The fall of religion in America

[Baldeee]

Of course it explains what I meant. I even said ''What I mean is...''

Just because you think it explained what you meant does not stop it being offensive... And your explanation altered nothing in that regard: it remained offensive.

Aw.. did you?
I don't believe you.

Because being insulted is all about what the offender believes about it, isn't it.

Read and weep boy!

You seem to be confused with what I found offensive, Jan.
It wasn't the sentiment, the position you eventually explained, but the manner in which you put it across.
Maybe you note the difference between the arguments you have subsequently quoted and your initial gross and insulting generalisations?
There again, you probably don't.

For someone who tries to extol the reality of your God, you don't come across as a particularly enlightened individual, Jan, especially with regard your personal interactions.

 

[Sarkus]

One complicating factor is that Americans often use the word 'God' differently than Europeans. In the US, 'God' is often used in a very vague sense to mean 'the Transcendent' or something like that. I remember a friend, a highly-secular engineer who never attended church and never in my memory picked up a Bible, once saying that anyone who doesn't believe in God is stupid. That surprised me, so I asked him what he meant by 'God'. He waved his arm and said 'There has to be more to reality than this!' I'm an atheist/agnostic, and I agree with that sentiment. I just wouldn't call it 'God'.

Interestingly, when i discuss beliefs with friends and the subject of God comes up, while they may initially talk about God as per their religion, once they get under the hood and you wash away all the stuff they're actually not too sure about, their view of God often comes down to this same view: it is a word to cover what they don't know about reality, and their hope/belief that there is something afterward, the spiritual essence they feel within the universe (something I seem unable to feel in the same way).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Just because you think it explained what you meant does not stop it being offensive... And your explanation altered nothing in that regard: it remained offensive.
Because being insulted is all about what the offender believes about it, isn't it.
You seem to be confused with what I found offensive, Jan.
It wasn't the sentiment, the position you eventually explained, but the manner in which you put it across.
Maybe you note the difference between the arguments you have subsequently quoted and your initial gross and insulting generalisations?
There again, you probably don't.

For someone who tries to extol the reality of your God, you don't come across as a particularly enlightened individual, Jan, especially with regard your personal interactions.

I did explain it. You just preferred not to acknowledge, or you just launched your attack before actually reading it properly.

What was paticularly offensive about my manner, that got you so emotional?

jan.

 

[Ophiolite]

What was paticularly offensive about my manner, that got you so emotional?

Jan, we have had more than one run in in the past. I am half persuaded that you are unaware of how you can come across. There is an undercurrent, a tone to your posts that seems snide, patronising and at times downright nasty. When you reject suggestions that this is so it can come across as dishonest, hypocritical and superior.

Perhaps all of that is in the imagination of the reader. Perhaps not. Perhaps you would like to consider the possibility. Perhaps not.

 

[Baldeee]

I did explain it. You just preferred not to acknowledge, or you just launched your attack before actually reading it properly.

As already said, your explanation did not alter the offensiveness of your opening generalisation.
If I comment that I don't like your personal body odour and then attach a picture of a pile of manure, that would most likely be considered offensive by you.
If I subsequently explained that what I meant was that your personal body odour, while of some scent or other, was just one that I didn't like even though most might find it acceptable, how does this subsequent explanation alter the offensiveness of the opening comment?

What was paticularly offensive about my manner, that got you so emotional?

Gross generalisation of religion in America subsequently depicted by reference to what you readily admitted to being an extreme form of evangelic preaching.
Most would have simply apologised for it when it was highlighted to them, irrespective of whether they themselves considered it offensive.
You, as is your way, won't do that.
Can't do that.
Rather you simply erect walls and try to avoid all responsibility for your words.

 

[Jan Ardena]

As already said, your explanation did not alter the offensiveness of your opening generalisation.

You still haven't explained what makes the video a generalization, or why it is offensive.
And why didn't you find the European depiction just as offensive?

Please bear in mind the point I made was that it is easy to tell the difference between the American style of Christian worship from the the European style (which has not been Americanized). I also showed a video of Joel Oosten, which is (to me) characteristic of the American style of Christian worship. How come you didn't find that offensive, yet it is obvious (to most) that is either American, and/or American-styled.

Gross generalisation of religion in America subsequently depicted by reference to what you readily admitted to being an extreme form of evangelic preaching.

