Four-times-indicted former president Donald Trump has been successfully selling white Christian nostalgia, racism and xenophobia to his base. However, the Public Religion Research Institute’s massive poll of 6,616 participants suggests that what works with his base might pose an insurmountable problem with Gen Z teens and Gen Z adults (who are younger than 25).
Demographically, this cohort of voters bears little resemblance to Trump’s older, whiter, more religious followers. “In addition to being the most racially and ethnically diverse generation in our nation’s history, Gen Z adults also identify as LGBTQ at much higher rates than older Americans,” the PRRI poll found. “Like millennials, Gen Zers are also less likely than older generations to affiliate with an established religion.”
Those characteristics suggest Gen Z will favor a progressive message that incorporates diversity and opposes government imposition of religious views. Indeed, “Gen Z adults (21%) are less likely than all generational groups except millennials (21%) to identify as Republican.” Though 36 percent of Gen Z adults identify as Democrats, their teenage counterparts are more likely to be independents (51 percent) than older generations.
it only bothers you because you are scared of nature taking it’s course, that natural law is being followed, because the abandonment of religion is a debasement triggered by unintelligent ape-wannabes who genuinely believe that humans dictate moral law :)
To clarify, there are a set of rules in your head that you attribute to a religious figure, that you expect the rest of society to follow because doing otherwise hurts your snowflake feelings.
That’s a rather psychopathic view of the world, and I pity you for it
the views are natural, they exist in nature and you can freely observe them at will, they are in the head of everything that isn’t your head, apparently :)
Please detail, cite, or otherwise reference these natural laws, morals, and/or rules that we’re supposed to be abiding by.
Psh, look at this guy, he doesn’t know the innate morals all humans are imbued with at birth. Loser!
humans are not inbued with morals, the world has morals, humans are a blank canvas shapeable by their experiences, and for the most truth they should look for nature’s law, though at least you are closer than these others
look at things through a lens of logic and it’ll all come clear, there are endless rules provided a topic can be conceptualised, in this instance we see the political system (a farce designed by people above the political interface designed to make people believe they control the world), whereas it contrasts to understanding the world around us is not one that humans may decide the laws of, rather we are all dictated by what is and has been, human-invented morals are a farce designed to also try to tell people that they determine the world, but nature doesn’t care for the make-believe laws invented in the heads of people, conceptualised exclusively and not observable in nature
Dude, you’re not half as clever as you seem to think you are.
deleted by creator
you sound like someone who hasnt thought in their life, besides, you use full grammar to compensate for a lack of written content, i have nothing to fear against weird automatons of the human nature like you
I’ve seen nature at work, cruel and harsh. Predators eating prey alive, no mercy, no justice. Where might makes right, as there is no human law to intercede. Are those the natural laws you’re referring to?
Your other posts imply you view the world colored through a religious lens… Which is not a natural view. Supernatural, possibly, but anything but natural.
those natural laws merely teach the fact that everyone must recognise that there are insurmountable opponents that must be protected against, the natural law more also refers to natural processes as well as logical processing, on top of this, a religious view of the world is a natural one, the natural world’s logic is observable and to describe it as a laymen’s work would be at the very least a grave insult
Please cite, detail, or otherwise reference these natural laws to which you keep referring to.
Otherwise, I believe they’re all in your head, and you’re not arguing in good faith.
i have many times, observe them within the world already instead of asking things that cant be taught, to be taught, it wont achieve anything, take a notepad and walk through a forest and you will gain insights with a newfound clear mindset, because society is fake and it’s laws are made up in comparison to the unchanging and eternal glory of the natural law :)
So, basically you are telling us that we should prepare ourselves for the invasion of hell, so we turn back the tides, conquer that cursed landscape with the power of the atom or something greater, turn the demons into batteries to fuel our future civilization and then knock at sky daddy’s heavenly gates and get rid of the immense threat he and and his angels pose to the safety of humanity, because nature teach us to defend ourselves?
Alright, time to show this god why it was a bad idea to not let us eat also from the tree of life and for ruining us after destroying the tower of Babel.
Those Gen Z teens will look more like the Gen Z adults when they themselves become adults. They are being influenced by their parents. But religiosity has been and is continuing to collapse, basically everywhere. :)
you just stated that the opposite is happening as to what the original post said, and religion is actually on the rise, whether you like it or not, there will be conflict in which the people who deny natural law will either accept natural law, or end by natural law :)
“Agree with us or we’ll kill you” is peak modern religion. Well done!
the people who disagree with the world being a truthful one cannot exist alongside a truthful world, and the world is truthful, you can shove your quran back to the fucking desert as i can tell you would bend over backwards to protect it despite being a self proclaimed “hater of religion”, i only hope the truth will come to you, though you don’t know to receive it :)
Let me know when all the religious folks can agree on what’s true and what’s not. Maybe then I can take religion seriously.
abrahamic religions arent true, non-IE religions arent true, all IE religions that have syncretic features with non-IE religions are not true, that leaves very little room for misinterpretation, but you just fail to look for the truth
All religions aren’t true, therefore the only correct religion is no religion
incorrect, natural law states that you are incorrect, the truth behind the world is observable and the irreligious/abrahamics fail to see this
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2020-08-11/religion-giving-god (archive)
https://www.axios.com/2023/10/06/organized-religion-decline-agnostic-atheist-nonreligious
american article, invalid, abide by natural law and the sources will be in your own mind immediately :)
Yeah, whatever. Your faith is dying. Good riddance.
my faith is on the rise and has been for decades, we are the observers of the truth :)
I bet your church’s attendance is down by 40% since 1990.
not a church, and up by ~400% since 1990 :)
Removed by mod
Lots of comments in this thread have been reported, this one most obviously breaks rule 3, taking it out also kills the thread.
“Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”
And what evidence can you provide to support these claims?
Religion seems to be common in humans at least for the last few thousand years as evidenced by archaeological study of many past civilizations. I’m not really familiar with anything prior to Mesopotamia so I can’t speak to that.
With the advent of science and reason, humans have come to learn far more reliable ways of acquiring knowledge than those that lead to religious traditions. Thus, it stands to reason that, as more people come to understand scientific thinking, they would be more likely to question and reject beliefs that aren’t based on sound evidence.
scientific thinking is inherently that of natural law, which inherently is religious (when known correctly), in reality it must be known that the natural world is observable through conceptualisation, i urge you to step from society with a written method of recording yourself, think of all you can think about in the topic you’re curious in, and thoughts will flow through you
This is word salad.
this is someone who doesn’t know basic words
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
how many messages are you going to create and then delete, have your timbers been shivered?
Couldn’t get GIFs to work. Don’t get your jimmies rustled.
that’s actually a valid response, and i welcome them, i extend my apologies