Rosik quotes Lieu as saying something pretty harsh. I don’t doubt that this quote is taken out of context to make it sound worse than it actually is, but I have a hard time imagining a truly good meaning behind the quoted phrase. Does anyone know the original source of that quote? I would like to read the whole thing in context.

I remember the Religious Right tried to hang some anti-religious or militantly anti-anti-gay statement on Lieu. I got the impression from his replies on the subject that the quote was entirely invented by the Religious Right.

Sometimes (and more often than sometimes), they just lie.

Of course a lot of this discussion depends on what you mean by non-religious. If by non-religious you mean atheist than I don’t buy that there are a lot of religious people coming from such parents If by non-religious you mean someone who doesn’t attend church, doesn’t consider religion very important but thinks likely there is a god and Jesus is real then yes I can believe many people come from that background and develop a deeper religiosity than their parents but my point is they are still adopting their parents beliefs even if they become much more intense about it than their parents.

Now if you want to say there are lots of religious people who come from atheist/agnostic parents, or that lots of people with christian parents become Islamic, or Sihk (or vice versa) I find that much harder to believe. I just don’t believe any youth who is same sex attracted ever spontaneously decides there is an angry, jealous, loving god who opposes gayness.

But let’s get back to what we can agree on, as you said “most Americans will adopt some version of Christianity when they seek religion. That is, as you said, the predominant religious belief of their geography.”.

Assuming that I accept that a minority of religious youth seek out anti-gay therapy of their own volition while a majority of youth seeking anti-gay therapy because of the religious teachins of their parents/authority figures again I have to ask myself, “Which benefits the most people and harms the fewest, the banning of this “therapy”, or the availability of it?” I think an honest thoughtful person has to answer more people benefit from the absence of this therapy than its presence. particularly given that its presence promotes and re-inforces harmful gay self-loathing and an anti-gay society.

I’m going to leave this thread now.

I really don’t think it’s nearly as rare as you think. In fact, It seems that much of modern Evangelicalsim owes its growth to precisely that phenomenon.

I’m not surprised that you don’t know any such people. I very much doubt that your social circles are largely religious. And I seem to recall that your religious family and contacts were mostly Catholic (forgive me if I got that wrong) and it is my impression that such converts gravitate towards more evangelical or charismatic faith systems.

But, yes, when I was growing up in church I knew several. My sister-in-law is an example. If I recall correctly, she began attending church in her late teens, and some time later her mother joined her (her father never did).

You are probably right that most religious people share the faith of their parents. And I think that you are likely correct that more go from religion to non-practicing and/or atheist/agnostic.

But that does not make those who go from non-religious to religious non-existent. Nor is it by necessity true that those who share the faith of their parents do so absent any true belief of their own. Religious people are not brainless automatons, redneck ignorant fools, as some non-religious people seem to think.

I encourage you to hunt up some statistics on it for your own edification, I guarantee you the vast majority of religious people have adopted the religion of their parents.

I know we have a confrontational past. And I’m not saying this to spark a word war. But you are mistaken about your assumptions.

It is true that most Americans will adopt some version of Christianity when they seek religion. That is, as you said, the predominant religious belief of their geography.

However, you are wrong about your presumptions about parental indoctrination. It is not a rarity for people raised without religious influence to seek it out at some point in their lives. It’s actually a fairly common occurrence.

I very much doubt that you’ll take my word for it and I’m not going to hunt up statistics on the matter. So this may just be two contrary stated positions.

And I know it may – from your vantage point – seem inconceivable that people without religious upbringing would choose to incorporate religious belief into their lives. That may, I suppose, seem contrary to everything that you hold dear or even seem absurdly illogical.

It is, however, true.

Just as people under the age of 21 are not allowed to drink because they haven’t enough life experience and maturity to judge effectively how to handle potentially harmful things they should not be allowed to jump into something that is somewhat harmful at best, very harmful at worst and completely ineffective. If a person wants to shoot herself in the foot when she turns 18, that’s her right, but until then she deserves protection from harmful things her parents may have tricked her into believing are desirable.