So what if it's an extreme form. It doesn't mean it's offensive to use as an example.
Why do you think it is?
Exactly what do you want me to apologize for?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan, we have had more than one run in in the past. I am half persuaded that you are unaware of how you can come across. There is an undercurrent, a tone to your posts that seems snide, patronising and at times downright nasty. When you reject suggestions that this is so it can come across as dishonest, hypocritical and superior.

Perhaps all of that is in the imagination of the reader. Perhaps not. Perhaps you would like to consider the possibility. Perhaps not.

Only to those who seem seems snide, patronising and at times downright nasty to me.
I give like for like.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

You still haven't explained what makes the video a generalization, or why it is offensive.

I don't find the video to be a generalisation.
I find your comments to be where the generalisation lies.
You then linked that generalisation to the video.

And why didn't you find the European depiction just as offensive?

Again, the videos themselves are not offensive.
It is you linking them to your generalisation that makes them offensive.
A pile of manure is not in and of itself offensive to me, for example.
Referencing my cooking skills to it might be, depending upon tone of the conversation.
Do you see the difference?

Please bear in mind the point I made was that it is easy to tell the difference between the American style of Christian worship from the the European style (which has not been Americanized). I also showed a video of Joel Oosten, which is (to me) characteristic of the American style of Christian worship. How come you didn't find that offensive, yet it is obvious (to most) that is either American, and/or American-styled.

Explained above.

So what if it's an extreme form. It doesn't mean it's offensive to use as an example.
Why do you think it is?

Again, the video itself is not offensive - see the example I use above.

Exactly what do you want me to apologize for?

Being offensive.
Deliberately or otherwise.
But since you still have zero idea, and have drawn out the issue far longer than needed, any subsequent apology will be meaningless as you won't mean it.
So don't bother - and continue your ignorance in the matter.

 

[Ophiolite]

Only to those who seem seems snide, patronising and at times downright nasty to me.
I give like for like.

You give the impression you can never recall a time when you were mistaken.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I could say the same about others.
But am I in the wrong, in this thread?

Jan.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have already pointed out one specific way in which you were completely wrong in this thread, but you have denied this. I provided a careful, reasoned argument which you attempted to refute first by denying that your understanding of a word was wrong, then by by trying to twist the meaning of the word.

It is that practice of refusing to acknowledge when you are mistaken that leads me to describe your behaviour - at times - as being arrogant, self-righteous and thoroughly unpleasant. If you dislike having your behaviour described in such a way, perhaps you should consider cleaning up your act.

The bulk of this thread consists of you defending the indefensible. The alternative explanation for your behaviour would address your intellectual rather than your ethical values.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have already pointed out one specific way in which you were completely wrong in this thread, but you have denied this. I provided a careful, reasoned argument which you attempted to refute first by denying that your understanding of a word was wrong, then by by trying to twist the meaning of the word.

I didn't deny that my understanding of the word was wrong, and I didn't try to twist the meaning of the word..
If you look in post 26, in a response to Baldeee. I acknowledged that practitioner means an individual, but I explained what I meant in the form of asking two questions.
I elaborated on it in my explanation to you.

'

Let me put it another way. What makes A practitioner of a religion, better or worse, than other practitioners?
Doesn't it have something to do with the tenets of that religion?

If you want to accuse me of trying to twist the meaning of the word, that is your prerogative. But I know what is my mind.

jan.

 

[Bowser]

mericans today are also less likely to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired with 22% of respondents agreeing with the statement that the Bible "is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by men" compared to the 14% who agreed with this in 1984 (a 57% increase).

I kinda wonder if this won't go full circle, and people will rediscover their heritage after a time in the wilderness. Every game gets a boring after some time. It might be that a later generation will start looking back on what their forefathers once had and start yearning for what was lost.

 

[Jan Ardena]

As already said, your explanation did not alter the offensiveness of your opening generalisation.

You say i'm being offensive because I said there is one religion in America, the American religion.


This is what I actually said: I don't know whether these statistic are true, but for a long while America has been hailed as the most religious country in the world (or at least way up there). I think the religion in America, is an American religion (God bless America!). What I mean is that it is a style that has been manufactured in America, for Americans.

You came with an attack, accusing me of stating:'' There is also no single "religion in America", but I appreciate your efforts to generalise so offensively.''

