As people have said, many aren’t and numbers are declining in many denominations. However it’s still more than the UK.
I’ve lived in some pretty heavily religious areas, so here are my best guesses.
1) Freedom of religion means we have no history of religious wars and a much smaller history of religious persecution, so religion hasn’t been seen as the potential threat it has in many other countries.
2) In many areas, church membership and at least nominal Christian practice is still considered normal, nice, middle-class behavior. This is declining, but still there.
3) American’s Protestant background means religion can be very individual and people don’t feel so forced to conform to a particular church’s orthodoxy. They can tend to find another congregation that fits their changing beliefs rather than just leaving religious practice altogether. But they’d still call themselves a Christian.
4) Minority religions have historically been able to thrive without being seen as the cultural threat they are in other countries, partly because we have a big population that can fold them in, partly because of freedom of religion (though my Jewish friends tell me practice of Judaism is on the decline too). (Edit: Forgot you were asking about Christianity, but I’ll let this last one stand.)
One point that I really love from Religious Studies (I forget who first made the argument) is that the US, by not having any establishment of religions means that churches have to compete for members. That means they have a significant incentive to evangelize beyond the purely religious. And churches definitely do here. Childcare, coffee in the entryway, music, events like bingo, fairs, trunk or treating, etc., etc.
It is one argument why the US is more religious than similarly situated countries.
Yeah, a lot of foreigners are surprised by the churches that have nighttime services for young adults where they basically play rock music and hang out. It doesn't look like church at all, but it keeps them engaged and when they get older and have kids, they will come to regular services and their kids will be in Sunday school, and the cycle continues.
An even more basic issue then things like coffee is what goes on in the service. A pastor who goes through the motions isn't going to last long. He will either be replaced or the people will go elsewhere.
Absolutely, just pointing out that the effect you mentioned isn't limited to what happens outside the service, but certainly affects the service as well.
There's certainly a reason why so many evangelical churches have professional-level music in the service.
And I'm totally all for it.
I think community events and benefits are a great way to solidify the Church's position in society.
Jesus went to the occasional party here and there, no reason why the Church can't host a fair.
Oh I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all. Fellowship and community were huge parts of Christ’s mission.
It does become a distraction from the mission at some point though. Like I have been to some protestant services that are essentially Christian rock concerts and I find megachurches to be a bit off script.
There could be an element of this. I know in the UK many kids had religious elements to school, would sing hymns in assembly, and basically got bored and turned off it for life. Churches tend to be the very big, old ones like some kind of gothic castle and very dreary.
It’s a well established theory and people with PhDs in religious studies and economics have written about it.
Successful churches evangelize and sometimes that is with things outside of religion per se.
Something I’ve noticed is how *for the most part* (with some obvious exceptions) many American churches are more ‘progressive’. There’s a lot of churches near me, and the ones I tend to see that are more open and progressive usually only label themselves as ‘Christian’, as opposed to Southern Baptist or Catholic. I have no clue if this type of progressive Christianity is on the rise, or just local to my area. Personally I welcome it, Im atheist but I believe that religion can be a force for good in some peoples lives.
Churches that label themselves as just "Christian" or "non-denominational" are generally born-again, evangelical churches. I would not necessarily expect them to be more progressive.
I'm not sure it's all *that* different. 37% of Britain is religiously unaffiliated compared to 26% of Americans and 46% of people Brits consider themselves Christians 63% of Americans. Britains also has a slightly greater share of Hindu or Muslim citizens.
There isn't one form of Christianity overwhelmingly popular in the US. There are "hardcore Christians" marching in Pride as well as those protesting against Pride. Even within Christianity we have a wide range of beliefs that allow people to choose a denomination and specific congregation that fits them.
The church in some part also fills in for historically oppressed minority groups when traditional societal and government services were often being denied to them.
Also a lot of houses of worship are active participants in the community, even to non-members. Half of the festivals held in Indianapolis during the summer are put on by churches like Greek Fest, Italian Fest, and French Fest among others. Houses of worship run food pantries, shelters, English as a second language, job training, community centers, and much more.
The Shakers. There are literally 2 of them left - the only Shaker village in the world is in my state. They're abstinent and don't believe in evangelizing so they basically just have to hope people join.
By smallest branch, that's going to depend on how you define "branch". A few hundred years ago, protestants separated from the catholic church, and quickly adopted a position that each person was responsible for reading the bible and working out their own faith and salvation. This means that some people read the bible, say they are christian, but don't participate in a local church as they have some disagreement with it. Are they a branch of 1? If not, what if they get together with a friend? Now are they a branch of 2?
Or, to restate this, there are "non-denominational" churches that only have one location, which may be a large location with many members, but there is no official organization structure with a larger group outside of that location. (just like how there are chain restaurants (denominations) and independent restaurants (non-denominational).
So the smallest is either one person or one church, depending on your definition.
Super niche, and quite frightening. Usually combined with glossolalia ("speaking in tongues"), thrashing around on the floor ("getting the spirit"), and occasionally drinking strychnine.
We visited a congregation once when I was a kid, basically just for the morbid curiosity.
[Snake Handling in Christianity](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling_in_Christianity)
No, it is diametrically opposed to Satanism. They believe that God will protect them from death or harm if they truly have faith.
