Article- the powers that be fear losing religous control of us

I have a lot of thoughts about this article, too much for me to coherently write down, so I'll just make a few points. 1. This is proof IMO of the "divide and conquer" strategy that the elites use to control us. They fear not being able to put people into easily definable and controllable groups. 2. This reminds me a lot of Rush Limbaugh always attacking moderates and independents, and I think he does it for the same reason. 3. It's telling that CNN would publish this, a supposedly secular even liberal organization. 4. Is it a coincidence that they are publishing this close to an election where many young people are voting for economic and not religious or "patriotic" reasons? (libertarians).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------

My Take: 'I'm spiritual but not religious' is a cop-out

By Alan Miller, Special to CNN


The increasingly common refrain that "I'm spiritual, but not religious," represents some of the most retrogressive aspects of contemporary society. The spiritual but not religious "movement" - an inappropriate term as that would suggest some collective, organizational aspect - highlights the implosion of belief that has struck at the heart of Western society.

Spiritual but not religious people are especially prevalent in the younger population in the United States, although a recent study has argued that it is not so much that people have stopped believing in God, but rather have drifted from formal institutions.

It seems that just being a part of a religious institution is nowadays associated negatively, with everything from the Religious Right to child abuse, back to the Crusades and of course with terrorism today.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Those in the spiritual-but-not-religious camp are peddling the notion that by being independent - by choosing an "individual relationship" to some concept of "higher power", energy, oneness or something-or-other - they are in a deeper, more profound relationship than one that is coerced via a large institution like a church.

That attitude fits with the message we are receiving more and more that "feeling" something somehow is more pure and perhaps, more "true” than having to fit in with the doctrine, practices, rules and observations of a formal institution that are handed down to us.

The trouble is that “spiritual but not religious” offers no positive exposition or understanding or explanation of a body of belief or set of principles of any kind.

What is it, this "spiritual" identity as such? What is practiced? What is believed?

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

The accusation is often leveled that such questions betray a rigidity of outlook, all a tad doctrinaire and rather old-fashioned.

But when the contemporary fashion is for an abundance of relativist "truths" and what appears to be in the ascendancy is how one "feels" and even governments aim to have a "happiness agenda," desperate to fill a gap at the heart of civic society, then being old-fashioned may not be such a terrible accusation.

It is within the context of today's anti-big, anti-discipline, anti-challenging climate - in combination with a therapeutic turn in which everything can be resolved through addressing my inner existential being - that the spiritual but not religious outlook has flourished.

The boom in megachurches merely reflect this sidelining of serious religious study for networking, drop-in centers and positive feelings.

Those that identify themselves, in our multi-cultural, hyphenated-American world often go for a smorgasbord of pick-and-mix choices.

A bit of Yoga here, a Zen idea there, a quote from Taoism and a Kabbalah class, a bit of Sufism and maybe some Feing Shui but not generally a reading and appreciation of The Bhagavad Gita, the Karma Sutra or the Qur'an, let alone The Old or New Testament.

So what, one may ask?

Christianity has been interwoven and seminal in Western history and culture. As Harold Bloom pointed out in his book on the King James Bible, everything from the visual arts, to Bach and our canon of literature generally would not be possible without this enormously important work.

Indeed, it was through the desire to know and read the Bible that reading became a reality for the masses - an entirely radical moment that had enormous consequences for humanity.

Moreover, the spiritual but not religious reflect the "me" generation of self-obsessed, truth-is-whatever-you-feel-it-to-be thinking, where big, historic, demanding institutions that have expectations about behavior, attitudes and observance and rules are jettisoned yet nothing positive is put in replacement.

The idea of sin has always been accompanied by the sense of what one could do to improve oneself and impact the world.

Yet the spiritual-but-not-religious outlook sees the human as one that simply wants to experience "nice things" and "feel better." There is little of transformation here and nothing that points to any kind of project that can inspire or transform us.

At the heart of the spiritual but not religious attitude is an unwillingness to take a real position. Influenced by the contribution of modern science, there is a reluctance to advocate a literalist translation of the world.

But these people will not abandon their affiliation to the sense that there is "something out there," so they do not go along with a rationalist and materialistic explanation of the world, in which humans are responsible to themselves and one another for their actions - and for the future.

Theirs is a world of fence-sitting, not-knowingess, but not-trying-ness either. Take a stand, I say. Which one is it? A belief in God and Scripture or a commitment to the Enlightenment ideal of human-based knowledge, reason and action? Being spiritual but not religious avoids having to think too hard about having to decide.

religion.blogs.cnn.com...

reply to post by CB328


First I want to say that all of the things I am going to say are just my opinions and what works for me to be a better person and be able to sleep at night! Nothing I say is to belittle or make those who do have faith feel like they are wrong........

My Take: 'I'm spiritual but not religious' is a cop-out

Why? This is nothing more than more mental programming to make those who "DON'T BELONG TO A TEAM" feel that they don't matter and they are wrong for thinking for themselves!!! I consider myself spiritual but not religious and it isn't because I never belonged to a religious organization, but because I got tired of the hypocracy involved in pretending that my religion was right while everyone elses was wrong!