I mentioned nothing about there being a single religion in America.
If it could have been perceived that way, I clarified what I meant by stating that I mean it is a style that has been manufactured in America. Which it is. There was nothing offensive in what I said, and I clarified any implication that may be construed as offensive.

You then linked that generalisation to the video.

I linked a video that personifies, the American style of religion. And by ''religion'' I alluded to Christianity in the same paragraph, as per the pew report, which claimed that Christianity is on the wane, creating, on average, the overall decline of religion in America.

And just to be clear making a generalization isn't offensive.

A pile of manure is not in and of itself offensive to me, for example.
Referencing my cooking skills to it might be, depending upon tone of the conversation.
Do you see the difference?

I don't get the analogy.

Because being insulted is all about what the offender believes about it, isn't it.

Nope. I just think you're lying.

If I comment that I don't like your personal body odour and then attach a picture of a pile of manure, that would most likely be considered offensive by you.
If I subsequently explained that what I meant was that your personal body odour, while of some scent or other, was just one that I didn't like even though most might find it acceptable, how does this subsequent explanation alter the offensiveness of the opening comment?

So what is the personal body odour, and what was the pile of manure analogous to?

Gross generalisation of religion in America subsequently depicted by reference to what you readily admitted to being an extreme form of evangelic preaching.

I said: What I mean is that it is a style that has been manufactured in America, for Americans.
That is not a generalization, it is an observation.
The fact that you choose to ignore it so that you can continue in your baseless attacks, means you're a liar. You are asserting something that you know, or have been shown to be untrue.

Most would have simply apologised for it when it was highlighted to them, irrespective of whether they themselves considered it offensive.

Are you going to apologize for lying?

It wasn't the sentiment, the position you eventually explained, but the manner in which you put it across.

You found this offensive: What I mean is that it is a style that has been manufactured in America, for Americans.
Why?

For someone who tries to extol the reality of your God, you don't come across as a particularly enlightened individual, Jan, especially with regard your personal interactions.

There was nothing wrong with my interaction. It seems you have a pathological need to vent anger at me, and you think this is an opportunity. But you have been shown to be a liar, and, an angry person.

Don't you like me extolling God?
Does it make you uncomfortable?
Is that what this is about Baldeee?

jan.

 

[Daecon]

Oh look, it seems that Jan has taken over yet another thread and made it all about Jan. Again.

 

[Baldeee]

My last post on this matter...

You say i'm being offensive because I said there is one religion in America, the American religion.
...
I mentioned nothing about there being a single religion in America.

You mean other than "the religion in America, is an American religion"?
This is thus a gross generalisation, which I found offensive.
The fact that you explained what you meant by "American religion" (when you stated "What I mean is that it is a style that has been manufactured in America, for Americans") doesn't escape that you are referring in this to what you saw as "the religion..." - not just "a religion".

And then you made it more offensive when you linked "the religion" to a video even entitled "Crazy TV Preachers" byway of further explanation of what you considered "the religion" to be.

If it could have been perceived that way, I clarified what I meant by stating that I mean it is a style that has been manufactured in America. Which it is. There was nothing offensive in what I said, and I clarified any implication that may be construed as offensive.

No you didn't - not until much later - which still doesn't excuse the initial offense.
As stated, what you clarified is what you mean by "American religion" - which was merely how you were describing "the religion" - linked to the "Crazy TV Preachers" by way of further explanation.

I linked a video that personifies, the American style of religion. And by ''religion'' I alluded to Christianity in the same paragraph, as per the pew report, which claimed that Christianity is on the wane, creating, on average, the overall decline of religion in America.

And just to be clear making a generalization isn't offensive.

If only there was a rule of what people can and cannot find offensive.
But you are correct, the generalisation itself is not offensive, but what you generalised them as was offensive to me.

I don't get the analogy.

The pile of manure (the video) might not be offensive in and of itself.
Linking the pile of manure (the video) as a description of how you find my cooking (the religion in America) is offensive.

Nope. I just think you're lying.

Irrelevant.
You offended, you didn't apologise, and now you are disrespectful enough to accuse me of lying about it.
Your character is shameful, Jan.

So what is the personal body odour, and what was the pile of manure analogous to?

Body odour: the religion in America; pile of manure: "Crazy TV Preachers".

