Best article and discussion/posts I've ever seen on this Website.

There is a "new community" in America, however. It's called "Health Care." Sooner or later, virtually everyone seems to join -- and relish sharing their experiences. The priests are the medical profession. The "temples" are immense.

Go to the smaller towns throughout America and you will find the largest institution, the most modern institution, is their health care center.

Go to cities like Los Angeles, and you will find more than one rendition of the Vatican -- UCLA Medical Center, Cedars Sinai, others.

And it all has to do with what religion used to supply -- the sense of living forever, in the same form, or reincarnated, or whatever. Humans have been burying their dead with food supplies and articles for "the next world," since the year 100,000 BC, or thereabouts.

That's what is at the bottom of all human need for community -- they don't want to die, and today they actually don't expect to.

Humans, with all there discoveries and inventions, are a very funny group.

Oh, and as far as "Christians" are concerned, there aren't any -- save maybe something like the Quakers, and a few other "cults," so-called. For Chrstianity is virtually as Nietzsche delared, "The last Christian died on the cross."

Anyway, I am inspired to get Dick Meyer's book.

Thanks for the observations. Too often it assumed that there is a common American myth when there may be none or at least few. In America, it seems to be every man for himself instead of "E pluribus unum".

I remember one time a few years back when I was riding the train into Madrid from the airport. There was a young couple. She sang and he had a guitar. It was a wonderful traditional love/folk song. And then, after a few verses, everyone joined in. I felt so sad that something like this does not happen in America.

We are rootless. Everyone who came here pulled up roots to do so. When you combine that start with industrial capitalism, where everyone left home for jobs elsewhere, no one here has any roots.

Oh sure, there have been spots where there was community - for a while. -- One example is the family farms gathered in one place in the 1800s. But as farms were absorbed into the agri-inustrial complex in the 1900s, that died. There was also the "Leave it to Beaver" lily white fantasy world of 1950's TV, but reality intruded there when it was discovered that not everyone was white, middle class and prosperous.

The end result is that there is no common culture here, even though there are recurrent attempts to force WASP culture and language on everyone else. Everyone is mobile like a leaf blowing in the wind.

I had the benefit of growing up in a family of a multitude of uncles, aunts and cousins - working around farms and the family business.

Have we robbed our children of that? And for what? The ***** dollar, which the government now prints like a flood? -- a poor bargain. And now that america is through and on the decline from our imperial moment in the sun, what do we have to show for it?

We have gone from the front porch culture having a beer with a neighbor to the gated communities, SUVs and the yard man. Radio controlled garage doors shut us in. We have made everyone else into the boogeyman, not our neighbor.

Ample food for thought here!

I've seen first-hand the sort of social fracturing Dick Meyer describes. (Full disclosure: he's an old friend and former colleague of mine, so I'm not without bias here...) I need look no further than the Catholic Church in America.

Once, parishes were a melting pot of classes, cultures, ideologies and backgrounds. (Though in immigrant neighborhoods, like Brooklyn, the Germans had THEIR church, and the Italians had THEIRS just a block or two away...) But people for the most part were bound together by a shared spiritual and religious culture. For many, the parish was the axis around which their world revolved.

Now, families have a greater tendency to "parish shop", seeking those places that are liturgically or politically most comfortable; likewise, different nationalities and languages can cluster together. And, of course, the "cafeteria" practice of many American Catholics is one rooted in picking and choosing those doctrines that are most palatable (a practice many bishops seem loathe to discourage).

One popular Catholic blogger I know told me that he thinks there are really three Catholic Churches in America, divided geographically and, perhaps, politically. There are "red" dioceses and "blue" ones -- and, of course, "purple."

I'm not sure what this portends for the Church in America. But, given Dick's thesis, it's not especially encouraging.

Will Religious Oppression ease up all over the Planet?

Is there a Country that does not have many Religions in it's Government system, whether recognized or not? Is there a Country that teaches, their God said 'not to Kill', and, Lives by what God says, when the Country says Kill?