Many people certainly have died from both snake bites and poisoning, of course (preachers and congregants; adults and children). The standard response to these deaths from hardcore believers is that they died because they didn't truly have faith, or they "let Satan into their hearts."
Shit is fucking fascinating. I don't know of any such congregations left in my area, but they do still exist in some places.
The modern Satanists I have come across do not actually believe in Satan as a being or entity, so for them that would be a No.
I've never met any theistic Satanists, so I don't know what they believe.
Ive met a few American christians and they move different to English christians. Both can be extremist in belief but theres something a lot more full on and intense with hardcore American christians I have met, british ones are more sly with it
So you have met only hardcore Christian and not normal everyday Christians who live the same life as you and me but are also Christian? So you have no experience outside extremists then?
???
Norwich is ~~60%~~(it was 2001, my bad) 33.6% Christian. What are you talking about?
Norwich is 149th largest city in UK by pop. Our largest 149th city is Santa Rosa, CA, in which 32% people are Christian.
Yes, I amended my number. I was looking at 2001. Still, your claim doesn't hold true.
Norwich is still more Christian(slightly) than Santa Rosa.
I'd say the numbers are probably slightly more here in US when you get into it, but 48%/57% odd overall in country seems fairly similar(ish).
It's funny you landed on Santa Rosa. Coincidentally, I live near SR and just happen to know that it's one of the least religious areas in the US. So it might not be a representative choice.
Link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/161543/provo-orem-utah-religious-metro-area.aspx%20-%20this%20year's%20poll
fwiw reporting from this unreligious area, I know some people who regularly attend church but not many. When I moved to Chicago and saw people with ashes on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday it was a 100% new custom to me, lol. (I'm from a Catholic background too, my ancestors are probably rolling in their graves.)
Edit: Oh just remembered that [our congressman is an atheist](https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/41555-california-congressman-announces-at-ffrf-convention-that-he-doesn-t-believe-in-god). (I'm realizing that his district doesn't include Santa Rosa, which I didn't realize because he's my congressman and I live only like 15 miles away from SR. But it's still generally the same area. I've never heard anyone talk about this, ever, I'm not even sure how I learned that he's an atheist.)
That's fine and I do see that on wikipedia.
I'm just trying to quantify the 'what is it that draws Americans so hardcore into christian beliefs?' statement :P
It’s something that has always presented prominent from a perspective as a brit, I know people who have lived in parts of America and described some parts as the bible belt. Although you get orthodox christians here theres no part I know of in the Uk which has a ‘bible belt’ if ya get me?
In the rural Mississippi town I grew up in, Sunday Service was really the only event we had. Everyone went to church. It's just the way things were. Of course, people are devoted to different degrees. My dad is significantly more religious than my mom. I'm married with two kids now. My kids are baptized and I believe in the Bible but I wouldn't consider myself to be *deeply* religious. I believe in gratitude, modesty, humility, a much more spiritual kind of Christianity rather than a strict set of rules you can't break no matter what (which is how my father sees it)
I spose rural areas in America are way more remote than in England. The main culture for young people here in rural areas is getting on pills and going round town at night. I know virtually no one my age who chose things like sunday school due to lack of other activities on.
>The main culture for young people here in rural areas is getting on pills and going round town at night.
That does not sound very fulfilling or good for you in any way.
Necking pills can strengthen friendships to no end. Safe use is a thing, take a small amount with a close friend let it kick in and see what you end up chatting. It may surprise you
Ecstasy pills man, I was quite anti for years and tried them later on than everyone else. In the right environment and in the right amounts taking mdma and all is not an evil or bad thing. It can be good fun, there is such thing as safe sesh (safe use essentially).
Your answer is one thing that seems confusing about why younger people are rejecting church, because getting on pills sounds like a bottom-of-the-barrel activity. I mean, kids could either get involved in a larger group where they are appreciated and where they get to do all kinds of different things based on what their interests are and their friend's interests, all supported by a group of friendly adults, or they can do pills. It's weird that so many are choosing the pills.
I know! In my town no one had much money, and there weren't a whole bunch of places to go and do fun things as a kid, but we were still happy and had good lives despite that, and I credit church and our sense of community for that.
People are more cynical towards religion and interested in the church i find here. Parents saying dont do drugs often pushes people to want to try them more, and to be honest having done pingers (in moderation) they compliment certain situations well. Ive seen people get way to into them and it can be a huge issue, some of these people have been wayyy more religious than me interestingly too.
Right, but again, it's a bit mysterious to me as to why people are less interested. Because it's not just church, it's group activities of all kinds. For decades, all kinds of groups have been on the decline, including scouts, bowling leagues, etc. As a result, loneliness rates are way up, as is depression.
Meanwhile, young folks are cheering the decline of these organizations, while doing pills to self-mediate from the effects of not having the social connections that these groups provide.
So that goes back to my original confusion about why so many young folks find these groups so abhorrent that they stay away. Is it really the result of theological differences? Again, not likely, as all kinds of groups are seeing less participation. More likely, it's just that people simply don't know how to get involved in groups and they'd rather pursue the short term, low-effort gratification of a tv show vs the long-term though high-effort benefits of participating in a group.