Those in the spiritual-but-not-religious camp are peddling the notion that by being independent - by choosing an "individual relationship" to some concept of "higher power", energy, oneness or something-or-other - they are in a deeper, more profound relationship than one that is coerced via a large institution like a church.

Peddling????? The only people I see peddling their views on religion, are the religious zealots who feel that people who don't believe as they do are threats!

The trouble is that “spiritual but not religious” offers no positive exposition or understanding or explanation of a body of belief or set of principles of any kind.

What is it, this "spiritual" identity as such? What is practiced? What is believed?

Ah!!!! Again, the programming of everyone needs to belong to a group!! Can I or anyone else NOT have principles just because we don't belong to a HERD???? Since when does a persons beliefs have to be associated with a "recognized institution"???

At the heart of the spiritual but not religious attitude is an unwillingness to take a real position. Influenced by the contribution of modern science, there is a reluctance to advocate a literalist translation of the world.

Hmmmmm, how does this person know that me or anyone else who doesn't follow the herd mentality, doesn't have a "real" position????

OH and FOR THE GOOD ONE.........................

But these people will not abandon their affiliation to the sense that there is "something out there," so they do not go along with a rationalist and materialistic explanation of the world, in which humans are responsible to themselves and one another for their actions - and for the future.

Theirs is a world of fence-sitting, not-knowingess, but not-trying-ness either. Take a stand, I say. Which one is it? A belief in God and Scripture or a commitment to the Enlightenment ideal of human-based knowledge, reason and action? Being spiritual but not religious avoids having to think too hard about having to decide.

So people who don't follow the doctrine that others do, believe the humans are "NOT RESPONSIBLE TO THEMSELVES AND ONE ANOTHER FOR THEIR ACTIONS"??????? WOW, what an arrogant prick to make such assumptions!!

This article is pure cataloging of categorizing people into groups! All I see is a government propoganda agent, trying to make people feel bad who do not buy into the herd mentality and use their own critical thinking skills to try to do what they feel is right and not buy into the team mentality of US VERSUS THEM!

If this is CNN's example of how they support religion, then it is a very piss poor, not well thought out example!!

My last food for thought is, remember the company Hitler used to catalog people??? It was IBM for those who didn't know, and this is my whole issue with the person who wrote this blog! Something is amiss in this world when we cannot be individuals!!! NO ONE has a right to tell me how to think or what to believe in, and for someone as arrogant as this person to assume that people who won't belong to a "group think mentality" are hiding something or are perhaps dangerous to society, just makes me wonder how many time the chains are currently wrapped around our ankles.........................

Just my two cents...............

reply to post by CB328


I agree 100% with the article. The writer is simply speaking of the reality that is out there. It's spot on. It is what it is. To see it listed so baldly may be disturbing for people who fall into that category, I reckon.

reply to post by seeker1963


Ever been in a school where kids think they're rebelling? Notice how they all wind up looking and thinking alike?

reply to post by CB328

I've read this opinion-piece twice now, and it's crap. There is nothing wrong with questioning "formal institutions that are handed down to us", especially when they REFUSE TO STAY UP TO DATE with humankind's knowledge and understanding of the world.

The spiritual but not religious "movement" - an inappropriate term as that would suggest some collective, organizational aspect - highlights the implosion of belief that has struck at the heart of Western society.

WHAT?! News flash; it IS a collective, organizational aspect, that we are ALL HUMAN, and therefore, ALL CONNECTED. How in the hell is that an "implosion of belief"?

Spiritual but not religious people are especially prevalent in the younger population in the United States, although a recent study has argued that it is not so much that people have stopped believing in God, but rather have drifted from formal institutions.

WHAT?! No, it is not "especially prevalent" in the younger population. It's prevalent, PERIOD. Where do you think those "younger" members of the population got their ideas from? A book? No; from their parents, from society, from culture. Formal institutions SHOULD be questioned, and every generation has the responsibility to do so, in order to tweak and improve the status quo.

they are in a deeper, more profound relationship than one that is coerced via a large institution like a church.

Well, Mr. Mill, if you want to be "COERCED via a large institution like a church", you are free to do so. There's a church every half-mile or so in populated areas. There you have it.

Some of us (older and younger, thinking people) reject being coerced into anything, for very good and valid reasons (are you, by any chance affiliated with the "critical thinking is bad for kids" camp in Texas?)

Heaven forbid the human race should discard old, dysfunctional "institutions" that have proven over and over to be the CAUSES of discord, violence, and intolerance.

The trouble is that “spiritual but not religious” offers no positive exposition or understanding or explanation of a body of belief or set of principles of any kind.

What is it, this "spiritual" identity as such? What is practiced? What is believed?