I said: What I mean is that it is a style that has been manufactured in America, for Americans.
That is not a generalization, it is an observation.

Correct, that is not a generalisation.
The generalisation is where you said: "The religion in America, is an American religion".
Your repeated effort to show that a non-generalisation is indeed a non-generalisation is a strawman.

The fact that you choose to ignore it so that you can continue in your baseless attacks, means you're a liar. You are asserting something that you know, or have been shown to be untrue.

I'm ignoring it because what you quoted, and what you continue to use by way of explanation, is NOT the generalisation you made.
It is merely an explanation of what you considered your generalised position to be.

Are you going to apologize for lying?

I will when I do.

You found this offensive: What I mean is that it is a style that has been manufactured in America, for Americans.
Why?

No, I didn't find that offensive.
I found your generalisation offensive, compounded by you linking it to the video that you did.

There was nothing wrong with my interaction.

It's a pity you think that.

It seems you have a pathological need to vent anger at me, and you think this is an opportunity. But you have been shown to be a liar, and, an angry person.

Where have I lied?
You think by merely claiming that I have lied is showing me to be a liar?
I have certainly shown some frustration at your continued conduct, but where have I lost my temper?
But is this all you can do?
Deflect and make counter accusations to avoid facing reality that you caused offense?
Most people would have simply apologised at the time, even if they weren't entirely sure what it was that caused offense.

Don't you like me extolling God?
Does it make you uncomfortable?
Is that what this is about Baldeee?

In order: It doesn't bother me; No; No.

 

[Ophiolite]

I didn't deny that my understanding of the word was wrong, and I didn't try to twist the meaning of the word..
If you look in post 26, in a response to Baldeee. I acknowledged that practitioner means an individual, but I explained what I meant in the form of asking two questions.
I elaborated on it in my explanation to you.

You very reluctantly acknowledged that practitioner might mean an individual then entered a convoluted piece of nonsense that sought to demonstrate it could also represent in some bizarre way a group of practitioners. Your clarification to me was basically a denial.

In essence Jan you wriggled and continue to wriggle and still no apology to Baldeee for your misinterpretation of the meaning of the word practitioner. It is frustrating and infuriating to see such resolute commitment to being an asshole. I really shouldn't have re-engaged with you, in the expectation that you could now apply logic and decency in your exchanges. I revert to my former opinion of you.

I'm done with your equivocation and dishonesty.

 

[Yazata]

I don't know whether these statistic are true, but for a long while America has been hailed as the most religious country in the world (or at least way up there).

How does one measure how religious countries are? Who has actually performed such a measurement?

If we are going to base such a judgement on stated religious adherence, on participation in religious rituals like daily prayers, and on the incorporation of religious views into one's behavior and worldview, I'd say that some parts of the Middle East are vastly more religious than the United States.

I think that Jan is just repeating a (largely-false) stereotype that circulates among many European left-intellectuals I'm guessing. (And some in the US as well. I'd guess that Barack Obama and his circle believe it.)

I think the religion in America, is an American religion (God bless America!).

The United States is one of the more religiously diverse countries in the world.

Unlike many European countries, a single denomination doesn't dominate in the US, like Evangelical Lutheranism does in Scandanavia, Catholicism in Spain or Poland, or the C of E in England. There's no state religion and there never has been. Approximately 70% of the US population is nominally Christian for historical reasons, but that includes every Christian denomination on Earth, from Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy through every Protestant sect imaginable. Virtually all of those denominations, with the very notable exception of the Church of Latter Day Saints, traveled here from Europe.

Probably something like 40% of the world's Jewish population lives in the United States. (While it began in Germany, Reform Judaism now finds its home in the US. It isn't fully recognized in Israel.) The US has acquired several million Muslims, due to immigration and conversion, particularly among African-Americans. We have about 1.5 million Buddhists, due to immigration as well as local conversions among university educated Caucasians. Large numbers of Hindus have arrived too, in the hundreds of thousands and they have won some converts. We even have a small Jain community and seem to be becoming one of the last refuges of the Yezhedis whose traditional homes in the Middle East have become impossible due to the Islamic State.

If there's a common feature to American religion, it might be that the US has always been seen as a refuge by religious minorities. From Irish Catholics, through German Anabaptists through the Jews to the Yezedhis, many of our religious denominations arrived here to escape persecution elsewhere. That's why the free exercise of religion is so important in the American ethos.

