For the first time in its history, the United States does not have a Protestant majority, according to a new study.

The rising numbers of Americans with no religious affiliation is on the rise, which led to the percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. reaching a new low of 48 per cent.

This is the first time that Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has reported with certainty that the number has fallen below 50 per cent.

The drop has long been anticipated and comes at a time when there no Protestants are on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Republicans have their first presidential ticket with no Protestant nominees.

Among the reasons for the change are the growth in nondenominational Christians who can no longer be categorised as Protestant, and a spike in the number of American adults who say they have no religion.

The Pew study, released Tuesday, found that about 20 per cent of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15 per cent in the last five years.

Scholars have long debated whether people who say they no longer belong to a religious group should be considered secular.

While the category as defined by Pew researchers includes atheists, it also encompasses majorities of people who say they believe in God, and a notable minority who pray daily or consider themselves ‘spiritual’ but not ‘religious’.

Still, Pew found overall that most of the unaffiliated aren’t actively seeking another religious home, indicating that their ties with organised religion are permanently broken.
Growth among those with no religion has been a major preoccupation of American faith leaders who worry that the United States, a highly religious country, would go the way of Western Europe, where church attendance has plummeted.

Pope Benedict XVI has partly dedicated his pontificate to combating secularism in the West. This week in Rome, he is convening a three-week synod, or assembly, of bishops from around the world aimed at bringing back Roman Catholics who have left the church.

The trend also has political implications.

American voters who describe themselves as having no religion vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

Pew found Americans with no religion support abortion rights and gay marriage at a much higher-rate than the U.S. public at large.

These ‘nones’ are an increasing segment of voters who are registered as Democrats or lean toward the party, growing from 17 per cent to 24 per cent over the last five years.

The religiously unaffiliated are becoming as important a constituency to Democrats as evangelicals are to Republicans, Pew said.

The Pew analysis, conducted with PBS’ ‘Religion & Ethics Newsweekly’, is based on several surveys, including a poll of nearly 3,000 adults conducted June 28-July 9, 2012.

The finding on the Protestant majority is based on responses from a larger group of more than 17,000 people and has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.9 percentage points, Pew researchers said.

Pew said it had also previously calculated a drop slightly below 50 percent among U.S. Protestants, but those findings had fallen within the margin of error.

The General Social Survey, which is conducted by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center, reported for 2010 that the percentage of U.S. Protestants was around 46.7 percent.

Researchers have been struggling for decades to find a definitive reason for the steady rise in those with no religion.’

The spread of secularism in Western Europe was often viewed as a byproduct of growing wealth in the region. Yet among industrialised nations, the United States stood out for its deep religiosity in the face of increasing wealth.

Now, religion scholars say the decreased religiosity in the United States could reflect a change in how Americans describe their religious lives.
In 2007, 60 percent of people who said they seldom or never attend religious services still identified themselves as part of a particular religious tradition. In 2012, that statistic fell to 50 percent, according to the Pew report.

‘Part of what’s going on here is that the stigma associated with not being part of any religious community has declined,’ said John Green, a specialist in religion and politics at the University of Akron, who advised Pew on the survey.

‘In some parts of the country, there is still a stigma. But overall, it’s not the way it used to be.’

The Pew study has found the growth in unaffiliated Americans spans a broad range of groups: men and women, college graduates and those without a college degree, people earning less than $30,000 annually and those earning $75,000 or more.

However, along ethnic lines, the largest jump in ‘nones’ has been among whites. One-fifth of whites describe themselves as having no religion.

More growth in ‘nones’ is expected. One-third of adults under age 30 have no religious affiliation, compared to nine  per cent of people 65 and older.

Pew researchers wrote that ‘young adults today are much more likely to be unaffiliated than previous generations were at a similar stage in their lives’, and aren’t expected to become more religiously active as they age.


Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Puggg

    Religion per se or the lack thereof doesn’t really bother me.  Race is the crucial factor.

    I would live among white atheists than black Christians any day.

    • The white atheists I know wouldn’t agree w/ you…. keep the faith.

      • anonymous_amren

        As a white atheist, I’d much rather live among white Christians than black atheists. Fortunately,  I’m not an American, so I don’t have to put up with either bunch of empathy-lacking intelligence-challenged crazies. But if I had to choose one, I’d choose the white Christians.

