@ONIYA "Back on track, there is a much more relaxed attitude towards religion that is gaining popularity, especially (but not exclusively) among the 20-30-somethings."
-- I love that shit. But then again I'm from the California Bay Area where Alan Watts
was very much a big deal.
"Sure, there are other factors. Rural v urban, class issues, group identity, etc etc etc. But the fact that those other aspects exist doesn't mean that the religious one doesn't"
"Attempting to claim that it isn't is not only incorrect but, I believe, counter productive. If the dominant narrative becomes that the...errr...extremes of religion are actually irreligious and merely symptoms of something else and if that is not true (as I believe it isn't) it removes a possible avenue of attack for no net benefit."
-- Don't take this personally but I strongly disagree. Let me start by addressing your central argument. There are other factors and religion is one of them, true. These factors including religion are contributing significantly to the discussion or issue, true. HOWEVER! This is a major error that people make when looking at multiple factors/variables in predicting an outcome. Are these factors related and does change in one change in the other -- specifically are they collinear
. So in the case of religion versus the other factors, the fact might be that removing religion will not prevent the outcome because religious opinion is not causally related to the outcome
. In other words religious views on the matter and the issue itself are both symptoms
of another higher order factor? if that makes any sense at all.
-- Lastly, undermining anyone's views is polemic and I think it's no accident that the discussion circles around religious views. You will affect no change by antagonizing people. This whole thing is totally the conservatives baiting the liberals so that the conservative base can vilify the urban elites more. That's my perspective on it.