Among Buddhists in America, what is most noticeable in their eyes is how lineages and traditions that are largely separate in Asia interact every day here. Thai Theravada communicates with Tibetan Vajrayana or Japanese Zen in ways not seen in Asia. So despite the small number of Buddhists here (about 1.5 million is my estimate), the US has emerged as a great source of ferment and innovation in the religion. That's recognized back home in Asia where American Buddhism is a big influence on the development of new forms of Buddhist modernism.

What I mean is that it is a style that has been manufactured in America, for Americans.

Are you suggesting that all American religiosity shares a single recognizable style? I think that's just false. We have Pentecostals and Charismatics for sure, but we didn't invent them. We also have monasticism and quietism, we have shaven headed people sitting Zen, we have sacramental religion with its altars and eucharists, we have the 'social gospel', we have self-styled witches celebrating their sabbaths and even LSD mystics.

They are brands of Christianity which have spread throughout the world, where I see no relation to Yeshua Bens teachings, or philosophies.

I assume you are talking about Jesus and that you believe that you know what the historical Jesus taught and believed. (Jesus taught the same message that Krishna imparted to Arjuna, right?) In real life, generations of scholars have tried to reconstruct the 'historical Jesus', with little notable success. It might be true that most American Christians don't practice Christianity as Jesus might have desired, but Christians everywhere don't. They never have.

That being said, if it is manufactured, then over time, other religious, or irreligious ideologies can be manufactured.

I agree that religions are historical products of human beings and that they evolve over time.

Personally I've never believed America to be a ''religious'' country, in the sense that India is, even though it seems that way on the surface.

I think that the United States is more secular at heart. In India, religion is mixed up with village life in ways that we don't see here. In the US there's a tendency, even among religious adherents that participate in their religion, to push religious practice off to Sunday morning, before football. Religion doesn't enter their minds very often the other six days of the week, when they are at work or whatever.

 

[Jan Ardena]

deleted double post.

 

[Jan Ardena]

How does one measure how religious countries are? Who has actually performed such a measurement?

I don't know.

If we are going to base such a judgement on stated religious adherence, on participation in religious rituals like daily prayers, and on the incorporation of religious views into one's behavior and worldview, I'd say that some parts of the Middle East are vastly more religious than the United States.

I agree.

There's no state religion and there never has been.

I didn't say, or mean that. I said there is a style of religion in America which is easily identified as American. That's what I meant when I said am American religion.

Hip Hop is a musical genre established all over the world, but the style is American. Not that music itself is American.

Are you suggesting that all American religiosity shares a single recognizable style?

No. I'm suggesting that the predominant religion in America, Christianity, is dominated by a particular style of Christianity.

We also have monasticism and quietism, we have shaven headed people sitting Zen, we have sacramental religion with its altars and eucharists, we have the 'social gospel', we have self-styled witches celebrating their sabbaths and even LSD mystics.

We have Pentecostals and Charismatics for sure, but we didn't invent them. We also have monasticism and quietism, we have shaven headed people sitting Zen, we have sacramental religion with its altars and eucharists, we have the 'social gospel', we have self-styled witches celebrating their sabbaths and even LSD mystics.

But they don't dominate Christianity, or the face of American religiosity. That's my point. Most people are aware of that style of Christianity because it is a commercial venture on a massive, global scale. It is highly hypocritical, un-biblical, and greedy.

The decline of religion in America is the decline of Christianity in America. The point I made was that I think that particular style of religion has more to do with it than any other religion, or Christian denomination.

I assume you are talking about Jesus and that you believe that you know what the historical Jesus taught and believed. (Jesus taught the same message that Krishna imparted to Arjuna, right?)

Essentially, yes.

In real life, generations of scholars have tried to reconstruct the 'historical Jesus', with little notable success. It might be true that most American Christians don't practice Christianity as Jesus might have desired, but Christians everywhere don't. They never have.

The basis of Travis's teaching was to Love the Lord thy God, with all your heart. Not an easy task in this day and age.

I agree that religions are historical products of human beings and that they evolve over time.

I agree that "religions" are products of human beings. But "Religion" isn't.
Also I don't agree that religions have evolved, I believe they have devolved.

Jan.