Millennials: get over your faith phobia

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

More than 1 in 3 millennials (ages 22 to 37) identifies as religiously unaffiliated. That makes us far less connected to organized religion than older generations...….

Muslims are viewed less favorably than other groups, even atheists, according to a 2017 Pew Research Center survey. However, many of us believe that religion can serve as a bridge of cooperation rather than a barrier of division.....

In seeking a better way, we have no better American role model than the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who as a young Christian pastor worked with Muslims, atheists, Jews and many others to achieve his dream.

To read more about how the author sees a solution for the phobia:


https://religionnews.com/2018/05/24/hussain-oped/

[Cartoonist]

1. Get over it

Theists need to get over their growing nonesophobia.

[msongs]

2. refusal to believe in lies, myths, fairy tales and made up stuff is not a phobia nt

[JenniferJuniper]

3. Phobia?

How is opting out of magical thinking even remotely "phobic"?

[guillaumeb]

5. The author explains the choice of words in the article.

I was not the author.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. I don't think there's any explanation of the headline at all

It seems completely unrelated to the article. I'm going to give the medical student the benefit of the doubt, and assume some idiot at Religion News stuck the headline on it as clickbait. Because I really hope a medical student knows what a phobia is.

There's nothing in the article about 'phobia', 'hate', 'hatred' or 'fear'. The article is just "we're really nice people" pablum.

If you look at the Pew survey your excerpt refers to, you find the 18-29 age group is the only one to give a 'temperature' of over 50 to all groups. Far from a 'faith phobia', millennials are the most accepting (their least favorite are Mormons; for 30-49, Muslims; for 50+, atheists).

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/02/14145820/Detailed-Tables-COMBINED-FINAL.pdf

[TheRealNorth]

16. Some Religious kooks

think that non-religious people are "afraid" of faith because deep down the non-believers know they're sinners and are going to hell.

Back in college, I was exposed to this type of thinking. After giving a critique of a book "What is Creation Science" by Henry M. Morris et.al in a speech class, focusing on the author's misinterpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and misleading (in my opinion) presentation of the history of scientists who he said were believers of Creation Science (ex. Isaac Newton), many of whom were dead before "the Origin of Species" was published and Gregor Mendel's work on inheritance (genetics) was popularized. Honestly, I only got through the first three chapters of the book because those three chapters gave me more than enough material for a 20 minute speech.

Anyway, this pissed off a RWNJ in the class and demanded to know my religious affiliation. I considered myself to be Deist at that time and I wasn't afraid to admit it (I'm now more agnostic), and he yelled at me "What are you afraid of."

[dawg day]

59. If we were actually afraid of going to hell...

we'd be believers.

I'm an easy-going atheist. I think many people who might not ordinarily be charitable or giving become more so when they are in a loving church community. That's good.
But many people become more angry, prejudiced, and narrow when they join a church.
Even churchgoers would have to admit that it's hardly a certainty that being religious makes you a better person. (After all, the Southern Baptists would think those inclusive Disciples are sinful for allowing gay marriage.)

In fact, my relative the Pentacostalist told me that -- though she's led a pretty blameless life-- she's pretty sure she's going to hell because "most people do". I said I couldn't imagine joining a church that thought I was going to hell (even if I were in the church!), and she said piously that her faith wasn't her choice. (But she thought I should choose to come to church with her.)

I would say the two of us profoundly couldn't understand each other.

[Major Nikon]

17. Nice people who largely include those who are intolerant

And most of the rest who can’t seem to condemn that intolerance.

The problem organized religion has is their system of “morals” is both intolerant and not up for arbitration. That shit just ain’t gonna fly with this next generation and almost certainly those that follow.

[guillaumeb]

18. I agree that the author may have been "titled" by the editor.

[Voltaire2]

27. Did the same mystery editor change your op?

You wrote this yourself:

To read more about how the author sees a solution for the phobia:

Maybe old sparky did it?

[guillaumeb]

32. Looking for a controversy?

A weak try.

[Voltaire2]

34. I'm looking for honesty and not finding any.

[guillaumeb]

35. I am certain that you are looking.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Maybe you should edit "The author explains the choice of words in the article", then

because you are now disagreeing with yourself.