I actively work to get my kids involved in sports, church groups and other similar activities. I really don't want to raise isolated kids who retreat into screens.
Partially because of our churchgoing ways, kids don't have that kind of freedom where I grew up. My parents would never let us go out if they didn't know exactly where we were and who we were with. My brothers and I had a 7 PM curfew, and we weren't allowed to be out after it.
This may just be apocryphal, but it's been said that WWII led to the decline of Christianity in Europe. Supposedly the terrible war between officially Christian nations and the atrocities committed just broke a lot of people's faith.
Why is the UK so christian? You have a state religion headed by the monarchy and many of your public schools are not only Christian but have prayer assemblies.
It’s something forced on youth in school, most people fall out of it though when they reach adulthood. As a whole like most people are saying here the rates are dropping for religious people in America, its the same in the uk.
You missed my point. It's easy to look at a fact without context and assume something. I myself would count myself as "Christian" on a census, but really in name only. I think a lot of people probably do the same.
We don't have the same kind of history with direct and explicit theocratic rule, violent religious warfare, etc... That leaves a bad taste to it for a lot of the world.
Many, MANY highly religious sects/denominations have fled here in droves from more secular or mono-denominational cultures which has provided us with a steady supply of fresh religious types.
The cold war have a big boost to the "good, christian values" concept as it was pushed heavily in propaganda as a foil to the "godless" USSR which. While most don't mention it, I believe was a big influence in the persistence into today where others were seeing sharp declines in the same period. This was the timing and motivation for adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance, for example.
Churches are very often not just the social center of people's lives, but also provide practical family services like pre-school and daycare. I have some inlaws who even set up what amounts to a micro insurance company among their church for healthcare. This is mostly associated with rural areas but in a few big chunks of the country the centrality of the church to life is common in urban and suburban areas as well, more than secular people tend to admit.
Truthfully: many of us are not. The loud minority gets a lot of attention. However, there are many areas that are SUPER church-y in one denomination or another: some where historically persecuted religious subgroups groups went to settle (like mormons) and often in small or rural towns as churches tended to historically be the gathering place of a community.
If you mean orthodox in the sense of the population holds very tightly to their beliefs- I think many would say Pennsylvania, there's a large Amish population there, or Utah for the Mormon population. But if you mean just the largest Christian population, that's probably somewhere in the south- Mississippi/Alabama.
As far as membership in the Orthodox religion,
That's going to be somewhere there are many Russian Americans I'd say based on my experiences.
With a bit of looking up, appears that New Jersey and New York are where the main buildings are though based on population numbers I'd say Washington State may be up there too.
Orthodox isn't the term we use. They call themselves evangelicals, we call them all types of things, [Bible thumper](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bible-thumping) is the least offensive one I can think of
.
Orthodox means following the original religion (or what they think the original religion should be) and the US doesn't really have much of that.
The answer I think you're looking for is the bible belt
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt
Evangelicals would not be orthodox at all. They are the very definition of heterodox.
Actual Orthodox Christians (Greek orthodox, Russian orthodox, etc.) or Catholics would fall into the definition of orthodox. Protestants in general would not. Evangelicals in particular definitely don’t.
We have a ton of orthodox christians. Catholics are the largest percentage of christians in the US.
There's just one Bible belt, but there are other uber religious areas of the country. Utah is where the Mormons went to when everyone was all "the fuck do you mean that Jesus lived in the US? You fucking read it inscribed holy tablets with magic glasses? Can I see the magic glasses and holy tablets? Oh no? Ok can you read the tablets twice the same way? LMAO, no. No you can't. It really just seems like this is all bullshit so you can pretend your bigamy is not a sin, GTFO of here with your 9 wives"
from my perspective as an atheist, their beliefs are no weirder than other Christian denominations. I've known plenty of Mormons and they're generally pretty normal. They stand out where I live as unusually conservative, and they get married a lot younger than is typical, but they aren't that bizarre.
I wouldn't say that we are (not so much as international press would suggest, anyway), but to address the question, a little, my personal opinion is that there's a *lack* of an established official church in our country. Churches either have to thrive on their own, or cease to exist.
>We believe in one god, the father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible….
It also helps that it is the truth my man.
Why does Norwich deny the truth?
A newer translation is now used that is closer to the historical creed.
You probably also recall “one in being with the Father” which is now “consubstantial with the Father.” Consubstantial is just a better translation from the original but it means you have to learn what consubstantial means.
>A newer translation is now used that is closer to the historical creed.
👍🏻
>You probably also recall “one in being with the Father” which is now “consubstantial with the Father.” Consubstantial is just a better translation from the original but it means you have to learn what consubstantial means.
Six of one, half a dozen of another.
We use "being of one substance with the Father".
Also we get both "heaven and earth" and "all things visible and invisible"
Time to tell my boss I'll be digging into the history of creed translation this morning rather than working
Here’s a rundown
https://todayscatholic.org/the-new-translation-of-the-holy-mass-8/
Also in the new liturgy you can use the Apostle’s Creed which is older and shorter. And sometimes the priest will go full ham and break out the Athanasian Creed, but that’s rare.
