From time to time I suggest that this country will, sooner or later become a Muslim nation, having given up Christianity and so left a space waiting to be filled, which secularism simply cannot do. This suggestion is generally met with incredulity at best, and derision at worst. I don’t say this is an immediate prospect, but I do think it is a long-term one.
Well, those who think the idea absurd might do well to study the latest analysis of the 2011 census.
It suggests that a minority of British people will describe themselves as Christians within the next decade. (There are now just over 33 million British Christians, and only a third of these attend church apart from weddings, baptisms and funerals) ‘Describing themselves as’ is of course a good deal less significant than attending church, bringing their children up as Christians or anything of that sort. Meanwhile the general decline in Christianity has been masked by the recent arrival of 1.2 million Christians from Poland, Nigeria and other countries. My guess is that those who stay will be secularised by this country, rather than that they will re-Christianise it.
So what, then of the Muslim population? This has risen by 75 per cent , also boosted by migrants - 600,000 in this case. Won’t they be secularised? I’m not so sure. Muslims tend to stick to the pattern of the faith – the fasts and festivals, the traditions and dietary rules, in a way which Christians don’t. they also seem to me to have much stronger family connections. And, thanks to multiculturalism , they are often concentrated in certain areas, which tends to strengthen adhesion and loyalty. They are also a lot younger than Christians. The average age of a British Muslim is 25. A quarter of Christians are over 65. Younger people, of course, have more children than older people.
Meanwhile 32 per cent of under 25s say they have no religion at all.
Keith Porteous Wood, the executive director of the National Secular Society, was quoted as saying the long–term reduction of Christianity, particularly among young people, was now ‘unstoppable’.
‘In another 20 years there are going to be more active Muslims than there are churchgoers’, he said. ‘The time has now come that institutional Christianity is no longer justified. ‘The number has dropped below critical mass for which there is no longer any justification for the established Church, for example.’
I think he is right about the numbers. I really don’t understand why he should worry about the ‘established church’, an enfeebled and vestigial thing which has almost no real influence on national life and thought (and when it does, isn’t particularly Christian).
It has always amused me in a bitter sort of way that militant secularists seem pleased by the decline of Christianity. I doubt very much that they will like it if I turn out to be right, and the removal of Christianity as the national religion simply creates a space into which Islam can move. Can they really be sure that this will not happen here? We are, as I often say, due for a religious revival as material growth fails and fizzles. Why shouldn’t it benefit Islam, simple, confident, youthful and unembarrassed?
The thing that destroyed Christianity is..... Wait for it....
THE SEPERATION OF STATE AND RELIGION
Yup, that very concept which protestants fought for and which they pride themselves in and which they try to implement in Islamic world too, that very thing destroyed them!!!
The state is forcing them to accept gay priests, and every other things that orthodox Christianity clashes with of their utopic secular liberalism!
What did they expect when they put evil secularists in power???
The Christians are declining in power in the UK - the problem is what type of people will replace them - Pro LGBT, Militant secularist, New Atheists - and what about the Muslims what type will there be in the future - will it be Muslims who put God first or identity politics or just nod along with the secular liberal order. God knows. However seeing Muslims being pushed in the left is an interesting thing to take note and the possible future of the UK.
I wouldn't even be surprised if some Christians revert back to Paganism.
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
What if we just continue and whatever religion is respected?
Not a chance because the 'elite' (people with power and influence who control Western politics) are very very bad, they don't like religion. Only Islam will survive due to iman and tenacity of Muslims
This summary of J.D. Unwin's work from the 1930s is the practical application of the theoretical argument that connects Western post-Christianity to the observable decline of the West:
Effect of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.
Single most influential factor: Surprisingly, the data revealed that the single most important correlation with the flourishing of a culture was whether pre-nuptial chastity was required or not. It had a very significant effect either way.
Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with “absolute monogamy”. Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.
Effect of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations.
Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as “inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with greater social energy.
Time lag: If there is a change in sexual constraints, either increased or decreased restraints, the full effect of that change is not realized until the third generation.