Killing has been the Game of Life, ever since Cain, killed his Brother Abel. God's Lifestyle Game, is to Share God's Resources Unequally, and Not to Kill Each Other.

Even in Muslim countries, there is a Religious Mix, and they Kill each other. Why does the USA protest in China, about Religious Liberty? In the past, the Christian Religion, was the Unofficial Government Religion.

The USA, has Christian: Icons on Government buildings, Rote Prayers, Holidays, Swearing on the Bible, etc., for all Citizens regardless of the Faith. The USA is Known as a 'Christian' Nation. Striving for Riches, and Killing, is not a Christian Example in any Country.

The Eastern Catholic Religion in Russia, not a State Religion today, but in the Past, was protested against, for not letting Christianity have more Freedom of Religion, like we protest in China.

Communism is a Bad Word for Christians, when Jesus taught 'Common'ism. Why are Christians Hoarding God's Resources, and Killing each other, and other Humans? Is that Following Jesus, and Turning the other cheek?

It is Time to start Standing Up For Jesus, and being Christian Caretakers, instead of Christian Killers of our Home Planet. Instead of being like the rest of the World as Jesus taught, Christians should follow Jesus, with Actions, not Mouth Worship.

It would make a big difference to our Brothers/Sisters of Life, to all animals, etc., and to our Eco System, for the Human Species on Earth, to be the Equal Christian Caretakers, instead of Unequal Religious Killers.

.
Every generation feels some enstrangement from the world of the previous one and that of the coming one. Changes abound and needs differing responses some of which get insitutionalized or become parts of a community's (or groups of same)repertoire when consolidated forms a modified culture. Shifting from culture to another is disqueting because it demands getting rid of familiar ways of doing things, and exhibiting and learning new ones. One cannot help but feel uncomfortable while doing so, especially, at the initial stages.

There is nothing novel or strange about this as it is a constant, recurring experience all over the world all the time (or at least so history shows).

What can alleviate the transistional tensions can either or both come from the new member drawing on inner strengths (depending of what he has acquired from his original culture) or if he is lucky enough to find himself in a community with support mechanisms or programs in place. This last can be (should be) provided by faith-oriented local set ups. I am thinking, for instance, of parishes or some such religious structure. If such is not found around, what's to prevent a person from taking the initiative of forming one? Athists can form their social-support group, in fact, they can help theists organize theirs too!

Now, that would be the fresh innovation of this millenium, a prgamatic, solid step wotards world peace, don't you agree?

.

Cause, you know, Speed, one thing this article made me think of was of some friends of mine, 'Pagan-type Homesteaders,' so to speak. Often urban tpe refugees who'd take any chance, however slim, to take whatever chance they got by any windfalll to go out and live on the land, ...any decrepit farmhouse and rocky hobby-farm at best, surrounded by 'bitter' gun-bunny Christians and all. Surrounded by people who, if you asked them their opinion, would just as soon shoot you as look at you, if you weren't a Christian.

But, as the tale goes, some Souther Fundies come to town with Witch-burning on their mind, they'll find the locals staring em down. Fundies will be like, 'But they're freaks!' Locals will be like, 'Yeah, but they're *our* freaks. '

And this is the thing that those who think themselves mighty always forget. Word is one thing, but personal is personal. You may scream your 'Gospel' and never know your neighbor. Or, wherever and whoever you are, you may meet the person who's next to you. Or you may figure they're insufficiently Biblical and to be scorned.

One of these things is stronger and more convivial than the other.

But who am I to say. Right?

What you think, Speed? *Someone* is moving in next door. What if it's you?

"Nice article, though - it captures the problems of our modern existence."

Suppose our modern existence made us next door neighbors.

*extending hand*

Problem?

"I argued back citing Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche"

Using quotes from Dostoyevsky to argue against faith is like using Leo Strauss to argue against war...

Nice article, though - it captures the problems of our modern existence.