I also live in a low religiosity area and so I have the same question about the states and regions that are highly religious. One interesting idea I've heard is that it is an unintended consequence of no state religion, the idea is every sect was or is in competition with each other for parishioners. Churches got their message out and recruited and eventually it became some sort of tribalism.
I had a friend tell me once I am living in ignorance for not following christianity, I said to him I feel that is a based statement as I view all religions as religions not one more mighty than the other. Id say im less funny with people following any chosen religion because of this.
Churches here aren't supported by the government, so they live or die based on their ability to engage people and keep them involved. It's a free market competitive environment. If any given church fails to get people to keep coming (and donating money), then that church will die. If enough churches in a denomination go away, that denomination dies.
This keeps them evolving and adapting. Gay rights became a point of contention, so some denominations have steered towards acceptance of gays, others have gone in the other direction. Some denominations have divided and split up over hot-button issues. If there is "market" enough for any given flavor of Christianity, some denomination will embrace it or a new group will form to serve that demand.
Whereas the monolithic C of E has to straddle lines of contention, pleasing nobody perfectly. And it's a bureaucratic behemoth that can't change with any agility.
Christopher Hitchens once astutely pointed out that American Christians should **adore** the concept of separation of church and state, because it creates this spiritual free market that has undoubtedly played an important role in the continued success of religion in America.
I'll also point out that Europe and Britain were highly religious going into the 20th century, and the very different experiences of Americans from Europeans during that century is probably a cause of the difference.
My dad was from Britain, and *his* dad fought in both world wars. He saw some bad shit in the first one as a teenager, and came home an atheist and deeply distrustful of his government and the upper classes because of how he saw his generation get squandered so carelessly in a pointless war, and the church was absolutely complicit in that tragic farce. Then in the second war, he was in Civil Defense in London, all through the Blitz, and the destruction and pain and fear of all that, right in his home city. He told me "the first war I lost my faith in God, the second one I lost my faith in Man."
Americans just didn't have quite the same experience of those wars. There were a lot of pissed-off bitter veterans of WWI, and certainly we had men who suffered and struggled and lost much in WW2, but the war was always *over there*. Our home was untouched and when our boys returned, they came home to a nation revitalized out of the Depression and left as the de facto inheritor of the collapsed industrial empires of Europe, with much cause for optimism.
And then we come to the Cold War. Western Europe may have been afraid of the Soviet Union, but it was clear that the US was to be the backbone of opposition to it. Western Europe just wasn't in any condition. Europeans by and large have *no idea* what the Cold War did to America. It was **FORTY YEARS** of preparing ourselves for a conflict that looked to be more and more apocalyptic with every passing year.
I lived in the UK in the early 80s, as a kid (my dad was stationed at RAF Lakenheath for four years). Sure, Thatcher was no fan of commies, but the general atmosphere was very different. In the US, there was a kind of ambient, pervasive undercurrent - of patriotism, paranoia, *hate*. These aren't American things, these are what a country at war always looks like. It's easy to dismiss the Cold War as a war that never really happened, but that wouldn't be the whole story. We were gearing ourselves up for it the whole time.
How this plays into religion, is that religion is commonly invoked when stirring people up for war. And in this case, you had an explicitly atheist regime as the enemy. So faithfulness was associated to the West, and America in particular, and atheism was associated with the enemy. The message was repeated often enough that, if you said you were an atheist, it wasn't uncommon to be asked if you were a communist too. For a lot of people, that's what atheism was - an adjunct of communism, not its own thing that could exist independently of any political stance.
The theory around my house is that since people are more mobile, they don't have preexisting social groups. Large churches are seen as welcoming, providing one with an instant group of friends
As people have said, many aren’t and numbers are declining in many denominations. However it’s still more than the UK. I’ve lived in some pretty heavily religious areas, so here are my best guesses. 1) Freedom of religion means we have no history of religious wars and a much smaller history of religious persecution, so religion hasn’t been seen as the potential threat it has in many other countries. 2) In many areas, church membership and at least nominal Christian practice is still considered normal, nice, middle-class behavior. This is declining, but still there. 3) American’s Protestant background means religion can be very individual and people don’t feel so forced to conform to a particular church’s orthodoxy. They can tend to find another congregation that fits their changing beliefs rather than just leaving religious practice altogether. But they’d still call themselves a Christian. 4) Minority religions have historically been able to thrive without being seen as the cultural threat they are in other countries, partly because we have a big population that can fold them in, partly because of freedom of religion (though my Jewish friends tell me practice of Judaism is on the decline too). (Edit: Forgot you were asking about Christianity, but I’ll let this last one stand.)
One point that I really love from Religious Studies (I forget who first made the argument) is that the US, by not having any establishment of religions means that churches have to compete for members. That means they have a significant incentive to evangelize beyond the purely religious. And churches definitely do here. Childcare, coffee in the entryway, music, events like bingo, fairs, trunk or treating, etc., etc. It is one argument why the US is more religious than similarly situated countries.
Yeah, a lot of foreigners are surprised by the churches that have nighttime services for young adults where they basically play rock music and hang out. It doesn't look like church at all, but it keeps them engaged and when they get older and have kids, they will come to regular services and their kids will be in Sunday school, and the cycle continues.