        • Seek

          Black atheists — the category is a pretty short list. 

  • ed91

    not to mention the africans and muslims they are pumping into our country as fast as they can.

    Lutherans should begin to question themselves any time now.

  • Francis Galton

    Okay, let me say off the bat that AmRen has the right to run any articles it wants to on its site.
    Having said that, I’m not quite sure what this article has to do with White interests, White race replacement, or White genocide.  It seems like the connections (if any) are tenuous at best.  Is the presence of this article on AmRen implying that America is losing its historic character and culture?  Maybe somehow implying that there are a lot more Hispanics–who happen to be mostly Catholic–than there were in the past?

    Being irreligious or an atheist is NOT incompatible with advancing White interests.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that secularism/atheism is a quintessentially White phenomenon (then again, so is racial self-hatred, so maybe that’s not such a good good point?!).

    Any ideas?

    • I believe atheism is a symptom of White over thinking/ over-rationalizing. We tend to do that.

      • anonymous_amren

        There’s no such thing as “over thinking” or “over-rationalizing”. Thinking and rationality are good, and we could all do with a huge dose more of both. The same can’t be said for the wave of hispanic catholic immigration or Islamism though.

      • Believe it or not, Deism is very compatible with true Atheism. I’ve been an Atheist for practically my whole life, and I don’t think I have ever met an Atheist who “didn’t believe in anything.” The Atheist, like the Deist, is concerned with the natural order[Nature] and the ability/freedom to use reason and logic to come to our own conclusions. These conclusions and personal convictions are not to be imposed as rule or law in order to keep other free-thinking, rational individuals from using their own reasoning to come to their own conclusions.

        This freedom of thought and reason is what separates many other religions and philosophies from the Abrahamic religions.

      • Invictus_1

        Atheism is the result of astute critical thinking.  Lack of critical thinking is the problem.  If more whites mastered logic and faced the world courageously, much  nonsense negatively affecting us would be shed from our shoulders, freeing us to act to our absolute benefit.

        • I am a critical thinker. I have a degree in a hard science (Geology to be exact) yet I still believe in God. Because I understand statistics as well and the odds of not only life forming on Earth but many extinction events that wiped out 99% of life on Earth and yet not only does life return but completely new species that could not possibly have evolved from anything in the pre-extinction period. Not only does life return but always as a higher order. Life alone can form my belief. There are other things as well, but I’m not writing a book here. In conclusion, you must agree that most atheist you run into are White.

          • My car has 30,000 or so parts.  Notwithstanding accidents, and assuming regular maintenance, it can expected to have a 20-25 year life.

            I have 10-100 trillion or so parts (cells).  Notwithstanding accidents or foul play, and assuming regular care and self-maintenance, I can expect to live 70-75 years based on family history.

            We all concede the former is a result of intelligent design.  The educated consensus view of the latter is that it’s purely a cosmic accident.

          • Tomasz R.

             Evolution is not a random process because it includes natural selection, by which more fit organism survive. So your life expectancy is a result of such promotion of fitness.  Cars low durability may be a result of intelligently designing a planned obsolescence into them.

            Considering cars vs. humans – cars are produced in factories, which is the way intelligently designed objects originate. Animals like us have to have reproductive organs, which are a major problem. Consider fighting, eg. bison-wolf interaction. A bull bison is quite robust, could withstand attack of wolves, and defend itself, had it not had reproductive organs (eg. it was produced in a factory, like a tank). Wolves attack reproductive organs of a bison, and let it bleed to death.

            Cars are made from mechanically strong materials, selected for the tasks – metals etc., while we are made from minerals, that just are the most popular in the Universe.  (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon).

            Also consider the fact, that even for the designed things there’s no evidence for any sufficiently complex system that has a single designer. Every complex system (civilization, science, free market etc.) originated via a distributed process, that was spread over time and spread geographically, and consisted of multiple interacting actors and factors (none of them capable of doing the whole system by itself) doing a tiny part of building the system in a way that resulted in synergy. These were not poofed into existance by a single super-powerful entity. There is not even a central coordinator for a free market, civilization or science! It’s a communist way of thinking that things won’t work without a centralized power.