I found the article interesting, as well as Fate's response. It seems that American society does seem to self-segregate; my sister has said to me "bears hang with bears" to explain her sometimes-discomfort with non-European immigrant friends. I think it relates more to their lack of common background, which relates to the article's comments on community.
I am a third-generation atheist (this same sister's son, when she mentioned her belief that good thoughts from others can help through an illness or other difficult time, said "Mom, that's religion"--not intended in a positive manner). Personally, I think knowing that others are thinking good thoughts helps instill a feeling of community that makes one feel better.
When I had a personal crisis that led me to break away from my circle of friends at approx. age 40 (mostly friends from high school), I looked to the local Unitarian Universalist church for a new social community, rather than for its religion. I considered joining the Ethical Culture Society, but the UU church was closer and accepting of a nonbeliever, being noncreedal.
And now, in search of human contact and community, I sign off to reenter off-line life!

As for the blurb, though, there's no such thing as 'Too many choices.'

Communities break up cause of too few *options.*

Options that let you keep that community.

This is a good article, though.

I think it overestimates the element of 'choice' our rootless modern society involves. Sometimes it means one *can't* have all that lovely continuity and community, even of place.

Some ideas of 'cultural identity' have gotten rarefied and 'opinion'-based enough that they *squeeze people out* when something like an immigrant community would previously have found a way to accomodate a little variation.

Like with the Fundamentalism in our society, people are defining themselves first and foremost by certain *ideas,* rather than *being* part of a community. (Then again, these 'good old days' weren't necessarily a bargain, either.)

Frankly, the very conformist-modeled 'rugged individualism' involved in what they euphemize as 'Family Values' is a primary *force* in driving apart various tribes, whether ancestral and traditional, or those people form when squeezed out of same, say by the trivialized concerns about 'dysfunctional' tribes and families, and in fact the very clinging to absolutism as a *means* to try and maintain some cohesion, rather than understanding this absolutism as the very *wedge* that inexorably splits person after person *out* of these tribes and communities.

I've lived among a whole great number of tribes, old and new. This, of itself is valuable, but the fact is, people don't 'choose' the rootlessness. Me, there's nothing I love so much as those places I consider 'home ground.' But. *Communities* don't dissolve cause they *choose* not to stay together. They don't stay together cause they *can't.*

And the reasons are usually all-too mundane.

** De-conversion no easy matter **

Ever wonder about getting some insight into how someone might go through a rejection (or deep modification) of belief. You might take a look at one blog site which addresses itself to that, to "de-conversion." http://de-conversion.com/

Another blog where the level of discourse against theism is high is Daylight Atheism:
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/03/on-amateur-atheism.html

Two factors, which work against one another, affect the results of a recent Pew survey on American religious beliefs:

1. With the end of the Red Scare from Truman to Bush I, it has become easier to self-identify as some form of "uncommitted", including agnostics, atheists, and the blessedly indifferent.

2. Hostility towards atheists hasn't gone away. Religious "deviants" don't even deserve to be citizens according to Bush I. Political hypocrisy from Carter to Bush II plays well enough for Obama and McCain to court the xian-fascists (dominionists).

Hypocrisy has high survival value in America. Nonetheless, nay-sayers appear on balance to be more willing to report truthfully on a survey. This point-to-point comparison in fact I take to be a valid measure of the weakening of religion's hold over America's collective over-estimation of religious faith.

Using god-language is now so alien to me, I have a hard time demarcating the hypocrite from the naif. I consider it an obligation of basic honesty not to tap into any system which espouses the existence of some supernatural realm. These towers of babble say nothing, point to nothing, symbolize nothing.

As to de-conversion, there comes a day when you pass by shelf after shelf of books on religion and know that nothing useful can be found on any of them.

Remember David Hume and the smile of reason.

bipolar2

We need a world wide massive effort to educate people as to how different identities evolved and how (or why) it is wrong to hate people of other identities.

The letter from Claire O. Ducker ["Religion has caused bloodshed ," Jan. 24] is undeniably factual but does not treat human conflicts at a "macro" level.

From paleolithic times, human populations have grown, migrated to differing environments, and in the process given birth to more than 3,000 different languages, cultures, and innumerable religions--resulting in the creation of competing identities.