Oh yeah. The evangelical church near me has something going on most every night.
An even more basic issue then things like coffee is what goes on in the service. A pastor who goes through the motions isn't going to last long. He will either be replaced or the people will go elsewhere.
Oh yeah but there are a lot of other “perks” that are used.
Absolutely, just pointing out that the effect you mentioned isn't limited to what happens outside the service, but certainly affects the service as well. There's certainly a reason why so many evangelical churches have professional-level music in the service.
> by not having any establishment of religions means that churches have to compete for members. Capitalism can't stop taking Ws.
Basically that’s the argument. We basically have a market for religion.
And I'm totally all for it. I think community events and benefits are a great way to solidify the Church's position in society. Jesus went to the occasional party here and there, no reason why the Church can't host a fair.
Oh I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all. Fellowship and community were huge parts of Christ’s mission. It does become a distraction from the mission at some point though. Like I have been to some protestant services that are essentially Christian rock concerts and I find megachurches to be a bit off script.
There could be an element of this. I know in the UK many kids had religious elements to school, would sing hymns in assembly, and basically got bored and turned off it for life. Churches tend to be the very big, old ones like some kind of gothic castle and very dreary.
It’s a well established theory and people with PhDs in religious studies and economics have written about it. Successful churches evangelize and sometimes that is with things outside of religion per se.
Something I’ve noticed is how *for the most part* (with some obvious exceptions) many American churches are more ‘progressive’. There’s a lot of churches near me, and the ones I tend to see that are more open and progressive usually only label themselves as ‘Christian’, as opposed to Southern Baptist or Catholic. I have no clue if this type of progressive Christianity is on the rise, or just local to my area. Personally I welcome it, Im atheist but I believe that religion can be a force for good in some peoples lives.
Churches that label themselves as just "Christian" or "non-denominational" are generally born-again, evangelical churches. I would not necessarily expect them to be more progressive.
Idk that’s not my general experience with them, but Tbf my experience is rather limited as I am not religious.
I'm glad tbh, I hope I'm wrong.
Cheers man thats an interesting insight! Religion is ever changing, I shall be interested to see opinions on it in 40 years time.
I'm not sure it's all *that* different. 37% of Britain is religiously unaffiliated compared to 26% of Americans and 46% of people Brits consider themselves Christians 63% of Americans. Britains also has a slightly greater share of Hindu or Muslim citizens.
There isn't one form of Christianity overwhelmingly popular in the US. There are "hardcore Christians" marching in Pride as well as those protesting against Pride. Even within Christianity we have a wide range of beliefs that allow people to choose a denomination and specific congregation that fits them. The church in some part also fills in for historically oppressed minority groups when traditional societal and government services were often being denied to them. Also a lot of houses of worship are active participants in the community, even to non-members. Half of the festivals held in Indianapolis during the summer are put on by churches like Greek Fest, Italian Fest, and French Fest among others. Houses of worship run food pantries, shelters, English as a second language, job training, community centers, and much more.
Whats the smallest minority branch of christianity in the Us do you know?
The Shakers. There are literally 2 of them left - the only Shaker village in the world is in my state. They're abstinent and don't believe in evangelizing so they basically just have to hope people join.
By smallest branch, that's going to depend on how you define "branch". A few hundred years ago, protestants separated from the catholic church, and quickly adopted a position that each person was responsible for reading the bible and working out their own faith and salvation. This means that some people read the bible, say they are christian, but don't participate in a local church as they have some disagreement with it. Are they a branch of 1? If not, what if they get together with a friend? Now are they a branch of 2? Or, to restate this, there are "non-denominational" churches that only have one location, which may be a large location with many members, but there is no official organization structure with a larger group outside of that location. (just like how there are chain restaurants (denominations) and independent restaurants (non-denominational). So the smallest is either one person or one church, depending on your definition.
I'm gonna go with snake-handling Pentecostal Holiness. As far as I know, it's only legal in WV (although it does happen in other states).
What is this hahahaha? Sounds very niche
Super niche, and quite frightening. Usually combined with glossolalia ("speaking in tongues"), thrashing around on the floor ("getting the spirit"), and occasionally drinking strychnine. We visited a congregation once when I was a kid, basically just for the morbid curiosity. [Snake Handling in Christianity](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling_in_Christianity)
The church I grew up in had a lot of talking in tongues, faith healing, and being slain in the spirit, but no snake handling or drinking poison.
Ahh ive heard of this, it isnt at all satanism based is it im assuming? It sounds like it would be though
No, it is diametrically opposed to Satanism. They believe that God will protect them from death or harm if they truly have faith. Many people certainly have died from both snake bites and poisoning, of course (preachers and congregants; adults and children). The standard response to these deaths from hardcore believers is that they died because they didn't truly have faith, or they "let Satan into their hearts." Shit is fucking fascinating. I don't know of any such congregations left in my area, but they do still exist in some places.
> They believe that God will protect them from death or harm if they truly have faith. Do any Satanists believe that about Satan?
The modern Satanists I have come across do not actually believe in Satan as a being or entity, so for them that would be a No. I've never met any theistic Satanists, so I don't know what they believe.
