Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

I'm not American, but from what I've gathered, the US was once a rather religious and conservative society...in which the Christian religion played a major role in society without even holding absolute political power. ''Christian values'' seemed to have prevailed not just in Christian homes, but even in media and society overall. ________________________________________The family unit was strong and comprised of Father-Mother-Kids, and nothing else. Marriages were taken seriously and were defined as being between man and woman only. Promiscuity was generally frowned upon, not glorified as an ideal. Prayer was in schools, and the mocking of religious figures was not hailed as ''free speech''. Homosexuals kept a low profile and weren't parading about. Yet, all that changed, to the exact opposite in just a few decades. How did it happen? _________________________________________ My question is who or what transformed a once conservative culture into accepting ideas and values which were the exact opposite of what was upheld for so long? Exactly who decided that the word ''progressiveness'' has to mean accepting ideas and practices that were once seen as abhorrent? I have bolded this question as it is particularly important to the issues raised in this post. Many people tend to approach these issues by simply saying ''accepting X or Y is good because its a progressive idea'', without stopping to investigate whether or not ''progressive'' even applies to X or Y. Its opinion, followed by parroting of ideas and words. ________________________________________The masses tendency to blindly accept whatever gets defined as ''progressive'' points to extremely efficient social programming methods in place. If the collapse of religion and age-old traditional values did not occur by accident, then it would have had to have been achieved by mysterious forces working behind the scenes to program the masses into accepting strange new ideas. If so, then who or what is it? And what do they stand to gain from rewriting social norms and diminishing religion? Could it all be a decoy to take attention away from somthing far more sinister? There is definitely a conspiracy in all of this. Discuss in your own words and keep it civil.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Exactly who decided that the word ''progressiveness'' has to mean accepting ideas and practices that were once seen as abhorrent?

Don't think progressiveness has anything to do with this. Maybe people just accepted some of Christ's ideas such as "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Just because people may or may not believe in certain faiths doesn't mean they don't recognize a good idea when they hear it.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

How did it happen?

People increasingly feeling free to think outside the chains of religious dogma. That's how it happened. Thinking people doing what their brains crave.

he masses tendency to blindly accept whatever gets defined as ''progressive'' points to extremely efficient social programming methods in place.

That could easily, and quite rightly, be reworded as such:

the masses tendency to blindly accept whatever gets defined as [their religion] points to extremely efficient social programming methods in place.

To add to the OP, one way this mysterious ''programming'' has manifested in would be the general mass outrage that is voiced against countries that have strict laws against homosexuality, for example Iran and Russia. You wouldn't want the Iranians telling you how to live, so on what basis can you object to how Iranians run their country? And consider the recent demonizing of Vladmir Putin and calls to boycott the Sochi games because of Russian laws to curb homosexuality. Again the Russians are only running their country by their laws that they deem fit for their society. So why do people start parroting injected ''values'' onto others.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


While I don't agree with the idea, the prevailing theory (which I'm sure will be parroted here in other words) is that what you have described is social progress, and a bi-product of social evolution. What this generic explanation will fail to address however, is an important issue which you have pointed out (and will likely be glossed over): That this is in fact a result of social programming.

It's undeniable that these radical changes in the direction of a nations moral compass are intentional, with a very clear agenda at work. We can see this no where more clearly than in television programming, which in the U.S, has gone from extremely conservative and intolerant of things considered "immoral" via the 50's, to a circus of debauchery where the next level of moral depravity is sought in order to transfix the viewers attention. It's almost like viewing a train wreck you can't take your eyes off of despite the horrors you are witnessing (and that is precisely the point, and the mechanism by which it works).

My own opinion is that the moral degradation of western society (and systematic dismantling of both the family unit and it's values) is a coldly calculated effort by certain wealthy and powerful individuals to not only line their own pockets, but to fall in line with an agenda that they collectively serve. The goal is relativism, which on the surface sounds like a reasonable and even wonderful idea.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

How did it happen?

People increasingly feeling free to think outside the chains of religious dogma. That's how it happened. Thinking people doing what their brains crave.

Increasingly? America has a majority Christian population. What happened to the ''voice of the majority''? Or did Christians forget how to... Christianity? How exactly did the minority get the power to dictate terms to the majority?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

So why do people start parroting injected ''values'' onto others.

So in other words we shouldn't have any thoughts on the matter? No judgement. No opinion at all.

How about rape victims being punished for being raped?

Can we not interject our opinions on that?

There is a difference between opposition through collaboration of ideas and violence. I see no reason people shouldn't "interject" their thoughts on these moral matters. In fact, I think it's prudent they do.

Yes that's progress. A scary word to some I guess.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Increasingly? America has a majority Christian population. What happened to the ''voice of the majority''? Or did Christians forget how to... Christianity? How exactly did the minority get the power to dictate terms to the majority?

That's news to me. It still is a Christian majority. The minority clearly doesn't have this overwhelming power. Explain how they do. What we are seeing is more and more people just open to discussing the merits of religion. Questioning is deadly to the faith. I wonder why that is

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Increasingly? America has a majority Christian population. What happened to the ''voice of the majority''? Or did Christians forget how to... Christianity? How exactly did the minority get the power to dictate terms to the majority?

That's news to me. It still is a Christian majority. The minority clearly doesn't have this overwhelming power. Explain how they do. What we are seeing is more and more people just open to discussing the merits of religion. Questioning is deadly to the faith. I wonder why that is

I think it's a valid point that the OP has raised, and an interesting rebuttal on your end. It could be argued that the U.S still holds a Christian majority, but I think those numbers are likely skewed by baby boomers and older generations. Will we still claim the U.S as a nation that holds a Christian majority in 40 years? Personally, I don't believe so.