          • One element of my analogy that I knew all along but purposely held back on, which might swing the needle back to your direction is time.

            The automobile industry is not even a century and a half old, on one little planet circling a depressingly average star in the galactic suburbs of just your average run of the mill barred spiral galaxy which itself is part of an insignificant group gravitationally bound to one of many galactic superclusters. Meanwhile, the universe is some 14 billion years old. For the time frame and as expansive as is the universe and the available materials, we could very well be a cosmic accident.

            There’s an old saying: If you give a million monkeys a million typerwriters and a million years, you get Shakespeare. What that means is given enough time and resources, monkeys could accidentally produce Hamlet. Likewise, give all the material in the universe 14 billion years, and it is possible you could get Homo Sapiens on pure accident.

          • Tomasz R.

            Isn’t such counting of probabilities bogus? To count probability of one state in many you need to know the set of possible states (eg. to count probability of head you need to know the set of all possible states is head and tails, and that they are equally likely). From where do you get a set of all possible configurations for life in the universe, set of all possible configurations of the universe? From where do you know for sure how many unverses are there?

            Is your question even useful – counting probabilities for past events, that alredy happened? Does it even make sense – counting probability for life on the Earth rather than answering a question of probability of life “somwhere in the universe”, similar to probability of someone winning the lottery vs. person X wining the lottery?

        • Amy

          Christ often said  ” He who has ears, let him hear.”
          His statement clearly denotes the hard to accept fact that some are simply not capable of hearing. 

          He also said  “they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.”

          Again, He clearly teaches that there are among us a people incapable of hearing and also sight.

          In the past, I became angry and defensive at comments such as the above made by Invictus, claims that a mental deficient (and in the case above, character quality deficiencies such as bravery as well) cause intellectually inferior men to adhere to Christianity.  After much reflection I realized that conclusion is the only one a man can come to if he is literally unable to hear, see, or even perceive what the Christian does. And because they can not, it is only logical they would come to such a conclusion, that we did not use (or are incapable of doing so) logic and reason to come to accept Christ, but rather did so in some form of ignorant or illogical fashion.

    • bluffcreek1967

      As I see it, secularism/atheism is not a White phenomenon per se. Throughout history, in fact, Whites have been deeply religious and spiritual. Instead, it’s the result of liberalism or social-Marxism taking deep root in the minds of Whites who have already abandoned God in their thinking. Secularism/atheism on the part of Whites most often, though perhaps not always, leads to racial self-hated and the exalting of other cultures and races. And isn’t this exactly what we see in our young people today? Isn’t this the prevailing mindset of our elite, ‘educated’ Whites – all of whom have been trained in our liberal/Marxist universities?

      • anonymous_amren

         You’re wrong. Atheism and Secularism are very obviously a white phenomenon, and predate Christianity by a long way. NE Asians have a similar, but slightly different, phenomenon due to their even higher intelligence, but without the free-thinking part and without wanting to rock the boat.
        Superstitious idiocy and belief in Gods, magic, or unthinking worship and obedience, are third-world traits, and we will see a lot more of them in our future. At which point you will appreciate atheists standing up to them.

      • Net_Drifter

        “elite, ‘educated’ Whites”
        Overeducated and denatured. Not only educated.

    • Invictus_1

       Older than Christianity in the West is the older school of philosophy.  When I first took a class in college in 1971 it was listed as “natural religion.”  However, what it was a survey divided into several parts, the early Greek school, the data of ethics, and the chief European philosophers of note.  Many of them of course, were the famous Germans and a Scot or two.  It is the inquiring, curious mind that has driven Western man forward into  better circumstances and allowed for civilization.  Traditional philosophers were the first scientists and so the letters PhD first accompanied the achievement of a recognized teacher of philosophy (for the last of the Greek philosophers, search Hypatia).  Some Christians still revile the idea of philosophy, mainly because it supports within it the notions of both agnosticism and atheism or else they try to own it, as they formerly sought and owned land, governments, etc., and even history.  And the struggle isn’t over yet.  But it is a mistake as some point out here for any whites who care about the white, European destiny to allow these distinctions to prevent all whites from recognizing what they most have in common.  Allowing sectarian infighting to go on is purely suicidal.

      • lilo

        Hypatia–she was murdered by male christian religious nuts because she was an educated woman–that is fact. And yet!!! most of you on Amren are still against independent women. I’m speechless.

        • Please back that assertion up.  The kind of comments that are “against independent women” just for its own sake are also full of nasty language and misogyny that we have to delete or reject them.  If you are speaking of the lovely and gracious Miss Coulter, well, she’s a grown adult promulgating an opinion in a (for now) free country.  Her opinions are as fair game as anyone else’s for support or critique.

  • Xerxes

    This srticle is misleading. Many Evangelicals don’t call themseves Protestant although they really are Protestant.

  • B

    I’m an atheist and a fiscal conservative. I wish I had a party to feel good about and vote for but I have to say that the Christian fundamentalist ideology so associated with the GOP with it’s intolerant positions on abortion rights, gay marriage, stem cell research and assisted suicide not to mention they have absolutely no regard for the separation of church and state and are constantly trying to encroach their religious dogma where it has no place being, leaves me unable to vote republican even though I am very much against so much of the socialist agenda of the democrats.

    • Most of those social concerns, the Republican Party would dump in a heartbeat if it could, except that those who are concerned with them are big time foot soldiers for Republican candidates.  Even to the extent the Republican Party embraces them, it’s only to fake its way into the hearts of voters who are concerned with them.  Legalized aborticide is never going anywhere, because rich Republican men who live in The Hamptons want it because their wives want it.

    • anonymous_amren

      Stem cell research is important. And aborting the lowest class of black people is important. But suicide is a bad thing (and is incompatible with secularism) and should obviously be banned, and gay “marriage” is clearly quite different from normal marriage and should be categorised differently in law.

      I’m not a conservative though.

      • B

        If one has a terminal illness that will cause a slow, painful and very costly death, one should have the right to end their life on their own terms with the assistance of a professional. This humane common sense option is not incompatible with anything but religious dogma. Why should one person’s aversion to something prevent others from doing it?

      • Invictus_1

        Ultimately, you cannot stop someone from committing suicide.  I’m glad I live in a state that has “right to die” legislation in place.  All such “bans” do is force people to do horrible things to themselves in order to bring a halt to their own suffering.  I would agree however, that mental health services and other types of help to prevent suicide is a good thing and a sign of a civilization with compassion.  I just happen to be against the idea that others can ultimately forbid another from determining their own end.

        Historically ( in Gibbon’s “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”), the early “Church” (this was before the 4th century) had a problem with converts committing  mass suicides by rushing Roman garrisons.  They believed that the end was immanent in those days and took the idea of converting, giving away their riches to the nearest “church” and then seeking death was better than going on living.  The problem was so great that it caused at least one remark (surviving) remark in early church communications demanding the end to such practices and even the suggestion that those feeling this necessary go off into the wilderness to jump off a cliff rather than continue to stir the Roman state and greater populace up against them.  I haven’t found the moment yet, but I greatly suspect that the forbidding of suicide by Church doctrine was the result of this problem.  It was later further rationalized, but according to the NT story, Jesus committed suicide.

      • lilo

        Gay marriage, if one is gay, IS normal. How would you like to be forced to marry a same-sex person? Well, pal, that’s how gays  feel when told that if they want to marry, it must be to a member of the opposite sex. How dare you try to legislate love only for your kind.  The thing is…marriage equality is  a fait accompli. And you  know it.

        • How would you like to be forced to marry a same-sex person?

          Nobody is forcing anyone to marry anyone.  Marriage is a special kind of contract, and like all contracts, it is only valid if, among other things, both parties genuinely and without coercion assented.

          Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.

          • anarchyst

            If homosexuals want to form a “contractual relationship” they are free to do so.  “Powers of attorney” can be conveyed on both parties.  That being said . . .
            DON’T CALL IT “MARRIAGE”!

          • B

            Why are you so insecure about the word marriage? Sort of a foolish thing to get worked up over don’t you think?

  • From White perspective, it’s old news. Don’t forget hat Blacks constitute 13% of the population & are ca. 90% Protestant. So, among Whites- Protestants ceased to be a majority at lest 5-10 yrs ago.

  • jedsrael

    When the Feminist anchor at MSNBC reported this news, she said, with great pride and urgency, that those with no religious affiliation are “more likely to support gay marriage and abortion”.

    She’s obviously behind on her research.

    In addition to Embracing Diversity and Growing Through Interfaith Partnerships, mainline formerly-Christian denominations fully support Gay Marriage and Aborting White Babies on Demand”.

  • Net_Drifter

    I have no religious affiliation whatsoever. I can’t stand the ideal of “turn the other cheek”, among other things not as relevant here. 

    I suppose I would have to say I’m agnostic. But, I can’t begin to support things like gay marriage or abortion on demand that too many secular-progressives embrace. 

  • The way I, and I think any American would, is if you’re Christian and not a Catholic, then you are a Protestant…. Mormons included.

    • Invictus_1

       This is the result of American intellectual laziness, not a handy, dandy solution that saves time by eliminating the need to know and think.

  • Isuzu Buyer

    If one reads the article carefully, you’ll see that the monicker “no religion”, doesn’t mean atheist.  They are simple grouping all those that don’t identify with a particular church. I’m an atheist, a race realist, a libertarian and a capitalist.  I live my life based on logic and observation of the real world. Why do so many wish to live by fantasy?

  • I’m pretty much a secular agnostic and have not been too happy with the Christian churches as of late.  Their egalitarian notions have made them import Somalis and shelter illegal aliens.  Not to mention Christianity was not an invention of the West and never truly ours.

  • razorrare

    America was born a Christian nation–Woodrow Wilson…

    This is a Christian nation–Harry Truman,1947…

    …we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation–barack obama,2009…

    Cultural power in America long ago passed to an anti-Christian elite that rules the academy,Hollywood,and the arts…Pat Buchanan–Suicide of a Superpower…Chapter–The Death of Christian America,pg 49…

    I believe in Jesus in part because the atheists dont…I love Jesus in part because the J-words hate him—Razorrare,2012…

    • Also we must keep in mind that USA had always been the most blessed nation on earth until 50s

      • anonymous_amren

        It had nothing to do with blessing, and everything to do with hard-working, intelligent, disciplined white people creating for themselves the kind of society they wanted to live in. No deity was required or involved.

    • Tomasz R.

       Have you considered the possibility that Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman were just lying politicians? And that Obama can have a moment of honesty from time to time?

  • bluffcreek1967

    This article is one of many proofs that the liberal/Marxist march through our American institutions has been been thoroughly effective. I will not defend everything that has been done under the banner of “Protestantism” or “Evangelical Christianity.” But the decline of Protestants in America and the rise of secularism, spiritual ambivalence or even outright atheism is not a good sign for our nation. I know the atheists on Amren would never agree with this. But one needs only to review the past 50 years or so and see that our secularism has produced only moral chaos, the death of right and wrong, relativism, political-correctness, multi-culturalism and social anarchy. Americans might be seen as technological giants, but in truth we have become moral pygmies. 

    Our national rejection of the ‘old paths’ has been our demise – and our Founders knew this. Yes, I know many of them were not distinctly ‘Christian’ as we commonly define the term. Many of them, in fact, were nominal Christians at best or deists. But they all knew that in order for America to maintain its greatness, its people needed to be committed to a spiritual or moral basis. There was, in effect, a “Christian consensus” that was deeply rooted in our nation. But no longer. And the more secular we become as a nation, the more evident will be our decline.

    • Tomasz R.

       There was never a “Christian consensus”. There was forcible imposition of a dogma on children via indoctrination or a threat of physical punishments. A deeply immoral behavior by adults.

      Also notice it’s the “old ways” that got black people to North America. At a time when they didn’t want to go there at all, and had to be physically captured to make a journey.

      Considering secularism – if it was not present, then the government would dictate you what beliefs you have to held.

      • robinbishop34

         There was forcible imposition of a dogma on children via indoctrination

        Sounds a lot like secular fundamentalism today.

  • anonymous_amren

    Most atheists ARE protestants. We agree wholeheartedly with Martin Luther’s 95 points nailed to the church door. We support the King of England’s right to go against the Catholic church’s imposed foreign dictatorship. And we are fully on board with criticising the corruption, stupidity, and general ungodliness in the Catholic church. You don’t have to be Christian to be a protestant.

    Non-denominational Christians are also protestants by any sensible definition.

    And since when is Romney not a protestant? He believes in God and rejects the Catholic church. Sure, he’s a crazy cult member, but he’s a protestant one.

    “‘Part of what’s going on here is that the stigma associated with not
    being part of any religious community has declined,’ said John Green, a
    specialist in religion and politics at the University of Akron, who
    advised Pew on the survey.”
    He then added “Good Morning Hank, it’s Tuesday”, and did his Happy Dance.

    What’s happening here is that one set of irrational and obviously untrue stupidy enforced on white people by the old fashioned version of Political Correctness thought police is slowly starting to fade once the thought police have been removed. It bodes well for the future, and gives hope that our current set of Politically Correct thought control will also fade out and obvious common sense will be allowed back in and people will wake up to reality reasonable quickly.

  • anonymous_amren

     I wish. Unfortunately, the US is so polarised around stupid non-issues, with conservatives so completely brainwashed and out of touch with reality, that it is going to be very hard to turn the Republicans into the White Party that appeals to all white people.

  • bluegrass91

    This is a good thing in my opinion.  Perhaps it will mean less money for the churches to import Somali immigrants to assuage their christian/liberal moral egos. 

    • 1Forced_Registration

       I have a feeling the church that is giving you the most grief is in fact the Unitarians. The Unitarian church is about as far as evangelical Christianity as Texas is from Russia.

      The Unitarian church is primarily a political gathering spot for extreme leftist that don’t want to feel left out on Sunday.

      • Puggg

         Also, the UCC.  Jeremiah Wright’s church is UCC, but it’s weird for a UCC church because it’s a black church.  Mainline UCC churches are white liberal and heavily homosexual.

    • ATBOTL

      I see modern Christianity as a distraction from the things that are really important, at best.  Movements like the religious right take the people who would be most sympathetic to nationalism(ie former segregationists and their children) and directs their energy to the third world, converting immigrants and supporting Israeli interests over US interests.  The religious right has been a force in the GOP in favor of open borders, neocon dominance and multiculturalism.  The fact that the base may not support these polices does not matter.  Their money, votes and work are being used for those purposes.
      There is a lot more resistance to dispossession in “post-Christian” Europe than there is here.  

      • One thing that could accrue to our benefit is this:  Today’s religious right, especially in the South, as you rightly note, are the wayward kids of proud and open segregationists.  As more and more time passes since the turn of the millennium and there’s no glorious Second Coming, the millennial crazies will work its way out of white Southerners who consider themselves religious right, and their children and grandchildren could very well return to the ways of their grandparents and great grandparents.  Once the millennial crazies subside, and white Southerners ditch dispensationalism, there goes the major impetus of American politics to shill for that I-country.

  • If you pass the 1965 Immigration Act and open the floodgates to 40 years of importing millions and millions of non Wasp 3rd world immigrants and their progeny, you end up with a lower percentage of WASPS than you had 40 years ago. Of course, not one article I have read in the last 48 hours about this story, or even any of the commenters, has mentioned the immigration factor causing the reduction of WASP majority to a minority in the nation they founded and built.
     I give up!

  • fizmath

    Lack of religious belief is one of the main reasons for white decline.  Secular people have the lowest birthrates as seen in post-Christian Europe.  Atheism is 

    • fizmath

      (ended the above too soon)
      Atheism is almost always accompanied by very low birthrates.  Why sacrifice for the future when this is your one and only life to enjoy?

      • StillModerated

         I guess they’ll all be speaking Pennsylvania Spanglish. But the liberal atheist problem will solve itself since these groups are used to living the hard life.

  • Invictus_1

    Not me.

  • razorrare

    Proud to be a Paleoconservative and a defender of Christianity…

    Sam Francis–What paleoconservatism tries to tell Americans is that the dominant forces in their society are no longer committed to conserving the traditions,institutions,and values that created and formed it,and,therefore,that those who are truly conservative in any serious sense,and wish to live under those traditions,institutions,and values need to oppose the dominant forces and form new ones…

    Joseph Sobran–Society can maintain continuity with the past,through words,rituals,records,commemorations,and laws.There is no question of “resisting change.”The only question is what can and should be salvaged from “devouring time.”Conservation is a labor,not indolence,and it takes discrimination to identify and save a few strands of tradition in the incessant flow of mutability…

    James Kalb–Our knowledge is partial and attained with difficulty.The effects of political proposals are difficult to predict and as the proposals become more ambitious their effects become incalculable. We cant evaluate political ideas without accepting far more beliefs,presumptions and attitudes then we could possibly judge critically…

    Robert Griffin–The decadence of a civilization by loss of Faith and vigour can be observed more than once in history.What is extra ordinary about the American situation is the stupidity.The Romans,such as my impression,did not become stupid and incompetent with their decadence.Americans have not lost faith in their cultural inheritance–they have been entirely separated  from it.How this happens is one of the few topics still worth eploring in this twilight…

    Mel Bradford–The only freedom which can last is a freedom embodied somehere rooted in a history,located in space,sanctioned by genealogy, and blessed by a religious establishment.The only equality with abstract rights,insisted upon outside the context of politics,are likey to provvide is the equality of universal slavery.It is a lesson which western man is only now beginning to learn…

    Thomas Fleming–Our basic position on the state has alays been twofold:1) a recognition that man is a social and political animal who cannot be treated as an “individual” without doing damage to human nature.In this sense libertarion theory is wrong and potentially harmful as communism.The commonwealth is therefore a natural and necessary expression of human nature that provides for the fulfillment of human needs,and 2) the modern state is a cancerous form of polity that has metastasized and poisoned the natural institutions from which the state derives all legitimacy—Family,Church,corporation(in the broadest sense), and neighborhood.Thus,it is almost always a mistake to try to use the modern state to accomplish moral or social ends…

    Allen Carlson–The family is the natural and fundamental social unit,inscribed in our nature as human beings,rooted in marriage,rooted in the committment to bring new life into the world,and rooted in deep RESPECT for both ancestors and posterity.To be human is to be familial.Any significant departure from the family rooted in stable marriage,the welcoming of children,and RESPECT for ancestors and posterity–any deviation from this social structure makes us in a way less “human” that is.I think it fair to say the true message of modern science…

    Joseph Sobran–the pope cant change the nature of marriage.It existed by necessity of human nature,long before Jesus or even Abraham…this has nothing to do with mere dissaproval of sodomy.Few societies that were indifferant to sodomy law saw no reason to treat same sex domestic partnerships as marriages.Why not?Because such unions dont produce children…people who have children should be stuck with each other,sharing their responsibility…

    Gottfried–The change of womens roles from being primarily Mothers to self-defined professionals,has been a social disaster that continues to take its toll on the Family.Rather than being the culminating point of Western Christian gentility,the movement of omen into commerce and politics may be seen exactly the opposite,the descent by increasingly disconnected individuality into social chaos…

    Russell Kirk–Christianity and Western Civilization are “Unimaginable Apart From One Another”—all culture arises out of Religion.When religious faith decays,culture must decline.

  • Religious feeling depends on temperament. Anyway, I’m too tired to write again & again the same stuff …


    This is a good thing for white nationalism.     

  • Tomasz R.

    This article has some “religious correctness” included in the sense that it doesn’t even try to address the major issue: which proposition is true? Protestantism? Atheism? Agnosticism? Pantheism? Deism?

    If protestantism is false, or even unjustified by evidence then of course it is good that people are leaving false or unjustified ideology, and embracing those who they checked to be valid and correct. This is how the world should work. Believing something against evidence or while knowing there’s no evidence for it, just because your parents told you is stuipid (your parents are not infillible) and acting against civilization.  You CAN be traditional though, on a meta level – if your family tradition is to improve upon what your parents made and correct their mistakes.

    Civilization requires progress – improving upon previous generations, and  and correcting it’s mistakes.
    It was a mistake for white people to embrace alien middle-eastern cults in the first place, and this mistake is being corrected now by moving into more rational ideologies like atheism, scepticism, naturalism, thinking based on evidence, science.

    What is dangerous though is too much left-wing encroachment into secular movements, like the current Atheism+ debacle, in which extreme left crowd tried to capture the new atheism movement (jumpstarted by Dawkins and co.) and lead it into their own positions of left-wing dogma (under the banner of Atheism+). As of now this attempt has been silenced by the voices of the critics.

    The other bad trend among white people who try to embrace rationalism after finding religious claims false is putting too much trust into the good intentions of scientists and various technology companies. This results in trusting in official version in the topics like the  safety of GMOs or vaccines. Again it’s only a temporary popular wrong trend, not an inherent feature of  the movement. 

    • You’re wrong, that’s all I can say. Religions are not “right” or “wrong”. I hate to write over & over, but will paste some posts from taki if necessary.

      • Tomasz R.

         Concerning veryfing religions: religions make multiple claims, that are verifiable by science, and more and more of them will be verifiable in the future. Claims like the existance of great worldwide flood, or about sun stopping for a moment, world being few thousand years old, people living hundred of years – these were all refuted a long time ago. That makes religions who still stand behind them untrustworthy (liars).

        There are other questions for which we KNOW for sure, that nobody knows the answers, we only have some vague hypothesis. Questions like what was before the big bang or origins of first cells. Since we know we don’t know the answers, therefore anyone who claims to know the answers for sure – like religions do – is a liar.

        Consider atheism as a result of classificationm system for information. You have to make decisions. In order to make decisions you need a good model of the world. The only working models of the world are those based on information confirmed by evidence. These information you classify as valid. Those information that are not backed by evidence are classified as not valid, those that are against evidence you classify as false. So atheism is simply classifying the unproven information about various gods as not valid, and disproven infomation from the holy books about some events as false. 

        If you allow making decisions based just on unproven beliefs then ANYTHING GOES. Some group may beliefe in gods that request them to plant bombs in places where infidels go, some other groups may believe in gods that require human sacrifice. Theres’s no limit for faith, people are able to believe anything. And their faith may be extremaly strong. Religious people claim faith is a virtue, so I guess they think such beliefs as in my examples are OK?

        Considering believing scientists – they are like medical doctors who smoke, or policewomen who have sex with criminals. Mini-traitors or incoherent personalities disorders. At work they hold evidence is the basis for recognizing the claims as true, at home they abandon that value and claim that evidence is worthless, it’s the strong belief without evidence, revelation and feelings that matter.

        Excellent explanation by Richard Carrier “Why Science is Better Than Religion and Always Has Been”

        • 1. you’re talking about literalist interpretations, characteristic of fundamentalist culture. Other Christian denominations do not believe literally in myths about Joshua stopping the Sun (i.e. earth etc.) or similar tales. For instance:

          2. atheism is a belief based on some suppositions about the functioning of the world. Just- people don’t believe in catalogs. They have (many of them)- interpret it in a way you deem pertinent- strong transcendent psychological function based on personal experiences. Some, of course, don’t. But some kind of philosophia perennis is bedrock of all human culture. And it can be summed up in something like that: “The goal of human life is to become godlike” (Socrates) So, it’s not (only) about hypotheses or  Occam’s razor. It’s about experience. Anyone who has worked with I Ching (Chinese Book of Changes) knows that contemporary scientific, Einsteinian cosmos is just a partial world-view in its central tenet, that no info can travel faster than light. Personally, I know this to be false: I’ve had three prognostic dreams about events that happened 2-3 weeks later & which were completely independent of my interventions.

          3. only one-dimensional & impoverished people base their world-views on empirical facts. All great scientific theories are products of combination of imagination, insight, dreams, eccentric & weird, sometimes loony hypotheses as well as experiment & observation. Empiricist minimalism had not produced anything great, even in the field of sciences.

          Be as it may, no amount of arguments will convince a believer or vice versa. To each its own.

          • Amy

             I can not understand why so many are blind to the obvious:
            Just as whites are under a full frontal attack today in America, so is Christianity. Ask yourself why. If Christianity did not pose a threat to those in power (rhymes with shoes) why would they invest so much energy and resources in propaganda (news) against us?  If it Christianity were detrimental to whites, do you not think this too would be among what is heavily pushed upon our people instead of it’s removal from our nation’s  schools?
            Why is the name of Christ forbidden to be spoken while paganism and secular humanism atheists so adore  promoted and praised?

            To me it is blatantly obvious- Christianity must be removed from our nation, or at least become obscure, Christian men must become pitifully few,  in order for the extermination of our race to be achieved. 


    All those groups, bar Scientology, are offshoots of Protestantism.