[Voltaire2]

22. So do you disagree with the author's choice?

[guillaumeb]

24. One would think that it was titled by an Editor.

But I would not have used that word. I might have used the word aversion.

[Voltaire2]

25. You would? Odd, because you had an opportunity

and you wrote this:

To read more about how the author sees a solution for the phobia:

Strange.

[guillaumeb]

28. Perhaps to you.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[tonedevil]

45. To figgure that out...

we will need some specs on the angels and the pin. Sizes, weights, exuberance of dancing that sort of thing. Do you know of any angels we can observe and maybe even interact with? If we don't have angels to test the theory we have no way to verify.

[guillaumeb]

49. I knew that there was a problem with that question. eom

[hlthe2b]

4. wow.. that's a very condescending way to approach nonreligious millenials

that will work.

[guillaumeb]

6. The author suggests outreach, and interfaith work. eom

[hlthe2b]

7. Did the author not "DEMAND millenials to 'get over their phobia'"?

Millennials are smart enough to see through condescension and they are turned off by hypocrisy. Left wing/progressive religions may not be at blame per se, but they have allowed RW fundies to control the public forum for decades now. So, unfortunately for those who may want to see see religion not diminish in the US as it largely has in Europe. allowing the RW to become the "face" of religion has dealt a death blow, imo.

[guillaumeb]

9. No, the author did not use your term.

The author suggested reaching out.

[hlthe2b]

10. So, someone other than the author wrote the objectionable subject line (title)?

If that was an editorial choice, they did the author NO favors.

[guillaumeb]

11. The term only appears in the title.

And your word, demand, appears nowhere in the article.

[hlthe2b]

13. Title DOES DEMAND (even if the word is not specifically used) that "millenials GET OVER their phobia

that is what is so condescending about this article. Like I said, maybe it was an editorial choice, but it was a BAD one.

[Voltaire2]

23. Don't expect anything other than evasion.

[malchickiwick]

8. As a GenX atheist with Millennial kids, I'm glad that they and their peers shun organized religion.

I did my best to raise them to be critical thinkers, so the Judeo-Christian myth never had any more sway than any of the hundreds of other myths from around the world.

[guillaumeb]

21. At this point, we have no idea how millenials will evolve

when it comes to spirituality.

[dewsgirl]

31. +1 as a fellow gen Xer I have raised my children the same way.

[NeoGreen]

44. +2 Same here...

...I taught my kids all about mythologies, even the one you need to know to have a better understanding of Shakespear.

Plus, when pressed, how to defend themselves with humor and ridicule (e.g. Monty Python: "Gosh, we're all impressed down here, I can tell you!" )

[yallerdawg]

14. We had declining organized religion rates in the late '60's.

Then we rolled into the Jesus Freaks, the Moonies, The Children of God, The People's Temple in Jonestown - hell, even the Manson Family members were looking for something.

There is an inherent need in humanity to fill that unknown emptiness and void of unanswered questions.

Sure, reject your parents religious faith.

But the "nones" will be putting their faith in something! We already know they aren't atheists and agnostics.

They're just something else.

[guillaumeb]

19. Well said. Nothing to add to that. eom

[tonedevil]

46. It's good to know...

if you are looking to share religious faith with fellow humans among your choices will be Jonestown and the Manson Family. It could be Billy Graham or you could even be fortunate enough to have it be Martin Luther King Jr. Finding God has a lot of different outcomes. For me it never seems worth the crap shoot, pardons to Pascal.

[gibraltar72]

15. For some it's easier than thinking for yourself.

[guillaumeb]

20. Is that how one dismisses difference? eom

[Dawson Leery]

26. What a great way to win over the skeptics.

[guillaumeb]

29. There are better ways. eom

[marylandblue]

30. The article is bait and switch

Both the title and the introduction imply that the article will provide reasons for atheistic or loosely affiliated youth to look into religion. But all it really says is volunteer for community service. Oh, and either faith-based or non-faith based organizations are acceptable. That's fine, but he did he really need to tell me that part? Is there a third option?

[guillaumeb]

33. There are many options.

The author presented one.

[marylandblue]

38. No, the author presented all options

Which makes me no wiser than I was before.

