I think this is a valid criticism, but seeing as that we've replaced church with ... nothing, I still find it difficult to imagine that my vision of society would be worse than the one we're living in.
The truth is that despite decades of trying, the secular regular get-together groups for people without any unifying interests or socioeconomic status have utterly failed.
For most people, church is the only place they're going to be exposed to others that may share absolutely no interests with them and be of widely different socioeconomic status and yet still be acquaintances.
Our neighborhoods are segregated by socioeconomic class and increasingly, by profession. Our 'clubs' are non-existent, and where they do exist, cater to special interests and hobbies.
We need something that works, not something that is perfect. I still maintain that church, temple, mosque, etc is the best thing.
Church attendance isn't about "unifying interest" or socioeconomic status? The unified interest is obvious: salvation through christ, and churches tend to serve a relatively small community which is likely to be of very similar socioeconomic status. That's not even to mention the abject racism that led to black christians having to set up their own churches (which white people often subsequently burnt down).
The olden days where "everybody" went to church every week still had tons of social problems.
>the secular regular get-together groups for people without any unifying interests or socioeconomic status
Unfortunately, I don't think what you are describing ever existed. Every "get-together-group" I can think of has some kind of common interest, even if its something as simple as drinking coffee or reading books. I think your attachment to the church has a lot more to do with your emotions than thinking rationally. The way I see it, the cat is out of the bag with regards to organized religion. It is well known that there have been many corrupt religious organizations and heinous acts committed in the name of religion. To make the argument "The economy was shut down last year and there is a massive issue in our society with depression and loneliness as a result, but it's what those liberals deserve for leaving the church!" is asinine.
>Church is the only place they're going to be exposed to others that may share absolutely no interests with them
Are the bible, history of the church, the nature of reality, and developing a community not shared interests? Also, was the point of the article to only talk to people without shared interests? Isn't one of the first things you do when you get to know someone is try to find a common interest?
> Io make the argument "The economy was shut down last year and there is a massive issue in our society with depression and loneliness as a result, but it's what those liberals deserve for leaving the church!" is asinine.
What? I never made that argument. You're putting words in my mouth and calling me asinine. Please actually respond to what I wrote.
> Are the bible, history of the church, the nature of reality, and developing a community not shared interests?
Nature of reality is more than an interest in my view. If you can't agree on reality, then no amount of shared interests can cover that gap.
As for the bible, history of the church, and community development... I guess those could be shared interests. But if you've ever met many Catholics, few are interested in the bible, even fewer in church history. We do like drinking and eating together though, so we got that! But other than super uppity social clubs, I've never really seen a dinner group achieve the success of the church, so i'm forced to conclude the religious aspect has something to do with it.
>We do like drinking and eating together though, so we got that!
Regardless of the details of your argument, or whether my paraphrase of your original comment was accurate, it is an infeasible solution to suggest that everyone needs to go to church in order to address the loneliness, social anxiety, and tribalism. Your comments all have a condescending, passive aggressive tone and you are trying all kinds of dirty tactics to manipulate the debate to your favor. I doubt you have any real interest in more people going to church. Based on your comments, your goal is to argue and put blame on others. I'm not sure if anyone in this thread has really learned from this discussion (flamewar) and I regret engaging in it.
This is a more apt description of your own comments, not least because you misattributed a completely fictitious "argument" to the GP. Perhaps your anger is clouding your ability to understand the GP's comments, which have been very respectful.
The truth is that despite decades of trying, the secular regular get-together groups for people without any unifying interests or socioeconomic status have utterly failed.
For most people, church is the only place they're going to be exposed to others that may share absolutely no interests with them and be of widely different socioeconomic status and yet still be acquaintances.
Our neighborhoods are segregated by socioeconomic class and increasingly, by profession. Our 'clubs' are non-existent, and where they do exist, cater to special interests and hobbies.
We need something that works, not something that is perfect. I still maintain that church, temple, mosque, etc is the best thing.