The concept of non practicing a religion

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Once in a while I come across someone who tells me they're a non practicing member of a certain religion.

I suppose that that means different things to different people saying it. They may mean that they don't participate in religious rituals or go to church, but still believe, pray, and read scripture regularly.

Or they may have lost interest in the doctrine and even stopped believing in God, but still identify as a member of the religion they grew up in. That's fairly common among self-identifying Jews. They're often atheists that rarely or never attend synagogue, but they still identify with Judaism, like to be with other Jews, maybe use some Yiddish words and phrases, and maybe like Jewish cuisine. What would you call that? I say cultural Jew and atheist, but non-practicing Jew works fine for me.

If people don't tell others that they're non practicing doctors, musicians or athletes because it would make them look ridiculous

I take your point, but I might be a non-practicing doctor. I retired from clinical medicine in 2009. Nonpracticing doctor isn't a bad way to describe that status, either.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Once in a while I come across someone who tells me they're a non practicing member of a certain religion. Mostly catholic, but not exclusively. I never understood the concept. For me, if you don't practice your religion, you might as well say you're non religious. I know there are countries where people don't have freedom of religion and they have to pretend, for their own protection, but that's not the case here.
Over here you can say you're religious, agnostic, atheist, confused, unsure or whatever else, and no one cares.
If I go to a restaurant and someone tells me my meal is going to be prepared by a non practicing chef, who hasn't stepped foot in the kitchen the last six months, I'll run away as fast as I can. If someone tells me "I'm a non practicing guitar player", I'll laugh. That simply doesn't exist. I find it hard to take someone seriously if they come up with that sort of speech.
If people don't tell others that they're non practicing doctors, musicians or athletes because it would make them look ridiculous, why do they say that about religion?

I don’t think being inactive in a religion is synonymous with non belief. The prerequisites for belief are varied but one can believe in Jesus but never go to church or take communion or confession. There are different levels of activity so I think it’s for the individual to determine their level of participation. It’s the same in my religion. We have inactive Baha’is but they are not struck off the membership roll unless they put it in writing, if a believer is inactive it does not mean they cease to be a believer.

 

[Sirona]

Paul believe

The concept of non practicing a religion

In Islam (reasonable) belief and practice go side by side together:

الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ
The phrase "those who believe and do [the] righteous deeds" is repeated almost innumerable times in Quran. Right?

Jesus also believed in "God-the-Father" and prayed and worshiped "God-the-Father" and did good and righteous deeds and hence in this sense was a Muslim, as I understand. Right?
It is Pauline-Christianity who rests on "faith alone". and has got nothing to do with Jesus, his teachings and or his good deeds, I figure. Right?

Regards


,

Paul believes in "faith alone". Jude and James emphasize the importance of works. Many Protestants believe in "faith alone", Catholics take a middle ground, and Jehovah's Witnesses believe that without works, salvation is not possible.

 

[syo]

why do they say that about religion?

Because they don't follow priests.

 

[blü 2]

For me, if you don't practice your religion, you might as well say you're non religious.

I read this as asking, What does 'practicing a religion' mean?

And in this context I'd say that it meant performing the acts that your religion calls for, in particular attending services, assisting the church in its activities, tithing or putting money in the plate, whatever they are, and so on.

So if you stop doing those things, or only do them rarely, but maintain the belief that the teachings of your church are essentially correct, then you still have your religious beliefs but you don't bother with the outward observances it calls for.

Or so it seems to me.

And if I understand the religion reports, it's getting more common at a rate that alarms the churches.

 

[Clara Tea]

For me, if you don't practice your religion, you might as well say you're non religious.

Churches are also part of social networking (parties, neighbors, people of similar backgrounds who won't balk at your ethnic background because they have the same, etc). Sometimes your contacts could get you a better job.

I have relatives who attend church/temple, yet openly ridicule people for believing in God. They are scientists and they can't believe that modern people, especially with scientific backgrounds, could possibly believe in some "superstition" that is thousands of years old and backed by scant or nonexistent facts. As far as their preacher/rabbi/guru is concerned, they are devout members of his congregation, little does he know that he has failed to teach the one thing that is vital to his religion....and that is belief (or faith).

Without faith, all lessons of morality are worthless, because no one is going to follow the teachings without believing. Yet, atheists have their own morality, apart from belief in God. In fact, atheists seem to be more moral than theists. For example, the Mafia devoutly believes in God, but they also believe that God will purge them of all sins (so they sin, sin some more, and sin some more, not realizing that only through atonement will they be made pure again). Atonement, of course, means that they will never do it again, and that they were sorry they did it in the first place.