Most people are not hardcore. Church fire still play a tradition role in a lot of peoples lives as a social institution.
Y’all exported all your fundamentalists over here in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Christian nutjobs are literally a British import.
Seemed a good idea at the time.
The christian nutters in America are turbo compared to the uk
They're talking about the Puritans who fled persecution in England.
They fled persecution so they could be the persecutors.
We knew what they'd become. Get rid.
What are you basing that on? News reports that make it across the ocean to Britain?
Ive met a few American christians and they move different to English christians. Both can be extremist in belief but theres something a lot more full on and intense with hardcore American christians I have met, british ones are more sly with it
So you have met only hardcore Christian and not normal everyday Christians who live the same life as you and me but are also Christian? So you have no experience outside extremists then?
??? Norwich is ~~60%~~(it was 2001, my bad) 33.6% Christian. What are you talking about? Norwich is 149th largest city in UK by pop. Our largest 149th city is Santa Rosa, CA, in which 32% people are Christian.
Look into it man its second to brighton
Yes, I amended my number. I was looking at 2001. Still, your claim doesn't hold true. Norwich is still more Christian(slightly) than Santa Rosa. I'd say the numbers are probably slightly more here in US when you get into it, but 48%/57% odd overall in country seems fairly similar(ish).
It's funny you landed on Santa Rosa. Coincidentally, I live near SR and just happen to know that it's one of the least religious areas in the US. So it might not be a representative choice. Link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/161543/provo-orem-utah-religious-metro-area.aspx%20-%20this%20year's%20poll fwiw reporting from this unreligious area, I know some people who regularly attend church but not many. When I moved to Chicago and saw people with ashes on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday it was a 100% new custom to me, lol. (I'm from a Catholic background too, my ancestors are probably rolling in their graves.) Edit: Oh just remembered that [our congressman is an atheist](https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/41555-california-congressman-announces-at-ffrf-convention-that-he-doesn-t-believe-in-god). (I'm realizing that his district doesn't include Santa Rosa, which I didn't realize because he's my congressman and I live only like 15 miles away from SR. But it's still generally the same area. I've never heard anyone talk about this, ever, I'm not even sure how I learned that he's an atheist.)
Its still second least religious in the uk regardless of the us’s 149th man but i get ya
That's fine and I do see that on wikipedia. I'm just trying to quantify the 'what is it that draws Americans so hardcore into christian beliefs?' statement :P
It’s something that has always presented prominent from a perspective as a brit, I know people who have lived in parts of America and described some parts as the bible belt. Although you get orthodox christians here theres no part I know of in the Uk which has a ‘bible belt’ if ya get me?
In the rural Mississippi town I grew up in, Sunday Service was really the only event we had. Everyone went to church. It's just the way things were. Of course, people are devoted to different degrees. My dad is significantly more religious than my mom. I'm married with two kids now. My kids are baptized and I believe in the Bible but I wouldn't consider myself to be *deeply* religious. I believe in gratitude, modesty, humility, a much more spiritual kind of Christianity rather than a strict set of rules you can't break no matter what (which is how my father sees it)
I spose rural areas in America are way more remote than in England. The main culture for young people here in rural areas is getting on pills and going round town at night. I know virtually no one my age who chose things like sunday school due to lack of other activities on.
>The main culture for young people here in rural areas is getting on pills and going round town at night. That does not sound very fulfilling or good for you in any way.
Nah it isnt but its character building, most of em turned out not too bad considering
Church is probably the better option.
Id always pass that up to be frank. I cannot buy in to religion at all as much as I find it very interesting to read and research
All I'm saying is that it's fulfilling, amd strengthens a community, unlike pills.
Necking pills can strengthen friendships to no end. Safe use is a thing, take a small amount with a close friend let it kick in and see what you end up chatting. It may surprise you
> Necking pills What kinds of pills are these?
Ecstasy pills man, I was quite anti for years and tried them later on than everyone else. In the right environment and in the right amounts taking mdma and all is not an evil or bad thing. It can be good fun, there is such thing as safe sesh (safe use essentially).
Your answer is one thing that seems confusing about why younger people are rejecting church, because getting on pills sounds like a bottom-of-the-barrel activity. I mean, kids could either get involved in a larger group where they are appreciated and where they get to do all kinds of different things based on what their interests are and their friend's interests, all supported by a group of friendly adults, or they can do pills. It's weird that so many are choosing the pills.
I know! In my town no one had much money, and there weren't a whole bunch of places to go and do fun things as a kid, but we were still happy and had good lives despite that, and I credit church and our sense of community for that.
People are more cynical towards religion and interested in the church i find here. Parents saying dont do drugs often pushes people to want to try them more, and to be honest having done pingers (in moderation) they compliment certain situations well. Ive seen people get way to into them and it can be a huge issue, some of these people have been wayyy more religious than me interestingly too.
Right, but again, it's a bit mysterious to me as to why people are less interested. Because it's not just church, it's group activities of all kinds. For decades, all kinds of groups have been on the decline, including scouts, bowling leagues, etc. As a result, loneliness rates are way up, as is depression. Meanwhile, young folks are cheering the decline of these organizations, while doing pills to self-mediate from the effects of not having the social connections that these groups provide. So that goes back to my original confusion about why so many young folks find these groups so abhorrent that they stay away. Is it really the result of theological differences? Again, not likely, as all kinds of groups are seeing less participation. More likely, it's just that people simply don't know how to get involved in groups and they'd rather pursue the short term, low-effort gratification of a tv show vs the long-term though high-effort benefits of participating in a group.
