So many of these ideas are close to my own, but so intellgently explained and organized (I don't presume to have Karen Anderson's experience or have done remotely as much research (!), but I think I share a few of her opinions). I have printed this article to discuss with friends who are interested in religion, and I hope it will definitely spark some conversations.

I myself tried to be a good Catholic in my early twenties, for someone I loved. I was raised as a Catholic, but didn't really commit to it until inspired by this person I was with at the time...I went to Church regularly (for a while I tried to go daily) and the only thing I found was the quiet of my own mind. I was so let down that I did not find God (as others seem to describe him--this buddy figure--a person they knew so well that they could predict what he felt or thought, or even how he would love or forgive). But I took the gift regular Church going gave me at the time, and I can definitely say it helped me then.

Over time and with more study, I found that in a way, "the quiet of my own mind" wqs close to what God was for me. I did think what I felt (he/she/it) didn't fit in to any religion I had read about or practiced, but who, as an idea, could be found in fragmented ideas take from all sorts of religions. I like to think that the exclusive, judgemental "Christian" religion that has emerged as of late in the media (I have found this especially true of the media in the United States)is completely unrelated to the God I know, but I can't say I think that God is the touchy feely buddy person I have heard him described as either. So I think about it often, and of course, I have no answer yet.

Anyway...I don't mean to bore anyone...so the gist post is that something really struck a chord with me in this article, and I can't wait to read Karen's book. It's high time that people started to think about religion with both their minds and their hearts, and I think that they will find something a lot more rewarding in that than they will in blindly following and subscribing to a religion, no matter what it may be. I do believe there is beauty to be found in organized religion, but we have to be aware and intelligent about how we interpret both texts and sermons, I think. And everything today has gotten so distorted...I appreciate this sane little beacon of reason.

[It's interesting that this discussion has taken 30-odd screens of replies to settle into a truly meaningful dialog, although we're hopelessly off-topic at this point.)

Arty again: Since this dilemma hasn't been successfully solved in this society, namely atheists and secularists accepting and promoting a modernized equivalent of Delphic enlightenment...

and

Walter Lippmann's nod to secularism in 1929 had become a widespread phenomenon by 1960: "When men can no longer be theists, they must, if they are civilized, be humanists." As secularism exploded across America from the 60s to the 90s, where was that humanist agenda that was supposed to replace religious values? With rare exceptions, it didn't materialize

Secularists have certainly taken a stab at it. There have been three iterations of the Humanist Manifesto, for example. [While it may seem that taking three tries indicates the difficulty of the problem of getting it right, it also reveals a flexibility to revision that the main religions cannot abide.] Unfortunately, it has not attained the critical mass that can rival the main religions.

But even if atheists and secularists came to agree upon a single text that addressed all the concerns of humans and translated such text far and wide, how could it be promoted? The established mainstream religions allow for no competition, and indeed command their followers to kill heretics, albeit in archaic references. One self-preserving mechanism built into mainstream religions is their lock on the followers, coupled with endlessly-repetitive rituals that reinforce servility. Compared to this manipulative system of indoctrination, ANY alternative doesn't stand a chance, regardless of merit.

Now you cite numerous 'selfish' (in the truest sense) examples and slogans that have encroached upon society since the 60s, and try to make a correlation to the increase in secularism. (I'm kind of surprised you didn't also bring up the controversy of Vatican II, which also occurred in that time frame.) Did atheists or secularists step up to the plate and offer a solution? How about the Buddhists? Where were they?

Yes, allow me to sidetrack your argument and substitute Buddhists for secularists. Here is a 'religion' (if one wants to expand the term) that lays down a foundation of morality and spirituality, pre-dates Christianity and Islam, and is followed by millions. On top of that, it 'preaches' non-violence to a much greater extent than the Big Three.

Your argument is that the lessening influence of Christianity (primarily) coincided with a permissive period in U.S. history. And I'll save for another day all the positive things that also came out of that period (human and woman's rights being a couple of biggies). But all the social ills, by your line of reasoning, came about because the established moral guidelines suffered a hiccup. Now wouldn't that have been an ideal time for Buddhists to step in and offer the Delphic message of moderation and self-knowledge?

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. For one thing, Buddhists are not evangelical. They also happen to have a minority following in the U.S. But foremost, their message is rather complex and deep, and the doctrine does not have the backup of disciplinary actions that the other religions love so much to hold things in check while the followers get their lives right. In other words, you must already have a certain level of moral maturity to follow Bhuddism, whereas the mainstream religions have, over the centuries, honed boot-camp discipline and cradle-to-grave servility. (Just last night I watched the 'Magdeline Sisters' and its heartbreaking documentary that chronicled how the Roman Catholic Church abused Irish girls who, in many cases, were incarcerated on nothing more than accusations.) Meanwhile, Tibet, a heavily-Buddhist country, demonstrated none of the ills you lament. So one cannot argue that Buddhism is an inferior structure of morality. But if Buddhism didn't transplant to the U.S. during those years of turmoil, what chance would atheism have had in winning people over?

You conclude by saying that fundamentalists identified this moral vacuum whereas the secularists generally ignored it. I won't argue with you there, as today's climate of religiosity makes clear. As I wrote earlier, atheists have a 'marketing' problem, and thus are always left on the sidelines of the debate. What is truly unfortunate is that one needs to promote their morality at all, but that seems to be because humans are still unruly beasts who cannot be trusted to act in accordance to the Golden Rule. And again, it's an unsavory realization to live with.