Some religions require marriage to be within their own faith (with the minor exception of conversion to their faith). So, this means that atheist members of their ethnicity can continue to marry into the ethnicity (so their kids won't be of mixed blood). Without faith, that seems almost like bigotry...they won't marry a person who is Black, or Hispanic, or Asian, but must marry someone like themselves.

Oxford Dictionary: Blasphemy: "The act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things, profane talk."

It is blasphemy, in my opinion, to think (not talk) sacrilegiously about God or sacred things. We can assume that God knows not only what we say, but what we think, and even knows our future actions (as long as they are not random....and even then, perhaps God knows).

Some sit in church/temple and think of the preacher/rabbi as a pathetic fool who spent his whole life in pursuit of nonsense. They often voice that opinion to others. To me, that is also blasphemy, since the preacher is just as holy as a sacred thing.

It seems like false advertising to attend church without believing in God. Those who fall in love with you don't know what they are getting into.

My brother attended church for the sole purpose of picking up chicks. He met a lovely woman in church who continued, throughout their marriage, to ridicule his beliefs. His wife was very worried about the relgious upbringing of their daughter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Once in a while I come across someone who tells me they're a non practicing member of a certain religion. Mostly catholic, but not exclusively. I never understood the concept. For me, if you don't practice your religion, you might as well say you're non religious. I know there are countries where people don't have freedom of religion and they have to pretend, for their own protection, but that's not the case here.
Over here you can say you're religious, agnostic, atheist, confused, unsure or whatever else, and no one cares.
If I go to a restaurant and someone tells me my meal is going to be prepared by a non practicing chef, who hasn't stepped foot in the kitchen the last six months, I'll run away as fast as I can. If someone tells me "I'm a non practicing guitar player", I'll laugh. That simply doesn't exist. I find it hard to take someone seriously if they come up with that sort of speech.
If people don't tell others that they're non practicing doctors, musicians or athletes because it would make them look ridiculous, why do they say that about religion?

FYI - somewhat controversially, the Canadian census uses the approach you're disagreeing with:

Unfortunately, the question about religion is deeply misleading. Question 30 on the long form asks:

What is this person’s religion?
Indicate a specific denomination or religion even if this person is not currently a practising member of that group.​

Select “No Religion” when you complete your 2021 Canadian Census – Centre for Inquiry Canada

 

[Vinayaka]

FYI - somewhat controversially, the Canadian census uses the approach you're disagreeing with:



Select “No Religion” when you complete your 2021 Canadian Census – Centre for Inquiry Canada

I guess we got the short form. But it does help to explain why some sects or faiths have much higher data for their adherents than what's true. A person can easily be a silent apostate, and belong to two or more religions simultaneously, if we used the information provided by the churches or groups. Some churches, if they lost rack of a person, wouldn't even reduce the count in the case of a person's passing. If nobody tells them, how are they to blame? Obviously, I prefer the census numbers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess we got the short form. But it does help to explain why some sects or faiths have much higher data for their adherents than what's true. A person can easily be a silent apostate, and belong to two or more religions simultaneously, if we used the information provided by the churches or groups. Some churches, if they lost rack of a person, wouldn't even reduce the count in the case of a person's passing. If nobody tells them, how are they to blame? Obviously, I prefer the census numbers.

I imagine that the religions' own numbers will often be even more inflated.

The Catholic Church considers anyone they baptized to be Catholic for life, even if they convert to a completely different religion. And I've heard the stories from ex-Mormons about how difficult it is to get off LDS Church membership rolls; most people don't bother.

Getting the count accurate is a bigger deal in places like Germany, where churches get a tax subsidy based on the size of their membership.

 

[Vinayaka]

Getting the count accurate is a bigger deal in places like Germany, where churches get a tax subsidy based on the size of their membership.

Yes, that would be a big deal. I'm guessing they go by census only. In India the discrepancy between the Baha'i estimates and the Indian census is around 2 million to 5000. Can't imagine if a tax subsidy was attached, lol.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, that would be a big deal. I'm guessing they go by census only. In India the discrepancy between the Baha'i estimates and the Indian census is around 2 million to 5000. Can't imagine if a tax subsidy was attached, lol.

They don't go by the census, actually. They go by the church's own reporting, but there are rules around it.

All the churches that receive the subsidy are required to have a way for people to renounce their membership, but many churches make the process as difficult as the law allows.