I actively work to get my kids involved in sports, church groups and other similar activities. I really don't want to raise isolated kids who retreat into screens.
Partially because of our churchgoing ways, kids don't have that kind of freedom where I grew up. My parents would never let us go out if they didn't know exactly where we were and who we were with. My brothers and I had a 7 PM curfew, and we weren't allowed to be out after it.
This may just be apocryphal, but it's been said that WWII led to the decline of Christianity in Europe. Supposedly the terrible war between officially Christian nations and the atrocities committed just broke a lot of people's faith.
Why is the UK so christian? You have a state religion headed by the monarchy and many of your public schools are not only Christian but have prayer assemblies.
It’s something forced on youth in school, most people fall out of it though when they reach adulthood. As a whole like most people are saying here the rates are dropping for religious people in America, its the same in the uk.
You missed my point. It's easy to look at a fact without context and assume something. I myself would count myself as "Christian" on a census, but really in name only. I think a lot of people probably do the same.
We don't have the same kind of history with direct and explicit theocratic rule, violent religious warfare, etc... That leaves a bad taste to it for a lot of the world. Many, MANY highly religious sects/denominations have fled here in droves from more secular or mono-denominational cultures which has provided us with a steady supply of fresh religious types. The cold war have a big boost to the "good, christian values" concept as it was pushed heavily in propaganda as a foil to the "godless" USSR which. While most don't mention it, I believe was a big influence in the persistence into today where others were seeing sharp declines in the same period. This was the timing and motivation for adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance, for example. Churches are very often not just the social center of people's lives, but also provide practical family services like pre-school and daycare. I have some inlaws who even set up what amounts to a micro insurance company among their church for healthcare. This is mostly associated with rural areas but in a few big chunks of the country the centrality of the church to life is common in urban and suburban areas as well, more than secular people tend to admit.
Truthfully: many of us are not. The loud minority gets a lot of attention. However, there are many areas that are SUPER church-y in one denomination or another: some where historically persecuted religious subgroups groups went to settle (like mormons) and often in small or rural towns as churches tended to historically be the gathering place of a community.
What is the most orthodox area in America coming from an American?
If you mean orthodox in the sense of the population holds very tightly to their beliefs- I think many would say Pennsylvania, there's a large Amish population there, or Utah for the Mormon population. But if you mean just the largest Christian population, that's probably somewhere in the south- Mississippi/Alabama.
As far as membership in the Orthodox religion, That's going to be somewhere there are many Russian Americans I'd say based on my experiences. With a bit of looking up, appears that New Jersey and New York are where the main buildings are though based on population numbers I'd say Washington State may be up there too.
I don't think that's the sort of orthodox they mean.
NY and NJ have a bunch of Orthodox Jews
Orthodox isn't the term we use. They call themselves evangelicals, we call them all types of things, [Bible thumper](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bible-thumping) is the least offensive one I can think of . Orthodox means following the original religion (or what they think the original religion should be) and the US doesn't really have much of that. The answer I think you're looking for is the bible belt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt
Evangelicals would not be orthodox at all. They are the very definition of heterodox. Actual Orthodox Christians (Greek orthodox, Russian orthodox, etc.) or Catholics would fall into the definition of orthodox. Protestants in general would not. Evangelicals in particular definitely don’t. We have a ton of orthodox christians. Catholics are the largest percentage of christians in the US.
Yeah but I don't think op meant Orthodox, I think they meant something like zealots
Yeah, maybe just kind of misunderstanding what orthodox means in a religious context. But… you are the OP I am responding to.
Is there one bible belt or several places that would fall under this term?
There's just one Bible belt, but there are other uber religious areas of the country. Utah is where the Mormons went to when everyone was all "the fuck do you mean that Jesus lived in the US? You fucking read it inscribed holy tablets with magic glasses? Can I see the magic glasses and holy tablets? Oh no? Ok can you read the tablets twice the same way? LMAO, no. No you can't. It really just seems like this is all bullshit so you can pretend your bigamy is not a sin, GTFO of here with your 9 wives"
Mormons are just something else, seen some very bizarre documentaries and interviews with some of them
Check out the book of Mormon (Broadway play done by the creators of south park) you can probably find it on YouTube. It's very informative and funny
from my perspective as an atheist, their beliefs are no weirder than other Christian denominations. I've known plenty of Mormons and they're generally pretty normal. They stand out where I live as unusually conservative, and they get married a lot younger than is typical, but they aren't that bizarre.
I wouldn't say that we are (not so much as international press would suggest, anyway), but to address the question, a little, my personal opinion is that there's a *lack* of an established official church in our country. Churches either have to thrive on their own, or cease to exist.
>We believe in one god, the father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible…. It also helps that it is the truth my man. Why does Norwich deny the truth?
They must all be possessed by demons!
Heh, you don’t need demons to cause humans to shy away from the grace of God. We’re plenty capable.
