Be a part of something bigger; just not “burn in hell if you don’t” bigger.

Occasionally, like this week in The Atlantic, I will read articles about groups for the non-religious attempting to replace the feeling of community that churches have traditionally provided. Weekly gathering, light ritual and a chance to meet people you share beliefs with, only without the dogma and judgment.

Some secular communities seem to be negotiating between conflicting impulses: to separate from religion on the one hand, and to adopt the frameworks often associated with religion on the other. Rather than experimenting with something wholly new, they seem to be inviting nonreligious people to revise their relationships to the kinds of collective rituals they may have avoided—or felt excluded from—in the past.

Every time I hear about one of these groups, as a non-religious person myself, I’m always torn between those impulses listed above. Part of me wonders if that slight yearning for a larger community connection is a natural human one that I should pursue, or an outdated and unnecessary one I’ll be just fine without.

Should non-religious people look for that sense of community that churches provide in other places? Where and how might they find it?

With the religious aspect removed, what should the goals and common purpose of these type of groups be in a modern world?

Or alternately, is that local community an old notion that we can fulfill in other, equally healthy and productive ways?

More and more, the emoji form of this gesture is being interpreted as a high five.

New surveys say that religion is on the decline. According to Pew data reported on NPR, both America as a whole is trending away from devotion:

Among the findings:

• The share of Americans who say they are “absolutely certain” that God exists has dropped 8 percentage points, from 71 percent to 63 percent, since 2007, when the last comparable study was made.
• The percentage of adults who describe themselves as “religiously affiliated” has shrunk 6 points since 2007, from 83 percent to 77 percent
• The shares of the U.S. adult population who consider religion “very important” to them, pray daily and attend services at least once a month have declined between 3 and 4 percentage points over the past eight years.

But more dramatically, young people in particular are practicing at a much lower rate:

Skepticism about religion is especially evident among young people. The Pew study found that barely a quarter of “millennials” (born between 1981 and 1996) attend church services on a weekly basis, compared with more than half of U.S. adults born before 1946. Only about 4 in 10 millennials say religion is important in their lives, compared with more than half of those who are older, including two-thirds of those born before 1946.

While we can debate all kinds of fun things around this topic, like what’s causing it, if the trend is permanent or reversible, the juiciest might be what it means for the country.

How will a less-religious citizenry affect life in America, both for good and bad reasons?

Does that mean a net positive or negative for society as a whole?

Is this a trend worth encouraging or preventing?

If religion is personal, should it even matter?

Sometimes doing good is about as cringe-inducing as being wrong.

Like most human beings with an ounce of self-awareness, I generally think of myself as a good person. Not the best, not a saint, but mostly good. I suspect even people who are not that great on paper must at least be able to justify to themselves that they are not, on balance, bad.

Also like most human beings, there are other human beings that drive me nuts, who I wish would fundamentally change their behavior or beliefs because in my mind, they are hurting the world and dragging us down with them.

(An example, from my point of view: those who would defund Planned Parenthood, militant gun-rights advocates unwilling to discuss regulation or reduction, anyone who still behaves in actively racist or homophobic ways. An example from the opposite point of view: people like me who don’t listen to the Bible or Constitution and want to ruin what’s great about America.)

If both parties think they are generally right, and generally good, then someone must be wrong. They can’t both be equally right. So instead of taking sides, maybe some objectivity can come into play.

Imagine Person X believes strongly in Issue X, where Issue X is something you disagree with strongly. (pro-life vs pro-choice, gun rights vs gun control, marriage equality vs tradition, etc).

You think you are on the right side of Issue X, obviously, and by living in the world not being wrong, not perpetuating ignorance, and voting your beliefs every two or four years, you are doing good. Maybe sometimes you fill out an online petition or donate money.

Person X is, in your mind, totally on the wrong side of history here. They are actively hurting the world with their ignorance. But they do volunteer work every week for the community (through church, school, etc) that helps actual people on a regular basis, and are overall very friendly and generous. Just wrong.

Who is the better person?

Who is helping/hurting society more in the big picture?