Perhaps Mr Mill should have asked those questions and done some research before writing and submitting this drivel. "No positive exposition or understanding or explanation of a body of belief or set of principles of any kind." Excuse me?? Refusing to participate in a narrow-minded, exclusionary, arrogant and self-righteous "formal institution" indicates a willingness to embrace humanity as a collective; to look out for EVERYONE's well-being, rather than just SOME (who one happens to agree with, presumably by being "coerced.")

Indeed, it was through the desire to know and read the Bible that reading became a reality for the masses - an entirely radical moment that had enormous consequences for humanity.

It was only like that in the Holy See. It could have been ANY volume that SOME people claimed access to and then decreed themselves "they who know" (thereby becoming TPTB).... People in other cultures who never heard of the Bible were also "reading". Seems to me a good thing. THE DESIRE TO KNOW AND READ......no reason to put "the Bible" in there. What crap.

Yet the spiritual-but-not-religious outlook sees the human as one that simply wants to experience "nice things" and "feel better."

So? They also want others to experience nice and better things than INTOLERANCE.

There is little of transformation here and nothing that points to any kind of project that can inspire or transform us.

Ignorant. "Nothing that points to any kind of project"? How about this project: GET RID OF ANTIQUATED FORMAL COERCIVE INSTITUTIONS that only lead people to hatred and ignorance regarding others. That a good enough inspiration and transformation for ya?

At the heart of the spiritual but not religious attitude is an unwillingness to take a real position.

NOPE! At the heart of it is an unwillingness to be "coerced" by others for no reason other than because they say so!!. We have achieved TOLERANCE, and a blanket awareness that the dearly-held perspectives of others are every bit as valid as our own; and we must learn to cohabitate on this Earth by listening to each other!

But these people will not abandon their affiliation to the sense that there is "something out there," so they do not go along with a rationalist and materialistic explanation of the world, in which humans are responsible to themselves and one another for their actions - and for the future.

WHAT?! *speechless* WHAT?!!!!!!!!

Mr Mill clearly hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.
*sigh*
*facepalm*
*deep breath*

I call BS. This article is wrong in so many places about so many things, I don't even know where to begin. Seeker1969 and Wildtimes covered it pretty well. Making up your own mind and thinking for yourself is no cop out. Groupthink is the cop out; not to mention dangerous. My relationship with my deity (or lack thereof) is my business and no one else's.

What else can a generation or two believe after having been indoctrinated with "political correctness", "anti-bullying" and "tolerance?

"Spiritual but not religious". The article is correct but doesn't go into the reasons why. Children are growing up being taught that nobody has the "right" to tell them what to do, and the result is a generation that views the True God as a bully. These past two generations have grown up indoctrinated to political correctness, avoiding a firm opinion on any morality or ethic in fear that their hand will be slapped or labeled as a bigot or hater, and the result is two generations who view the true God as too demanding. These past two generations grew up hearing the message that intolerance equates to hatred and that tolerates equates to love, and the result is generations that view the true God as a monster.

But yet, underneath it all, people still do sense a Creator. Unfortunately, a lifetime of indoctrination by Satan has completely been effective. They now seek "spirituality" but yet remain in their sin with no chance of salvation without Christ Jesus. In Christ's time on Earth, He and His disciples couldn't speak freely for "fear of the Jews". We are now once again there. The vast majority couch their every word and every action and this impacts the beliefs that they take - "spirituality without being religious". Dead faith, ineffective faith and a sure ticket to see the son of perdition.

reply to post by WhoKnows100


Oh puh-lease. One does not need a religious organization or affiliation to have a moral or ethical stance. Given the history of most religious organizations I'd go so far as to say that affiliation with an organized religion may actually be detrimental to moral and ethical behaviour. Jihads. Sharia. Inquisitions. Crusades. Tithes. Indulgences. All organized crimes, led by organized religions that have usurped the true nature of a religious text and used it to control masses of indoctrinated, unthinking, "moral" people. That's what happens when you give up your free thought.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

"Spiritual and not Religious" has nothing to do with political correctness, secularism or atheism. It does not imply a lack of moral fiber or conviction, a sense of entitlement, or a personality of indecision. It is is about a generation that has free, instant access to a massive amount of information, and has seen horrible crimes committed in the name of one religion or another. They've simply had enough. The old order is crumbling, God help us all.

What rubbish.

While most of the western world is reaping the benefits of societies based more on secularism, the US continues to be held back. This religious fundamentalism comes at a cost, with societal problems rivalling those of third world nations. It is a fact that the level of societal dysfunction/ ill health, goes hand in hand with the level of religiosity, not the other way around as the religious delusionals would like us to believe.

The major religions such as christianity work on the principles of brainwashing cults. They should be banned from ever filling any innocent young person's head with their nonsense (cult indoctrination). The organised religions/cults/control mechanisms would disappear within a couple of generations if this were so. Perhaps then we would see many more people who can still think for themselves searching for genuine truth of our place in the universe.

Instead of denying the most basic knowledge we have, as a starting point, in favour of a rigid doctrine based on primitive fables that are, when all is said and done, very obvious lies.