Thanks to the rationalist generations that preceded them, the first generation of a society setting aside its sexual restraints can still enjoy its new-found sexual freedom before any significant decline in culture, but the data shows that this “having your cake and eating it too” phase lasts a maximum of one generation before the decline sets in. Unwin wrote:
The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions; and it is difficult to decide which aspect of the story is the more significant: the lamentable lack of original thought which in each case the reformers displayed, or the amazing alacrity with which, after a period of intense compulsory continence (sexual restraint), the human organism seizes the earliest opportunity to satisfy its innate desires in a direct or perverted manner. Sometimes a man has been heard to declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to abolish compulsory continence.
The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it. Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.
Looking at our own sexual revolution, the “having your cake and eating it too” phase would have lasted into the early 2000’s. We are now at a stage where we should begin to observe the verification or falsification of Unwin’s predictions.
As any honest observer would readily conclude, Unwin's predictions are being verified with a vengeance. The solution is simple: walk the narrow path. Get married. Be faithful. Have children. And then plant the acorns that will grow into the mighty oaks underneath which your great-grandchildren will play.
I recall reading about this UK Doctor David Mackereth who refused to go along with this gender identity concept. After reading this article, "Human Diginity Redefined" I myself am further convinced of how far society is deteriorating. And it is in so many countries around the world.
I don't know if this makes sense, but it just seems society now is reaching a point that the natural order of things is being eradicated, and in its place we have chaos.
The problem about this is it fuels a narrative - a narrative that given our current level of technological progress, has very negative outcomes.
The narrative is simple. Speaking as a feminist, it's feminism 101. Control your females, have children, rise as a civilization. Loose control of your females, fall. It's patriarchy 101.
It's exactly this kind of narrative that gets used repeatedly to demonize and oppress muslims and Islam. Look, they are coming to get you, ect. It's this kind of narrative that keep people like Donald Trump in power - see, only we the strong, the mighty can protect you, ect.
I'm a wiccan feminist who strongly admires aetheism as a "neutrality code" for co-operating with your neighbours. I lament the loss of the reverence of the divine female, which has been a feature of human civilization ever since food surplusses and improved weaponry allowed for serious organized warfare - ie the late bronze or early iron age. I've been critical of Islam in the past, but I'm re-examining that evaluation. You are a major world religion, and honestly, I think you're being demonized by a large number of other power groups, who are exploiting this in a negative manner. It's not just the west. China does this all the time, ditto Russia. It's a standard feature. My beliefs about the negative nature of patriarchy remain but I've returned here to try and have a civil conversation.
The crisis is quite simple, and it's emerged before in human civilization, but never on this scale - essentially, resource overuse, more specifically Global Warming. For sure, it will hit the global equator/south first, though the west certainly won't emerge unscathed (I wouldn't buy property in Florida). Right now we're doing ok, but if we continue on our current trajectory of carbon overuse and over emission, we'll be in real trouble. Mass drought, large parts of the earth becoming uninhabitable, people forced to migrate north (or anywhere they can) to continue to survive. Some really bad "Mad Max" level apocalyptic stuff. And no, it's not the implacable will of a sky daddy - it's just our own bad choices as a species, and the forces of a logical cosmos.
It's not this crisis that dooms human civilization. We've probably got the capacity to technologically evolve and engineer past it. The crisis that dooms human civilization is the ensuing warfare and disruption caused by failing to work together and manage this properly. That, given nuclear weapons, could be the end of us. And no, I don't have a particular belief that one faction is overly fated to survive that and be able to careen and cavort around in flag of choice festooned dune buggies. Extinction level events have happened before in Earth's history and they tend to be final.
And so we get to rational aetheism.
Humans will never agree on one code to unite us, or one universal set of morality or ultimate answers to live by. In some ways our so called "higher morality" has been used as an excuse to adopt standard survival strategies, including warfare against competitors. In SOME ways, it is not, and reveals genuine deeper truths that lift us up, teach us how to behave and deepen our spiritual understanding of the universe. Law is an attempt to create a reasonable common set of rules to live by that most people agree are morally correct and necessary for the functioning of a peaceful civilization (ie don't kill, don't steal, ect). I could write a lot more about this but I'll skip to the important/new ideas.