As a youngish person (33), I have noticed a very distinct lack of Christians among my own peers (and even a tendency to mock Christians and their beliefs or values). This seems even more so personified in generations younger than my own. Christianity is on the decline in the U.S imo, and I am sure there are millions of people who will celebrate that fact. I've even seen people here suggest it would be better if Christians were violently wiped out altogether so that the rest of humanity can move on.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Count me among those that celebrate the decline.

I do not advocate any violent opposition.

Faith for the most part is belief absent of reason. Hence the saying 'take a leap of faith'. Leap into the unknown with your belief. Fine But understand that entails a lack of reasoning. So it's no surprise that questioning the faith, which is exactly how these changes were brought about by the way, is so opposed by the faithful.

All this really amounts to is that more and more people are thinking outside religion and when they do they are dropping the faith. Dropping those values and adopting more modern secular ones.

Yes you and other Christians here would no doubt argue that a bad thing. Those on the outside won't.

However, can we not at least come to an agreement that questioning is a good thing worthy of respect?

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

However, can we not at least come to an agreement that questioning is a good thing worthy of respect?

Absolutely, we can.

@DeadSeraph..... While I don't agree with the idea, the prevailing theory (which I'm sure will be parroted here in other words) is that what you have described is social progress, and a bi-product of social evolution. What this generic explanation will fail to address however, is an important issue which you have pointed out (and will likely be glossed over): That this is in fact a result of social programming.

Yes. People blindly claim they accept now what their grandparents rejected because of some sort of ''social evolution'' that took place. What they don't get is that they are the only ones who think so. They will not stop to ask how exactly...or rather, who determined that ''progress'' or ''social evolution'' was to necessarily lead to the acceptance of what was shunned before? The tolerance of degenerate behaviour isn't the result of evolution or progression or whatever rosy explanation they come up with. Rather it is the consequence of the removal of something that kept degenerate behaviour at bay. That something is rooted in the values that came from the once dominant religion.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Then I would say respect that religious minds are changed via that questioning.

If the religious are upset by the decline of religious followers and subsequently religious values in society, join in ranks and muster a strong compelling argument to bring them back.

Honestly. I am strongly anti-religious yet I fully completely utterly support the notion of the religious presenting their best case. I don't want you wiped out. I want everyone to have a say. May the best argument win.

It's really an easy answer.
Technology.
Technology has mostly caused the declination of religion. Society has much more information at their fingertips; we're much more informed now through our online connections and sharing of information than we were when our country was more "religious."

Not only is it available, but It's become so that the reading of this information can't be controlled, therefore It's inevitably "allowed."

Book burnings anyone? 1950s-ish anyone? No?

reply to post by unb3k44n7

I completely agree. It's a matter of communication and that is of course paralleled with advances in technology related to communication.

Not sure if you're arguing whether that's a good thing. Myself I only see positive in the global collaboration of ideas.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Then I would say respect that religious minds are changed via that questioning.

If the religious are upset by the decline of religious followers and subsequently religious values in society, join in ranks and muster a strong compelling argument to bring them back.

Honestly. I am strongly anti-religious yet I fully completely utterly support the notion of the religious presenting their best case. I don't want you wiped out. I want everyone to have a say. May the best argument win.

edit on 12-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure if I had made my last point concise enough. You claim that religious minds are changing. I am saying that they are not, and are simply in decline.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


How do you reconcile that with the fact the majority of atheists were once religious?

It seems to me that the OP projects a "perfect past" akin to 1950s family television shows in which everything and everyone was uniform, homogeneous, and idyllic if not utopian. That perfect past was a product of the hegemony of the Christian religion, in which men were men, women were women, and all variations (or as the OP would have it, deviations) from this ideal had the dignity to hide themselves away from view. This perfection has decayed, in the OP vision, into our "degenerate" society of today.
How, the OP wonders, did this happen?

My comment would be that at no time did the paradisaical wonderland truly exist. The US was balanced on a knife's edge for the first 80 years or so of its existence, with the competing values of North and South, freedom and slavery, centralized government versus satrapy, etc. This tension culminated in the Civil War, and the violence of that schism took another hundred years to truly sort out (IF it has ever really been sorted out.) Women, blacks, ethnic minorities, workers, homosexuals had no voice and were not granted any sort of equal standing until they acted to take that voice on their own and establish their equal standing in society. My argument would be that the idyllic white straight Anglo-Saxon Protestant male hegemony has been broken, and many who agree with those "values" morn it's passing.

IN my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

I'm not American, but from what I've gathered, the US was once a rather religious and conservative society...in which the Christian religion played a major role in society without even holding absolute political power. ''Christian values'' seemed to have prevailed not just in Christian homes, but even in media and society overall.

Yep, that was actually before the declaration of independence.

If the collapse of religion and age-old traditional values did not occur by accident, then it would have had to have been achieved by mysterious forces working behind the scenes to program the masses into accepting strange new ideas. If so, then who or what is it? And what do they stand to gain from rewriting social norms and diminishing religion? Could it all be a decoy to take attention away from somthing far more sinister? There is definitely a conspiracy in all of this. Discuss in your own words and keep it civil.

There was a conspiracy. It turned into a revolution. Didn't King George want the heads of Congress on pikes?

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

How do you reconcile that with the fact the majority of atheists were once religious?

No need to reconcile anything since that is not a fact.