

Most aren't true sociopaths, obviously, but they argue as if they were.

This is part of the reason why I'm completely anti-Christian beliefs, they provide really good cover for bad behavior, and extremely bad rationalizations and justifications for criminal and violent behavior.

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. The thing is, if you were to call David Brooks on any of this shit...

...he would just deny having written any of it.

What a schmuck.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Apparently the only thing holding him back from Hannibal Lecter level depravity

is god.



David Brooks without religion holding him back.

[cbayer]

32. I don't disagree at all with you take down of Mr. Brooks and appreciate your re-posting it.

I would only point out that I consider it a small part of this article overall and think she would have had a better article had she left this out.

[Humanist_Activist]

37. The rest of the article is just a listing of ways nones can find community....

I guess it will be useful for some.

I'm just annoyed that the author referenced someone who is profoundly ignorant of the nonreligious.

[cbayer]

39. Again, I find it unfortunate that she included the Brooks bit.

The finding of non-traditional community for "nones" is an interesting topic and I think she makes some good points. Clearly it's not for everyone but I'm glad there are alternatives for those that want them.

[Rob H.]

44. "I'm just annoyed that the author...

...referenced someone who is profoundly ignorant of the nonreligious."

FTFY

[edhopper]

13. How about as a none you don't have to spend time thinking about

non-existent supernatural beings and what they want. Rather you can decide what interests you and join community and groups that share those interests.

I would take my weekends biking with a bike club over sitting in a pew mumbling nonsense to an absent deity any time.

I pity all those people spending so much of their time on what isn't real.

[trotsky]

15. !!!!!

You aren't allowed to say it isn't real unless you can PROVE it isn't! Otherwise you are a vicious nasty fundie atheist theophobe vermin!!

Oh, and for the jury that will probably get called for this post thanks to a certain member with nothing else to do: THIS IS TONGUE-IN-CHEEK!

[edhopper]

19. I stand behind my badge

[Leontius]

24. You seem to have missed the point that many people who identify as "none" are believers

they just don't identify with any denomination.

[edhopper]

27. and don't need churches for community

or moral guidance.

[Leontius]

29. But still look to God for guidance.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. based on what evidence?

[edhopper]

35. I did not see that stated

And moral guidance based on what?
Where do they get the information on what God wants.

You seem to think nones are just Christians, Jews, etc, that don't go to church.

[trotsky]

36. "You seem to think nones are just Christians, Jews, etc, that don't go to church."

Sadly, he is far from the only person who desperately wants to believe this. That's OK by me though, it's just another sign that the churchy folk just don't get it, and will continue to become less relevant.

[Leontius]

40. Many are some are not it is a diverse group

filled with shades of belief and non-belief.

[edhopper]

41. who have all found existing churches

Hold no interest for them.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. I guess that depends on the definition of the weasel word "many"

don't care about religion:


Despite Brooks and the OP and you, this demographic doesn't need religion and isn't looking for one.

[pinto]

25. What do you enjoy about biking with a local bike club? Beyond the obvious - exercise.

Camaraderie, companionship, some fun, appreciation for the open road, a shared purpose, a couple of hours away from it all (followed by a well deserved breakfast or lunch)?

You may not be as different from the nones as you think.

[edhopper]

26. I was pointing to reasons nones

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:51 PM - Edit history (1)

don't need churches for community.

And don't involve themselves with organized religion.

So where do they get this godly guidance you speak of?

[pinto]

28. Yeah, got that. I was pointing to commonalities about community.

And wondered what you find in a community. Probably different for each of us all. And probably comes in any number of configurations.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. the bike club generally doesn't come with a heaping plate of religious nonsense.

There is no requirement that "community" has to be provided by religious institutions lecturing us about how to be a proper goat herder.

[Lordquinton]

38. Of course he's not different from the nones

He is a member of that group. Nones covers primarily atheists and agnostics, with beliver but not religious following that. Really this is another meme that people not in a church are still belivers, they just need convincing. This is patently false, and seeks to erase non believers from the conversation.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Here's the solution. 1. Talk to people. 2. You're done.

People get paid to write this horseshit?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

42. This guy doesn't know about UUs, obviously.

And yes, if you live in a conservative part of the country, there is basically no social life without the church.

UU churches and fellowships tend to be in the cities. And you don't have to swear that you believe in anything. UUs are a non-creedal religion, which I think is unique among religions. They have discussion groups instead of Sunday School. It's all right to ask questions and say you don't believe in god, or you are questioning the existence of god. See how far that gets you in a traditional church.

I think the people who say "We're secular, let's get together on Sunday morning and look at each other" are busy reinventing the wheel.