[guillaumeb]

39. One point:

Perhaps our hesitation stems from negative media coverage of religion. For every story about faith leaders putting aside their differences to serve the common good, it seems there are 10 others about extremist militias, draconian blasphemy laws or other subjects that cast religion in a dim light.

We can see much the same happening here. What is the motivation?

[marylandblue]

41. I think people are confused about the media

It is not a bullhorn, it is a mirror. The media tells us what we want to hear. If we didn't want to hear it, we wouldn't tune in, ratings would go down, and they would show us something else. So what motivates people, even religious people to tune into negative stories about religion?

[guillaumeb]

48. Does the media create the narrative, report the narrative,

or both?

The media both selects and presents certain things that are used to construct a narrative. Is the media selection a part of the creative process?

[marylandblue]

54. They are part of it, they create it, and they report it

And that is true for everyone else too. Just some of us have a bigger mouthpiece.

So it's not the media's fault that they report negative news. Negative news sells, the majority of news stories are negative and always have been. There is research on this. Religion is a controversial topic. Controversy also sells. So it is no surprise that we see negative news about controversial topics.

[guillaumeb]

56. Agreed. And your use of the word "sells" is important.

The media profits from sensationalism. So anything that creates a controversy will create views, sell papers, and attract advertisers.

[marylandblue]

57. That's why the media is an easy target to blame

The author blames the media as the reason millennials are turning away from religion, but does not consider the possibility of defects in religion itself.

[guillaumeb]

58. The author, speaking of the media:

Perhaps our hesitation stems from negative media coverage of religion. For every story about faith leaders putting aside their differences to serve the common good, it seems there are 10 others about extremist militias, draconian blasphemy laws or other subjects that cast religion in a dim light.

The author did preface the statement with the word "perhaps", so there is nuance, but by listing "extremist militias", "draconian blasphemy laws", and including the words "or other subjects...etc", this is an admission that there are real problems with some religionists.

So I disagree with your position. Speaking of "draconian blasphemy laws" is hardly a defense of such laws.

[marylandblue]

60. He doesn't blame the bad things themselves

He only blames the reporting of them.

[guillaumeb]

61. "Draconian blasphemy laws".

There is literally no way to read this except as a negative comment about religion.

[marylandblue]

62. Read the whole sentence, not just a fragment.

He is not saying these things aren't happening. He is complaining that there are so many negative stories about it and not enough positive stories. That's a complaint about the media, not a complaint about the event.

[guillaumeb]

63. It is both.

It is legitimate criticism, and an indictment of a sensationalist corporate media. That media exists primarily to make a profit.

[marylandblue]

64. Ambiguity is not an author's friend

[guillaumeb]

65. Sometimes editorial discretion is not an author's friend either. eom

[marylandblue]

66. It's really a badly written and inane article

An editor can only do so much. They should have rejected the article, but I realize they need content.

[guillaumeb]

67. We disagree. eom

[marylandblue]

68. Yes we do, but more importantly

What do you think will bring millenials back into the pews.

[guillaumeb]

69. An interesting question.

As the article references, organized religion provides a social aspect as well as shared faith. I have read articles talking about the decline of socializing, except for electronic socializing via device such as phone or on-line as at DU.

People need community. It is an essential aspect of being social creatures.


So will organized religion transform? I think so. The example of William Barber, the examples of many local church groups and social justice groups might provide a clue. My view is that if people do not see attending services as essential, or as the sole focus, perhaps moving the focus to social justice work and linking that work to the message of religion will replace what we know as traditional.

[JNelson6563]

36. lol...Believers are the ones with the phobia.

Fear of reality. The world's too scary without sky-god looking out for me!1! There's also the even more dysfunctional If I don't believe in all loving god I will burn for eternity!1!

Either way, fear is the path...to phobia AND religious belief!

[guillaumeb]

37. Nuance is a wonderful thing.

Some here criticized the Editor's choice of the word "phobia".

You presented the same loaded term from the vantage point of a non-theist.

[Voltaire2]

40. Including you. You criticized it.

Except when you parroted it. It is almost as if you argue from whatever position is convenient at the moment.

[guillaumeb]

47. I echoed the term in my post,

and criticized its use. As I said, nuance is a wonderful thing.

