Here's Brenner's paper: http://www.unil.ch/files/live//sites/issrc/files/shared/8._Telechargement/Cours_MA_Chaves_2011/2011_Brenner.pdf

Marcotte sums that up as "In fact, we don’t go anymore than our Western European counterparts"; the Slate article she linked to said

The fact is that the numbers are much lower than many assume.

because it demolishes my agenda". But yes, it's entirely relevant to show that we aren't even close to the level of secularism of many European countries. No intelligent person could look at the nature of politics and of public policy and discourse in our country and think that we're anything close to "secular". The constant infusion of prayer and religious doctrine into public schools, courts and government affairs goes far beyond what is seen in the EU countries you so blithely dismiss. We elect a disproportionate number of religious fundamentalists to high public office, and no one can run for president without making numerous vapid mouthings of how godly they are. In a truly secular country, no one would need to do that to be taken seriously as a candidate, let alone elected.

Her OP and response were about the religious right in our country assuming too much about the religious climate here. Its not about the Europeans. Muriel was the one who tried to deflect the argument. Why did you do that, Muriel?

I think cbayer is right here. The repubs are going to find that their religious message only plays in the south.

To quote directly from HER OP:

Yes, the majority of Americans identify technically as Christians, but a deeper look at how our people act, believe, and think shows that we’re not at all a “Christian nation,” but a largely secular nation that suffers a small but vocal minority of theocracy-minded conservatives.

As pointed out by myself and Muriel, this is bullshit. As shown by an entirely relevant comparison to nations that actually have a claim to being considered secular. And that "small but vocal minority" controls both houses of Congress, along with many state legislatures and governorships. Last I looked, every one of those nutballs got elected by getting more votes than their opponent. And that religious message seems to be playing pretty fucking well in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Utah and Kansas, or hadn't you noticed? And Michelle Bachman? Let's not even go there.

I'll let cbayer respond. There's usually no holding her back.

I think the article is about the right's misconception that they can play the Jesus card into the White House. The article makes no comparison with Europe because they can't vote in our elections. Sure we're not as secular as Europe, but we're not a Christian theocracy either, no matter how much the repubs want it that way. They will lose every national election from now on until they learn that. Those small states you mention aren't enough. The Dems can count on the west, the east, and the Great Lakes, you know, where the people exist in large numbers.

that do not involve a Republican fundie winning the presidency. Are you going to address those, or are you going to pass the baton back to your crony's hands and let her answer?

You gotta be kidding me. She had the honor of being the first person I ever put on ignore.

I think the article is correct. It also repeats many things that have been shown to be true. Most Catholics ignore the Pope when it comes to abortion and birth control. The pews are seeing a lot less butts than before. Homosexuality is not the "disease" it was once considered. These are trends I am glad to see. The repubs mistake is that they aren't seeing this change. They are still listening to the crazies.

You obviously have her off ignore and are defending pure bullshit that she's spouting.

I'll repeat: Are you going to address any of the substantive points I raised, or are you going to leave that to her? Are you going to explain how "religious freedom" laws enabling religious bigotry are being passed right and left in a country that the author cluelessly calls "secular"?

Didn't think so.

I just see her as agreeing with the article. Me too.

Please recount the substantive points you say you raised. I thought I addressed them. The article made no mention of these religious freedom bills. The public certainly didn't vote for them. Iy was the legislatures in blue states that passed that shit, and they are hearing it from their constituants.

The article is addressing the national picture. Let's keep the focus there. That is where the repubs are making their mistake. They think these blue state victories mean national success.

When she posted it, it became her bullshit too.

And why are you pretending to have addressed things that you've said NOTHING about? Here are the points, AGAIN:

The United States is not even close to "secular" when compared to many European countries.

The constant infusion of prayer and religious doctrine into public schools, courts and government affairs goes far beyond what is seen in EU countries, and is utterly at odds with what would be happening in a country that was "secular" in any meaningful way.

We elect a disproportionate number of religious fundamentalists to high public office, and no one can run for president without making numerous vapid mouthings of how godly they are. In a truly secular country, no one would need to do that to be taken seriously as a candidate, let alone elected.

Calling religious fundamentalists a "small but vocal minority" when they control both houses of Congress, along with many state legislatures and governorships, is bullshit and willful ignorance. Every one of them got elected by getting more votes than their opponent.

Claiming that this is confined to the south is also bullshit. Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Utah and Kansas are all in the south?

"Religious freedom" laws, mandating exceptions for anti-discrimination policies, have been passed in states all over the country. Claiming a country that passes laws like that is "secular" is idiotic.

You addressed NONE of those points. Zero. Pretending that you did makes you sound exactly like cbayer and her cohorts. Want to explain why you're doing that?

You've apparently learned that skill well from the religionists here. But you don't seem worth wasting my time on any more.

the limited number of cars in most church parking lots. My assumption is that those churches were built to accommodate the congregation of that church. If that's the case, there's an awful lot of space inside not being filled with worshipers. There are exceptions, of course, but I don't see full parking lots at most churches.

Since I don't attend, I can't count the number of people in the pews, though.

In the bible belt, one often sees very full parking lots. Also, services can occur at various times from church to church and you may not be there during the relatively short period when people are in attendance. Just not sure that is an accurate indicator.

But data very much backs up the premise of this article. Church affiliation and attendance is way down.

I'm capable of seeing things. I've also seen congregations go away, with churches closed and empty. I live in a location where there are a large number of churches. Minnesota is a rather religious state. But, attendance is down and churches are struggling, consolidating congregations, and diminishing in size. Several Catholic churches have closed. Smaller Lutheran churches and merged in the area.

I know when services are. It's on the signs outside of those churches, and I drive by them regularly. I have a fairly well-developed ability to see my surroundings.

The data also support decreasing attendance, which reinforces my own observations.

As I said, there are local variations, of course.

I just put more weight in data than anecdotal evidence.

but S. Texas is experiencing high levels of immigration from Latin America, some fleeing poverty, others escaping the cartels. One of the results has been the formation of new Catholic parishes, as well as new Spanish-speaking evangelical congregations. Current trends may change as the US becomes less Anglo. (And its becoming less Anglo is another thing that scares the right wing.)

data is all over the place and the reasons are so very multifactorial.

I suspect that the local parishes serve many, many purposes in immigrant communities.

Mexico is definitely seeing a growth in evangelical churches, but the catholic churches seem to be holding their own.

or at least, probably seems so to many who haven't had much contact with the culture. It's at once profoundly religious and stubbornly anticlerical. I think the anticlericalism is what fosters the evangelical trend. But oddly enough, those new evangelicals resist giving up Our Lady of Guadalupe or even "el Santo" Francisco Villa. It's basically a populist movement.

They engage deeply in the rituals but they don't really let the church control their lives. I also agree that the evangelical movement has a very populist feel. Even they, though, participate in the deeply rooted catholic rituals, like the saints days.