Aetheism and our current secular and international law represent a mechanism by which our entire species can co-operate, work together, and avoid conflict. This is becoming increasingly important as we technologically evolve. The consequences of warfare are becoming a LOT higher, the "prize" for victors a lot lower, and the chance of some kind of system wide absolute failure caused by our failure to find peace and co-operate are becoming a lot higher.
We are never going to all "convert" to one religion or ethical code - and trying to make people do so may trigger that "end war", or simply backfire on the instigators in the form of reprisals by all other groups. So, essentially, we need a set of rules by which we can co-operate internationally and societally and work together while believing disparate and different things.
We are left with the Geneva Convention. International Law. The UN. Carbon reduction accords. Trade agreements. In my opinion these are the only and best tools for achieving peace before it's too late. To be honest, it's inevitable that western military intervention will decline in future decades, though I suspect the west's will to defend it's own culture and territory will remain strong. Others will step in - ie China.
I think our best chance is to forge some kind of universal consensus now on global cooperation. It doesn't need to mean global government, - in fact "live and let live" should probably be the greatest byword. Let your neighbours do their thing, and do yours. The greatest challenge is really carbon reduction, and avoiding the usual wars over culture and belief.
So , i'm back here to try and find a way to cooperate, even though I don't agree with you.
Us pro LGBT, militant secularist, new atheists have a respect for humanism and humanity and actually might consider cooperating with Islam to some degree to solve pressing global problems and issues. It's the radical Christianity of the US South (which is by no means dead), that wants to keep the war going.
It's the radical Christianity of the US South (which is by no means dead), that wants to keep the war going.
George bush may have said God bless America as he went off to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq, but that does not make it a Christian war. Christianity's greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour, we are even asked to love and pray for our enemies. There is nothing Christian about instigating a war.
format_quote Originally Posted by Delphi
who strongly admires aetheism as a "neutrality code" for co-operating with your neighbours.
I have not witnessed this in the town I have lived in for the last thirty years. But I do see Christians working together for the common good, we have opened up four houses for the homeless, a basics food bank, debt help, recovery courses for addiction, good neighbours and more. I am also hopeful that we can do the same kind of work cooperating with people from many faiths in our town through our interfaith organisation working together for the common good.
We are all created by the same God and the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We look for the good in all [people; and I truthfully believe that you will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
In the spirit of praying for justice for all people,
Eric
Last edited by Eric H; 12-18-2019 at 09:06 PM.
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
I'm a wiccan feminist who strongly admires aetheism as a "neutrality code" for co-operating with your neighbours. I lament the loss of the reverence of the divine female, which has been a feature of human civilization ever since food surplusses and improved weaponry allowed for serious organized warfare - ie the late bronze or early iron age. I've been critical of Islam in the past, but I'm re-examining that evaluation. You are a major world religion, and honestly, I think you're being demonized by a large number of other power groups, who are exploiting this in a negative manner. It's not just the west. China does this all the time, ditto Russia. It's a standard feature. My beliefs about the negative nature of patriarchy remain but I've returned here to try and have a civil conversation.
Although Islam and feminism are not completely without common ground, the values and principles of Islam and feminism are generally contrary. Both condemn the oppression of women. Both insist that women may own their own property and dispose of it as they wish. In theology, both reject the symbol of 'Father' for God. However, the feminist view that patriarchy is equivalent to the oppression of women is not compatible with Islam. The feminist idea that traditional gender roles are to be eliminated is opposed by the Islamic idea that the primary role of woman (after that of servant of God) is that of wife and mother. Theologically, while feminists view the divine as 'Mother and Father' or as goddess, Islam considers the parent metaphor inappropriate for divinity and categorically denies the existence of gods and goddesses.