[Voltaire2]

50. You did not criticize the term in your op.

Only after it was pointed out to you that it was inappropriate. You then made up a story that it must have been the editor that did it. Meanwhile in your original comment in your post of the article you used the same term as the title.

[guillaumeb]

51. A weak attempt to create an issue on your part.

But it is the week end so I will allow for that.

[Voltaire2]

52. Oh bless you.

You’re going to allow it.

[guillaumeb]

53. Bless me?

Who will give that blessing? Will it be a non-sectarian blessing?

[Voltaire2]

55. More like relief that the snot stayed on your sleeve.

[Lordquinton]

42. Millennials are killing religion!

Latest article bashing milenials. Maybe if boomers hadn't used it to justify their helate we wouldn't be in this position.

[guillaumeb]

71. I would ask if you have read the article, but.....eom

[Lordquinton]

75. ...but that might lead to discussion you refuse to partake in

[guillaumeb]

83. Or, it might reveal something about you? eom

[Lordquinton]

91. Nah, it would lead to discussion you don't want to have

I'm fine, I try to start them all the time with you, but you are terrified of actually participating in one.

[MineralMan]

70. Never mind the Millennials.

Wait until you get a load of the generation following them.

[guillaumeb]

72. More prophecy?

I understand the need of some to feel that their own choices will be validated by others, but actual history conflicts with this type of "prophecy".

[MineralMan]

73. See below:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218285773

[guillaumeb]

74. My point, backed by actual history,

remains.

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. "Backed by actual history"? How does your history disprove a poll?

I think you're pulling out random words in the hope that some of them will look like an argument if stuck together.

Is your "point", by the way, back to claiming that millennials have a phobia of religion? You've been both for and against that claim in this thread, so it's hard to know. What is it today?

[Laffy Kat]

76. Know you just posted the article...

Many of us don't like people telling us to have faith. I actually believe more harm than good has been done from religions. I'll take scientific fact and community activism over religion any day. I'm fine with coalitions as long as one faction doesn't tell me how to think. Thank you.

[Voltaire2]

77. No see its a phobia that needs to be fixed.

We need a “solution” to your “aversion”.

[Laffy Kat]

78. And what would a solution look like to you? nt

[Major Nikon]

79. It would include roving thought police that make up rules and incessantly whine about violations

Just like every other organized religious entity always does.

[Voltaire2]

80. A Handmaidens Tale.

[MineralMan]

81. Well, see, this is the Religion Group. Some here think that means

that their advocacy for religion should go unchallenged. They think you should believe as they do and, if you do not, you are not supposed to say so, since that is an argument against their closely-held, if poorly understood, faith.

Those people are mistaken, of course. This group is for discussions about Religion. The group welcomes people of all faiths and of no faith at all. Some people do not like that, and may accuse you of following a falsely created 11th Amendment.

Trust me, though. Your viewpoint is welcome here, as are all viewpoints. Proselytizing, however, is not well-received in the Religion Group. Please feel free to post your own opinion, whether it agrees with the opinions of others, or not.

[guillaumeb]

84. Feel free to point out these posts.

I can wait.

[MineralMan]

85. I feel free to post anything I choose to post.

You apparently feel free to tell me what I should post. No, thanks.

[guillaumeb]

86. And if you make claims,

should we treat them as merely opinions with no basis?

[MineralMan]

87. Once again, please read my signature line.

How many times do I need to refer you to it, anyway? Everything I write here myself is my opinion. I expect what I write to be treated as opinion. Please pay attention - at least a little - won't you?

[guillaumeb]

88. So whatever you write has no relevance,

and we should not expect to take it as factual? Is that what you are indicating?

[MineralMan]

89. No. It is my opinion.

Its validity depends on you. For me, my opinion is valid. You may see it differently. That's how opinions are.

[trotsky]

82. The dying gasps of an antiquated power structure...

that has, as you say, done far more harm than good in the long run.

We know people can be moral without religion. But those interested in maintaining the status quo know their days are limited as long as people keep leaving churches, and so they don't like that message getting out. Rather than address the problem of WHY people are leaving, they are commonly just attacking those who do. This article is more of that.