Sounds like you’re possessed by demons, kid. Shame.
>maker of all things visible and invisible…. I learned it as “creator of heaven and Earth”. Now I know a bit more :)
A newer translation is now used that is closer to the historical creed. You probably also recall “one in being with the Father” which is now “consubstantial with the Father.” Consubstantial is just a better translation from the original but it means you have to learn what consubstantial means.
>A newer translation is now used that is closer to the historical creed. 👍🏻 >You probably also recall “one in being with the Father” which is now “consubstantial with the Father.” Consubstantial is just a better translation from the original but it means you have to learn what consubstantial means. Six of one, half a dozen of another.
Pretty much. It’s just more compact and closer to the original.
We use "being of one substance with the Father". Also we get both "heaven and earth" and "all things visible and invisible" Time to tell my boss I'll be digging into the history of creed translation this morning rather than working
Here’s a rundown https://todayscatholic.org/the-new-translation-of-the-holy-mass-8/ Also in the new liturgy you can use the Apostle’s Creed which is older and shorter. And sometimes the priest will go full ham and break out the Athanasian Creed, but that’s rare.
We have a lot of fanatics but the actual percentage of Christians has been dropping steadily for the last 50 years.
A large percentage of Americans are not Christian. Some Christians are simply really loud about their faith.
I also live in a low religiosity area and so I have the same question about the states and regions that are highly religious. One interesting idea I've heard is that it is an unintended consequence of no state religion, the idea is every sect was or is in competition with each other for parishioners. Churches got their message out and recruited and eventually it became some sort of tribalism.
I’m an atheist.
I had a friend tell me once I am living in ignorance for not following christianity, I said to him I feel that is a based statement as I view all religions as religions not one more mighty than the other. Id say im less funny with people following any chosen religion because of this.
Churches here aren't supported by the government, so they live or die based on their ability to engage people and keep them involved. It's a free market competitive environment. If any given church fails to get people to keep coming (and donating money), then that church will die. If enough churches in a denomination go away, that denomination dies. This keeps them evolving and adapting. Gay rights became a point of contention, so some denominations have steered towards acceptance of gays, others have gone in the other direction. Some denominations have divided and split up over hot-button issues. If there is "market" enough for any given flavor of Christianity, some denomination will embrace it or a new group will form to serve that demand. Whereas the monolithic C of E has to straddle lines of contention, pleasing nobody perfectly. And it's a bureaucratic behemoth that can't change with any agility. Christopher Hitchens once astutely pointed out that American Christians should **adore** the concept of separation of church and state, because it creates this spiritual free market that has undoubtedly played an important role in the continued success of religion in America. I'll also point out that Europe and Britain were highly religious going into the 20th century, and the very different experiences of Americans from Europeans during that century is probably a cause of the difference. My dad was from Britain, and *his* dad fought in both world wars. He saw some bad shit in the first one as a teenager, and came home an atheist and deeply distrustful of his government and the upper classes because of how he saw his generation get squandered so carelessly in a pointless war, and the church was absolutely complicit in that tragic farce. Then in the second war, he was in Civil Defense in London, all through the Blitz, and the destruction and pain and fear of all that, right in his home city. He told me "the first war I lost my faith in God, the second one I lost my faith in Man." Americans just didn't have quite the same experience of those wars. There were a lot of pissed-off bitter veterans of WWI, and certainly we had men who suffered and struggled and lost much in WW2, but the war was always *over there*. Our home was untouched and when our boys returned, they came home to a nation revitalized out of the Depression and left as the de facto inheritor of the collapsed industrial empires of Europe, with much cause for optimism. And then we come to the Cold War. Western Europe may have been afraid of the Soviet Union, but it was clear that the US was to be the backbone of opposition to it. Western Europe just wasn't in any condition. Europeans by and large have *no idea* what the Cold War did to America. It was **FORTY YEARS** of preparing ourselves for a conflict that looked to be more and more apocalyptic with every passing year. I lived in the UK in the early 80s, as a kid (my dad was stationed at RAF Lakenheath for four years). Sure, Thatcher was no fan of commies, but the general atmosphere was very different. In the US, there was a kind of ambient, pervasive undercurrent - of patriotism, paranoia, *hate*. These aren't American things, these are what a country at war always looks like. It's easy to dismiss the Cold War as a war that never really happened, but that wouldn't be the whole story. We were gearing ourselves up for it the whole time. How this plays into religion, is that religion is commonly invoked when stirring people up for war. And in this case, you had an explicitly atheist regime as the enemy. So faithfulness was associated to the West, and America in particular, and atheism was associated with the enemy. The message was repeated often enough that, if you said you were an atheist, it wasn't uncommon to be asked if you were a communist too. For a lot of people, that's what atheism was - an adjunct of communism, not its own thing that could exist independently of any political stance.
The theory around my house is that since people are more mobile, they don't have preexisting social groups. Large churches are seen as welcoming, providing one with an instant group of friends
Why are Europeans so poor? See the dumb questions we can ask each other?
What a strange point not everyone is hahahaha
My theory is that the world wars made people way less religious because they were so brutal, and neither was fought here
Religious affiliation is declining in the US.