The article says "As more Americans have moved away from organized religion ... they have also moved toward new forms of community building, as well as new ways to seek mental clarity and spiritual experiences."
My argument is that this is not "a new form of community building" but rather one which has been around for a long time. The article instead circles a relatively recent trend, and claims it's special. But nothing in the argument couldn't have been applied, say, 130 years ago to the then-new trend of cycling enthusiasts.
In addition, I see no reason to believe it's connected to a recent "[move] away from organized religion".
The move away from organized religion isn't recent, it's been ongoing in America for well over a century (probably since before the founding); the trend toward new forms of community building and new avenues toward spirituality and mental clarity that accompanies it is likewise not recent, but equally old.
The implication in the article was that it was a recent change:
> As more Americans have moved away from organized religion (a 2015 Pew Center study found that 23 percent of the adult population identified as “religiously unaffiliated,” up from 16 percent in 2007) they have also moved toward new forms of community building,
That's too small of a percentage to explain the large number of social clubs, including or especially clubs like Lions, Freemasons, Odd-Fellows, Elks. I say "especially" because some viewed them as pseudo-religious organizations. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odd_Fellows .) Freemasons definitely have more rituals than the gyms the article was talking about.
Finally, the US has had neither a constant nor monotonic move away from organized religion. Compare the deism and skeptical rationalism of the late 1700s with the Second Great Awakening of the early 1800s.
My argument is that this is not "a new form of community building" but rather one which has been around for a long time. The article instead circles a relatively recent trend, and claims it's special. But nothing in the argument couldn't have been applied, say, 130 years ago to the then-new trend of cycling enthusiasts.
In addition, I see no reason to believe it's connected to a recent "[move] away from organized religion".