I have seen a trend where many women especially those who are feminists accepting Islam. You are on your journey and I know there are many unanswered questions you may have. May be it is best to see what makes these feminists to accept Islam. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ing-Islam.html
Although Islam and feminism are not completely without common ground, the values and principles of Islam and feminism are generally contrary. Both condemn the oppression of women. Both insist that women may own their own property and dispose of it as they wish. In theology, both reject the symbol of 'Father' for God. However, the feminist view that patriarchy is equivalent to the oppression of women is not compatible with Islam. The feminist idea that traditional gender roles are to be eliminated is opposed by the Islamic idea that the primary role of woman (after that of servant of God) is that of wife and mother. Theologically, while feminists view the divine as 'Mother and Father' or as goddess, Islam considers the parent metaphor inappropriate for divinity and categorically denies the existence of gods and goddesses.
Honestly, I don't think I'm going to convert anytime soon. I basically just don't believe you are right, but that's ok - I suspect we need to work together to make things better on a planetary scale. That is why I am here - to try and find a way to do that. There is also the small issue of me being a postoperative transsexual woman, and that being accepted by some, but not others. However, I will not forget the history of Hijra (Indian transsexuals) having an honored place as harem guards in Shia caliphate court culture. It's worth noting.
The interesting and ironic thing about being "pagan with an atheist view of what is actually reality" is that it actually leads to some very gendered behavior. I'm trying to honor that role of mother/protector/wise woman by protecting the entire earth and species from catastrophe caused by ecological collapse. I've got this iron spined crone flowing through me saying "please warn them before it's too late", and "demonizing people and starting wars is wrong".
I don't agree with you. I never will. But, because of our shared common humanity and my own beliefs it's become imperative that we find a way to co-operate on a larger scale, "agree to disagree" and save the global south from flooding/drought/famine on a mass scale. I'm convinced it caused the Syrian Civil war - root cause, farming failure. It's basically just wrong that we do nothing - and has a high chance of causing serious global level problems/conflict if we don't find some new way to talk to one another.
George bush may have said God bless America as he went off to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq, but that does not make it a Christian war. Christianity's greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour, we are even asked to love and pray for our enemies. There is nothing Christian about instigating a war.
I have not witnessed this in the town I have lived in for the last thirty years. But I do see Christians working together for the common good, we have opened up four houses for the homeless, a basics food bank, debt help, recovery courses for addiction, good neighbours and more. I am also hopeful that we can do the same kind of work cooperating with people from many faiths in our town through our interfaith organisation working together for the common good.
We are all created by the same God and the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We look for the good in all [people; and I truthfully believe that you will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
In the spirit of praying for justice for all people,
Eric
Western civilization has formulated the concept of "Right war in self defence". The last war everyone's comfortable universally applying this label to was World War II.
Iraq was a sequence of lies, badly formulated by neo-cons, and outright wrong. Afghanistan - well, there I have a lot more questions. Debatably it can be justified as a war of self defence.
I know - end war, right. It seems intractible, but i suspect or fear we will need to to survive and we are running out of time. (25-50 years to solve Carbon crisis - best to start now). Christianity's my cultural home base, but I've been highly critical of both Islam and Christianity before. I'm beginning to think that was wrong, not because criticism wasn't deserved. Yes, it was, and will be in the future. It's just going on screaming at your fellow humans might actually accomplish absolutely nothing when it comes to changing the world - ditto with offending them, doing your best to dork them off, or generally trash talking. Yes, yes, get your punk on, trash talk your hereditary rivals. It's hilarious, but not productive.
I feel moved by something religious or spiritual to speak. I'll tell you a story from reformed atheist land. Somewhere, in learning how to mess around with witchcraft, I learnt to sense energy. It's a dim sense - I'm not by any means strongly psychic, but it's there. A very strong impression I get is in old churches of "accepting or tolerant" denominations that have preached love and peace for years. The energy is aligned in such a way to promote healing, love, inner self affirmation and health and connection to your fellow humans. Yes, yes, the walls hold power, and it's sacred space. Ect.
Your average "modern megachurch with we're better than them fundieness" doesn't seem to do that for me. The school's shared prayer space is also interesting - definitely a lot of power there (and thank you, Islamic prayer) for that, but it's attuned in ways that can be complex and spiky if you don't tell it what to do, and that you are in charge. -
What does that make me - Wiccan? Christian? Muslim? . Probably A with a recognizance of the sacredness of all human spiritual experience and life.