Consider the racial, linguistic, class, caste, nationalistic, religious, and sectarian identities that have given rise to ethnocentrism.

This has perpetuated deep-rooted prejudices resulting in deplorable atrocities.

In India, the upper castes (Brahmins, Rajputs, and Kshatriyas) consider 240 million Dalits as untouchables and consider them to be polluted even if they come across their shadow.

Last year, thousands of Dalits (the untouchables) suffered protests and disrespect from Brahmins and other upper castes when the government implemented the quotas in government jobs, and university admissions aimed at improving Dalit representation in the Indian social profile.

The genocide in Darfur is both linguistic and ethnic in its character.

An interesting article. I'm sure everyone can relate to what you have gone through. I have noticed it in many forms in others.

Take my dog. He gets fed at 7am and at 6:45am he starts pacing and whining until he is fed. Once he got sick and for a month he got medicine after breakfast. We used "pill pockets" to hold the pills and are very tasty it seems. After the medicine was used up the dog would eat breakfast and after breakfast, with a full stomach, beg for that pill pocket. He would not stop. He would pace and beg until you left the room or gave him anything as a treat. My dog was stuck in what I call a "box", a habit or social context which he did not feel comfortable being out of. You might think it was the food or the idea of a reward, but it was the familiar he was missing, not the tasty pill pocket.

As an example not involving food, there is the story of a man and a cat. The cat would pace and meow when he wanted out. The man wanted to train his cat to scratch at the front door when the cat wanted to go outside. So when the cat was pacing and meowing the man got down on all fours and scratched at the front door to train the cat to do the same. The idea backfired. After a few weeks the cat would not go out until the man got down on all fours and scratched the door. The cat was stuck in a "box" where he would not feel comfortable going out until the man did his familiar door scratch.

My mother in law was happy after her daughter and I got married and lived a mile away. After our first child we decided to move, to a very upper crusty neighborhood. When I mentioned we were looking for a house in that neighborhood her response was "you can't live there". I explained that I made enough money but she was not talking about money. "You can't live with those people". Which people I asked. "Rich people" was her response. She grew up poor in the Midwest and always worked and scrimped to give her family everything. She felt socially lower middle class and expected her children to be the same. Breaking out of lower middle class culture into upper class culture was something she would never consider. I consider all people to be people. She considers people by class and associates accordingly. She is stuck in a "box", unable to enjoy other aspects of society she considers outside her class. She will not shop at Safeway because that's where rich people shop, so she shops at SFW.

It is natural for some people to feel uncomfortable in new situations, be it people of different religions, class, nationality, color, ethnicity, etc. The trick is to get over it. Many do. Many do not.

Those that do get over it travel, do not limit themselves, are as likely to live in a rich as a not so rich neighborhood, will eat at a diner or 5-star restaurant, as long as the food was good.

Those that do not break out of their box do not travel except where others within their circle have said they have been. They look for their own culture everywhere and avoid everything else. If they are in an upper class box they would never stay in anything less than a 5 star hotel, while those in a lower/middle class box who would never stay in a hotel that has 3 or more stars.

Humans tend to self segregate in our society. You only need to go into a high school cafeteria to see that the lines of demarcation that are the same in all high schools. We have many natural tendencies that we overcome. But cultural identity and the impulse to only live within it is one many people fail to overcome.

The author of this article has two identities. One is he feels a little uncomfortable outside the tradition he grew up in and has since disappeared according to him. He also has a historical religious tradition he feels drawn to but cannot embrace. I suggest the author has one foot inside his box and one outside. What he needs to understand is that feeling this way is absolutely normal and he should be proud he has that foot outside the box. He should not consider the feeling in anyway a poor reflection on himself or in some way a sign of being lost or turning a back on his tradition. He seems to be quite normal. He just needs to get use to the natural feelings cultural identity can cause and continue to strengthen his ability to ignore them and embrace the whole world and take the best things it has to offer whether they seem familiar or not.