“Alarming” Is The Word Used For Falling “Born Again” Numbers

Even though I grew up in the midst of a “born again” religion, I never really understood it. Now, a religious polling company says the percentage of born again Christians is falling and those who remain have little interest in keeping it alive.

Several pastors who commented on the polling numbers said parents are just not committed enough to teach their children what the Bible says about sin, forgiveness and the rewards of the afterlife. I think the pastors are correct. Some 60% of parents don’t teach that to children because they no longer believe it themselves.

These ideas from the past, the one true religion, religious nationalism, American exceptionalism and mixing religion with government have held our country back. All this thinking that we are special when we are not plays with our minds in harmful ways.

One thing it tells us is that human beings are something above nature, we are not subject to the carrying capacity of our environment because a god told us we are the gleam in his eye. This odd thinking will do us continued harm.

The other is our duty to spread both our favorite religion and nationalistic values to parts of the world that never asked us to “help” them. President W Bush and his side kicks thought locals would run to our troops with flowers. The greeting was bullets.

It would be hopeful if born again clergy would see the falling born again numbers as an indication their views are a fantasy and best they more to something else.

17 Responses

  1. America is an exceptional nation based on an exceptional founding with a system of government unique in the world. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights set us apart from every other nation on earth. But it is for naught if our people are not up for the task. Despite our problems, we are up to the task. We continue to be a force for good in the world, whether it is our charity or our military. We have the best universities, the best medical minds, the best business environment, the best technology entrepreneurs and something we fight for, our freedom. Perhaps that is why so many people want to live in the USA.

  2. Joseph Talago

    You are a jerk. I don’t see how you live with yourself. Why don’t you shut up and keep you sad and ignorant views to yourself.

      1. re: Joseph– I don’t think he is discussing. I think he simply made a statement that more than a few people tend to agree with. And I also think you understand why people think that. You might not elicit such statements if you approached subjects without acid, nerve gas and nuclear weapons.

        1. Matt 9:49 You might not elicit such statements if you approached subjects without acid, nerve gas and nuclear weapons.

          I think I’m consistent here treating the parts of the faith with respect which consider the Bible to be entirely metaphor. Adequate respect is also afforded views from religion that don’t force themselves into the lives of others. Forty some years of receiving incoming comments like Joseph’s on my home phone, at the grocery store and now on line are a part of criticizing myths and those in religion that cannot seem to butt out. They are a pleasure to read.

          1. Jon: Again, you make my point for me. Joseph does not have 40 years of history with you. You bring on the criticism by yourself by being perjorative with your rhetoric. You know it. I know it. The casual observer knows it as evidenced by Joseph.

            When you say “criticizing myths” that people consider articles of faith, or that people of faith should “butt out” of discourse in the public square, you approach discussion with acid, nerve gas and nuclear weapons.

            You state, in essence, that religion has held our country back. Wow. Back in the 1970s you knew to keep your mouth shut about such things when running for mayor of Fargo.

            One would think you would be more at home in China, a country that essentially outlaws religion.

          2. Matt 12:06 When you say “criticizing myths” that people consider articles of faith…you approach with acid, nerve gas and nuclear weapons.

            It is simply a fact that people consider articles of faith things that are myths, or myths so far as we know. So, how does one say certain articles of faith are myths without offending? So far as we know, heaven and hell are myths, but are articles of faith. Maybe if I said it this way, “Kind sir, your article of faith that there is a heaven and a hell has no evidence of being true. Thus, so far as we know heaven and hell are bullshit.” I’m trying here.

          3. Gee, “bullshit” was such a mature and sensitive way to approach the faith of 1 billion Catholics and 1 billion Muslims.

            Not that there isn’t any history or evidence of either Faith.

            Regardless, it is the sincerely held belief of the majority of the world that a divine being exists and is responsible for creation and a life after death.

            People claim the gift of faith and you mock it as easily as if you could prove, scientifically, that you love your wife.

          4. Matt 5:25 I really take a back seat to you in the arena of offensive religious expression. I have said I am sure you have taken pictures of young women entering abortion clinics. I’m sure you have verbally hassled them in “side walk counselling”. Whether you have done this or supported others who do or have done this, it is the most over the top way and obnoxious expression of beliefs imaginable. In my blog, one can only be offended it they choose to read it. I’m amazed you continue to offend yourself.

          5. mark anthony

            with all due respect Jon, I think that what you are saying is essentially this: “religious” views are false, therefore religious people have no right to bring their false views into the public square. but atheistic views are true, therefor it is OK for atheists to determine who cannot or should not participate in the discussion and determination of public policy (or if “religious” folks choose to speak in the public forum, they must leave their religion at the door). worse, “religious” views are defined very broadly to include just about anything that atheists want to exclude. for me, such attitudes have the aura of totalitarianism about them.

          6. mark 10:43 As always, thanks for your post. The best place to start with this is to return to racial segregation. Segregation was based on the religious view that God had reason to put different races on different continents. He would not have done that if he believed in interracial marriage. Segregation was needed because if races had contact with one another they may marry.

            So, I would ask, was ending segregation an atheist idea?? Is preventing motels from turning away interracial couples, not married couples or gay couples atheist?? Some might call it atheist, I call it treating people equally.

  3. Bob

    “Some 60% of parents dont teach…” because the majority of todays “parents” are not capable of parenting, much less teaching…

  4. mark anthony

    Jon 2 Dec 1055. you pose a very challenging question. what views should be privatized, kept out of public discourse, perhaps even suppressed? how about Communist views? as Justice Jackson is said to have said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact (or words to that effect). So what to do about Communist propaganda. or Nazi propaganda? allow it (as I would hold) or drive it underground? (especially if it can be said to incite violence?). Bottom line: there are always views (e.g racial discrimination) that, for whatever reason, some thinks are so patently false/inimical as to be driven out of the public arena (or, ironically, in their turn be the subject of discrimination, legal or otherwise). now, then, are atheists and others, reaching a point at which Christianity has become “hate” speech (or whatever) and is thought to be the target of public proscription? some good questions here: think about it.

    1. mark 11:48 reaching a point where Christianity is hate speech

      That’s the big picture of what this is about, free speech or discrimination? The courts are sorting it out.

      1. mark anthony

        ah yes, the courts certainly are “sorting” it out. “discrimination”, at least in the sweeping sense in which you and others define it, can serve justice or become a weapon in the arsenal of oppression. and I, for one, don’t have as much confidence in the courts as you apparently do (at least when it comes to issues such as ones that the ideological left is now pushing upon us).

        1. mark 2:51 and I, for one, don’t have as much confidence in the courts as you apparently do

          I always recall what someone said in answer to the question, “The Supreme Court is the final answer on great judicial issues. Does this mean it is right?”

          The answer was Supreme Court decisions are the opinions of a majority of nine highly opinionated people.

Comments are closed.