It's the primary reason why I returned and am fed up with trash talking. It doesn't serve any good purpose, ultimately.
Us pro LGBT, militant secularist, new atheists have a respect for humanism and humanity and actually might consider cooperating with Islam to some degree to solve pressing global problems and issues. It's the radical Christianity of the US South (which is by no means dead), that wants to keep the war going.
Nice try but we have even less in common with you than Christians.
Nice try but we have even less in common with you than Christians.
So what happens, then? People like Boris Johnson are able to fearmonger and say whatever they want, while the rich get on with cheating the poor. Ethnic and tribal divisions get used to keep the underclass in check. A lot of interesting stuff happens, but eventually Europe decides it's sick of being everyone's favorite port of refuge and does something about firming up it's borders.
This is what really worries me about global warming. It will hit the global south first. Essentially, we're in a position where we have to cooperate as a planet to fix this problem, even though we may not like or agree with each other.
Nice try but we have even less in common with you than Christians.
I think our value sets are radically different, but that we can agree to cooperate and trade for mutual benefit and to face common issues we face as a species.
A few miles from my home, there are 19th century farms, inhabited by Christian mennonites, who refuse to modernize, or embrace the 21st century. They follow an austere religious ethic that is fundamentally patriarchial and authoritarian. However, they don't interfere in the outside world too much, and us city types are content to buy organic food from them. They're not going to try and say, burn me at the stake for witchcraft tomorrow. It's an example of how radically different groups can cooperate, with a basic understanding of nonviolence and trade for mutual benefit.
Us pro LGBT, militant secularist, new atheists have a respect for humanism and humanity and actually might consider cooperating with Islam to some degree to solve pressing global problems and issues. It's the radical Christianity of the US South (which is by no means dead), that wants to keep the war going.
Athiesm is far worse than radical religionists in starting wars and intolerance:
with the spread of Darwinism and the materialist philosophy it supports, the answer to the question "What is a human being?" has changed. People who used to answer: "Allah creates human beings and they have to live according to the beautiful morality He teaches", have now begun to think that "Man came into being by chance, and is an animal who developed by means of the fight for survival." There is a heavy price to pay for this great deception. Violent ideologies such as racism, fascism and communism, and many other barbaric world views based on conflict have all drawn strength from this deception.
... the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that almost all historians who are expert in the matter accept. The historian Hickman describes Darwinism's influence on Hitler as follows:
(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because]… his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society. 5
Christianity is only in decline in Europe. And the result is ultra-nationalistic, neo-Darwinist atheism.
I don't hate Christianity as a religion or ideology, but Christians are some of the most hateful people in the world, and while they commit all kinds of violence they play the victim cards constantly.
If Christianity dies, GOOD RIDDANCE. But I don't think the world will necessarily be a better place.
So what happens, then? People like Boris Johnson are able to fearmonger and say whatever they want, while the rich get on with cheating the poor. Ethnic and tribal divisions get used to keep the underclass in check. A lot of interesting stuff happens, but eventually Europe decides it's sick of being everyone's favorite port of refuge and does something about firming up it's borders.
This is what really worries me about global warming. It will hit the global south first. Essentially, we're in a position where we have to cooperate as a planet to fix this problem, even though we may not like or agree with each other.
Europeans are the most xenophobic people by nature, regardless of religion, the likes of Boris Johnson, Steve Bannon will always be there. Europeans are naturally obsessed with the "other" those are different than them, and often want to either kill or exile said groups (Example: Genocide of Native Americans, Aboriginals, Africans, exile of Gypsies). The drive to kill those different than them, and play "Knights vs Orcs" constantly is a 4,000 year old European trait.
But Islam is hated the most by Europeans is because unlike the Africans/ Aboriginals who just rolled over and died, Islamic civilization fought Europe for 1,300 years on equal footing.
And as such, the enmity will NEVER stop. Islamic civilization and European/Occidental civilization will always be at a clash.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
.png "Emoji (46)")
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks