Atheism Became Way More Popular During The Obama Era

Daily Caller ^ | 01/13/2017 | Peter Hasson

[SeekAndFind]

The number of Americans who don’t ascribe to any religion grew significantly during Obama’s eight years in office, according to a recent Pew Research report on how the country changed during the Obama era.

U.S. President Barack Obama (L) stands with Pope Francis during an arrival ceremony for the pope at the White House in Washington September 23, 2015. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

“When it comes to the nation’s religious identity, the biggest trend during Obama’s presidency is the rise of those who claim no religion at all. Those who self-identify as atheists or agnostics, as well as those who say their religion is ‘nothing in particular,’ now make up nearly a quarter of the U.S. adult population, up from 16% in 2007,” the Pew report states, noting that Christians make up 71 percent of the population — down from 78 percent at the beginning of the Obama era.

“Due largely to the growth of those who don’t identify with any religion, the shares of Americans who say they believe in God, consider religion to be very important in their lives, say they pray daily and say they attend religious services at least monthly have all ticked downward in recent years,” the report goes on to note.

The Obama administration consistently took actions that conservatives said demonstrated hostility towards religious believers. The administration was sued repeatedly over Obamacare’s contraception mandate, including by a group of nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor. (RELATED: Meet The Nine Nuns Taking Obamacare To The Supreme Court)

Martin Castro, who has served as chair of the US Civil Rights Commission since Obama appointed him to the position in 2011, said last September that “religious freedom” and “religious liberty” are “code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.”

[HokieMom]

[Buckeye McFrog]

My own church loses about five members a week through the obituary column.

Millenials are not replacing them.

[Luircin]

Has your church done anything to reach out to them?

I’m not talking rock music or trying to be hip. I mean actually going out and talking with them.

It is amazing how few people know the Gospel message today.

[tomsbartoo]

One would have to judge their own religion, but the wheels have completely fallen off almost all religions. One of the few exceptions is Islam––far more of an ideology than a religion. Nevertheless, the abandonment of God is at the heart of the problem.

Speaking for my own religion, the Catholic Church, for us the destruction “officially” began with the Modernist takeover during the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). In truth, though, the Modernist movement actually began to re-emerge after the death of St Pope Pius XII in 1914. Under his leadership, Modernism had been so completely suppressed that most Catholics at that time believed it was destroyed.

The three pre-Conciliar popes that followed St Pius X (Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII) were all decent men but spiritually weak. They allowed the heresy of Modernism to re-establish a foothold and then grow in strength to the point that they elected their first Modernist pope, John XXIII in 1958. He called the Council almost immediately, and within a matter of a few years the spiritual carnage began in earnest. All those popes that followed were and are Modernists.

Traditional Catholics. like myself, believe that the only answer to the current crisis is for the modern bishops to acknowledge their errors and return to the singular mission of the Church, which is to lead all mankind to salvation. That mission has long been abandoned by these disgraceful men who are more concerned with the re-distribution of wealth and complying with the politically correct and diabolical goals of the secular media, such providing support for illegal immigration and the globalization of the nations.

Whether a reform on the part of the bishops is simply Pollyannaish thinking on our part remains to be seen, but there is little doubt that each and every one of these modern bishops will one day pay an enormous price when they stand before Jesus Christ on their day of judgment. To whom much is given, much is expected. So while it doesn’t look good from a worldly point of view, we do know that we can and should still pray for a miracle, and know that nothing is impossible for God.

[Organic Panic]

People gave up historic religion to worship government and Obama.

[TiGuy22]

But why, the president is a self proclaimed Christian! /s

[ealgeone]

Traditional Catholics. like myself, believe that the only answer to the current crisis is for the modern bishops to acknowledge their errors and return to the singular mission of the Church, which is to lead all mankind to salvation.

Isn't that the job of the believers though....to go out into the world and share the Gospel?

[tomsbartoo]

The true teaching of the Catholic faith is grounded not only on the Bible, but Catholic Tradition as well. Moreover, unlike the Protestant religions, faithful Catholics know that their faith is not based on their personal interpretations of the Bible and Catholic Tradition. Faithful Catholics know that the true teachings of the Catholic Church are provided to them by the Magisterium––the teaching authority of the Church.

Prior to Vatican II all faithful Catholics understood that, the pope, the bishops and all priests spoke with one consistent voice on all matters of of their faith. Consequently, unlike Protestants, Catholics did not go “into the world”, to “share the Gospel” as they believed it to be. But times have changed. Under the direction of today’s “modern” popes, bishops and priests, who knows? I have the sense that it’s not very different than the Protestant religions.

[ealgeone]

Yeah...we've seen how "unchanging" that roman catholic tradition is.

[Secret Agent Man]

i would guess a lot of dismayed folks were convinced there must be no god after ohole got elected, twice.

[tomsbartoo]

The point you appear to miss with respect to the Catholic Church, is that the Church, herself, is “unchanging”; the fact that the Modernist popes and bishops heretically teach that Church doctrine and dogma must “evolve” is in error. The heresies of the Second Vatican Council were clearly adopted so as to accommodate the Protestant religions in a “spirit of ecumenism”. Nevertheless, simply because many clerics have fallen into heresy does not change one iota of Church doctrine or dogma––all of which is immutable.

But sadly enough, there are many modern Catholics today who would be in complete agreement with your observations. However, those who follow the true teachings of the Catholic Church (“traditional” Catholics), understand that the Modernist popes and prelates have, tragically, been led astray by Satan. We continue to pray for them.

[ealgeone]

The point you appear to miss with respect to the Catholic Church, is that the Church, herself, is “unchanging”; the fact that the Modernist popes and bishops heretically teach that Church doctrine and dogma must “evolve” is in error.

But it has changed...the doctrines of Mary, papal infallibility, etc...all evolved over time.

There is nothing in the NT period about the immaculate conception, assumption, Mary being a co-redemtrix, mediatrix, etc. Those all evolved, incorrectly, over time.

There's even a fifth marian dogma currently evolving. It just doesn't have enough support to be passed yet. Give it time though. It will.

[tomsbartoo]

You are falling into the false trap often expressed by Protestants. You confuse “spiritual beliefs” with doctrine and dogma. Varying spiritual beliefs or theologies have been held by well-meaning Catholics on various topics over the years. Many of these spiritual beliefs, understandably, do evolve over time.

However, once a specific dogma or doctrine has been defined by the Church, either through a dogmatic Council or through papal infallibility (which was simply a theology until the First Vatican Council defined it as dogma in 1870), it can never evolve and is immutable until the end of time.

The long-held early theology that the Blessed Mother’s Glorious Assumption into heaven, was not a dogma that simply “evolved”. It was a “spiritual belief” that was eventually determined by the Church to be beyond dispute and defined as “dogma” by Pope Pius XII in 1950.

As for the Blessed Mother being declared a so-called “co-redeemer”, that has been advanced and rejected by the Church on many occasions––including at the Second Vatican Council, and later by Pope Benedict XVI. The Catholic Church teaches we have only One Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

But is certainly understandable that Protestants reject that notion of the immutability of doctrine and dogma. Indeed. if they accepted it as being the truth, they would not be Protestants, they would be faithful Catholics.

[ealgeone]

Catholics do invoke Mary as coredemtrix amongst her other titles conveyed by roman catholicism.

[tomsbartoo]

Not faithful Catholics––only modern Catholics. Faithful Catholics follow the true teachings of the Catholic Church. As I noted, the Church does not teach that the Blessed Mother is a so-called “co-redemptrix”. Traditional Catholics strive to be completely faithful to all of the teachings of the Church and make no exceptions.

Modern Catholics are in a different kettle of fish. Who knows what they may believe today? Modern Catholics very often align themselves with the thinking of Protestants, and as such, do not feel compelled to follow the dogmatic teachings of the Church. Like Protestants, most have adopted a theology that they, personally, believe will please God and lead them to heaven.

[ealgeone]

Not faithful Catholics––only modern Catholics. Faithful Catholics follow the true teachings of the Catholic Church. As I noted, the Church does not teach that the Blessed Mother is a so-called “co-redemptrix”. Traditional Catholics strive to be completely faithful to all of the teachings of the Church and make no exceptions.

I recommend you do some research on this.

If your position is right, then there are a whole bunch of unfaithful catholics.

[tomsbartoo]

Respectfully, it is you who might do the research. Understandably, Protestants know little about the true Catholic Church. Indeed, most modern Catholics are no more knowledgable on this issue than Protestants. And yes, there are a “whole bunch” of modern Catholics who are not following the true teachings of the Church.

The “Catholics” that you and most Protestants criticize (often correctly in my view) are Catholics who have been led astray from the true Catholic faith by the Modernist and Modernist-leaning popes, bishops and priests that comprise the Catholic Church of the modern bishops today. The novel theology and liturgy they follow was spawned by the Second Vatican Council. And, like Protestantism, “modern” Catholicism is always “evolving”.

Traditional Catholics make up an incredibly small part of the entire Catholic Church today, probably no more than a percentage in the low single digits. Most of the popes since Vatican II have done everything in their “earthly” power to silence the holy men and their followers who adhere to the true faith. But while it is never reported by the Satanic, secular media, traditional Catholicism is growing dramatically while the Church being led by the modern bishops is in a free fall. Most Protestant religions are in no better shape.

[ealgeone]

Although we knew the mind of the bishops from the petitions which we had received from them, namely, that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin be finally defined, nevertheless, on February 2, 1849,[27] we sent an Encyclical Letter from Gaeta to all our venerable brethren, the bishops of the Catholic world, that they should offer prayers to God and then tell us in writing what the piety and devotion of their faithful was in regard to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. We likewise inquired what the bishops themselves thought about defining this doctrine and what their wishes were in regard to making known with all possible solemnity our supreme judgment.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

See, with enough popular opinion the doctrine as made. Talk it up long enough and it will pass.

Same thing is happening with the Fifth Marian dogma.

Enough popular support is going to get it passed.

If this was something so clear, so solid, it would not need a vote to pass it. The pope should have just declared it.

This is not a biblical way to determine dogma.

In fact, the catholic encyclopedia online says "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture." There is even the objection from some of the ECFs catholics love to cite...yet these are dismissed as being in error. These ECFs are Origen, St. Basil and St. Chrysostom.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

This is not a biblical way to determine dogma.

[tomsbartoo]

“This is not a biblical way to determine dogma”.

Okay, then don’t follow it.