Not normally something I’d click on (but this is the value of actual printed magazines, people!), this article on burgeoning communities of strict Catholics in The Atlantic contained this killer paragraph:

In some ways, these groups are merely practicing an extreme form of the insularity many Americans have already embraced. Deep-blue enclaves such as Berkeley and brownstone Brooklyn are similarly homogenous, sought out by people with a certain set of values and hopes for their children. But the rise of more radical self-sorting poses a challenge to America’s experiment in multicultural democracy, enshrined in the motto e pluribus unum—“Out of many, one.” The dream of a diverse society is replaced with one in which different groups coexist, but mostly try to stay out of one another’s way. The ongoing experiment in St. Marys suggests what might be gained by such a realignment—and what might be lost.

Hard when the shoe’s on the other foot, this one… but maybe neither is wrong and we just have to re-think what we really want out of life, community, social mobility, democracy, etc.

Is it inherently bad to want to live somewhere among people who share our values?

Is there a difference based on what those values are?

What do we lose if we all withdraw into enclaves like this? Or is it inevitable and we have to make peace with it?

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me wonders if that slight yearning for a larger community connection is a natural human one that I should pursue, or an outdated and unnecessary one I’ll be just fine without.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?

Keep all the great stuff, just make Jesus optional.

It’s probably fair to say that most of what we do around Christmas at this point is only tangentially related to the birth of Christ. For most people, the 25th does not include a trip to church. In the home or lawn decor departments of your local big box stores, more light-up Santas and snowmen are sold than light-up nativity scenes. When people say, “the holidays”, they refer more to a season of giving, celebration with friends and family, and various ways to indulge in food and drink more than they mean to conjure up the arrival of a baby in a manger.

Why not make the break a clean one? Rename and reschedule and rebrand, whatever it takes to put the “War on Christmas” meme to bed. Let the Christians have their day to celebrate what’s important to them (thanks are due to them for getting these wonderful traditions kicked off!), but let’s move on as a culture. Make this thing bigger and more inclusive. Call it Winter Week (everyone gets more time off!), or Giving Day (there are still presents, and a general feeling of generosity in the air, we should definitely keep those things), but this way it’s not one group enforcing their values on the rest; it’s a fully inclusive, mutually agreed-upon, totally positive but non-religious event for all to enjoy.

Wouldn’t this be better for everyone, especially those not raised or currently part of a particular faith? Especially for those in other faiths who feel left out of Christmas?

Wouldn’t focusing on the giving and togetherness parts actually reinforce what we really love about the holidays?

Do we keep Santa or can we come up with even better icons of this new holiday?

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?

“I will not waiver in my belief: that my beliefs matter than the beliefs of others.”

The New Yorker puts a cap on the Kim Davis affair with a simple question-slash-concern for what this whole messy business means going forward:

The controversy in Davis’s county may now end without another confrontation (or incarceration). If the marriages are valid with her deputies’ signature, then that will probably defuse the situation. But the principle is still a troubling one—that religious belief carries with it a shopping-cart approach to citizenship. You can choose some obligations but not others, while the legislators and judges figure out which ones are really mandatory. It’s a recipe for further division in an already polarized society—and the prospects, in Kentucky and elsewhere, are for more conflict, not less.

My personal opinion aside (if you must know, I believe the whole thing could have been easily avoided without legal action, but the fuss did bring out an awful lot of idiocy, generally), the bigger issues do provide room for debate.

Whether you agree or not with Kim Davis in this instance, should people have the right to be excused from performing specific job tasks because of personal belief?

Is that answer the same when they are holding elected office?

In the balance between a personal freedom issue and a separation of church and state issue, which takes priority?