I believe - though I'm not sure - when someone switches religions or denominations, their new church can submit something to the government so that the person's church tax goes to their new denomination.

Take all this with a grain of salt, though. Basically everything I know about the process comes from reading reports from atheists trying to get off their old churches' membership lists.

 

[Vee]

A non practicing Christian. Now that would be a puzzle

That's most of the non-practicing crowd I know

 

[Vee]

Ok, but how would you categorise them as per your OP?

I would say they're non religious.

 

[Vee]

In most Christian countries, people are born into their faith, and it can be a relative hassle to de-register or otherwise officially remove oneself from one's birth religion.

That's true. I know a JW who had been baptized as a catholic when she was a baby, and later when she asked for her name to be removed they refused. She's been a JW for many years but the church still counts her as catholic. I wonder how many more people are in similar situations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Once in a while I come across someone who tells me they're a non practicing member of a certain religion. Mostly catholic, but not exclusively. I never understood the concept. For me, if you don't practice your religion, you might as well say you're non religious. I know there are countries where people don't have freedom of religion and they have to pretend, for their own protection, but that's not the case here.
Over here you can say you're religious, agnostic, atheist, confused, unsure or whatever else, and no one cares.
If I go to a restaurant and someone tells me my meal is going to be prepared by a non practicing chef, who hasn't stepped foot in the kitchen the last six months, I'll run away as fast as I can. If someone tells me "I'm a non practicing guitar player", I'll laugh. That simply doesn't exist. I find it hard to take someone seriously if they come up with that sort of speech.
If people don't tell others that they're non practicing doctors, musicians or athletes because it would make them look ridiculous, why do they say that about religion?

I guess it comes down to whether a person sees their religion either as something that they are or solely as something that they do.

I'm not sure that either perspective is invalid.

Edit: rethinking this a bit...

It sometimes helps me if I go back to what "religion" means. To me, the idea of community is an importance aspect of what a religion is.

... so what does the community think about this "non-practicing" person? Would the community say "yes, they're part of us. We may disagree with what they're doing right now, but they are a part of our community"?

Obviously, the answer to this question is going to vary from religion to religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's true. I know a JW who had been baptized as a catholic when she was a baby, and later when she asked for her name to be removed they refused. She's been a JW for many years but the church still counts her as catholic. I wonder how many more people are in similar situations.

The Catholic Church considers anyone baptized in the Catholic Church to be a Catholic for life, regardless of what they do or believe.

There's a quote from Tommy Tiernan that I wish I could find online, but it goes something like "once you're a Catholic, you can never not be a Catholic. You could stop going to church and you'd still be a Catholic. If you became Buddhist, you'd just be a bad Catholic."

 

[Vee]

If you became Buddhist, you'd just be a bad Catholic."

That's a little desperate.

 

[paarsurrey]

Paul believe


Paul believes in "faith alone". Jude and James emphasize the importance of works. Many Protestants believe in "faith alone", Catholics take a middle ground, and Jehovah's Witnesses believe that without works, salvation is not possible.

Yet all of them (Catholics, Protestants, JW's and LDS) are Paul's followers, and it is Paul who (by faking a vision of risen Jesus) deviated the faithful from Jesus' path, teachings and deeds, I figure. Right?

Jesus never gave the teachings of "faith alone". Right?
If later some Catholics and JW's realized this error of Paul, they should have condemned Paul openly, but they don't, I understand. Right?

Regards

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Once in a while I come across someone who tells me they're a non practicing member of a certain religion. Mostly catholic, but not exclusively. I never understood the concept. For me, if you don't practice your religion, you might as well say you're non religious. I know there are countries where people don't have freedom of religion and they have to pretend, for their own protection, but that's not the case here.
Over here you can say you're religious, agnostic, atheist, confused, unsure or whatever else, and no one cares.
If I go to a restaurant and someone tells me my meal is going to be prepared by a non practicing chef, who hasn't stepped foot in the kitchen the last six months, I'll run away as fast as I can. If someone tells me "I'm a non practicing guitar player", I'll laugh. That simply doesn't exist. I find it hard to take someone seriously if they come up with that sort of speech.
If people don't tell others that they're non practicing doctors, musicians or athletes because it would make them look ridiculous, why do they say that about religion?

In my experience, people commonly equate 'religion' and 'belief'.
So, someone who (at least loosely) believes in the Catholic version of God, and that the Pope is some sort of moral authority is unlikely to say they're nor religious, even though they're not following the tenets of the religion, nor investing any time into it.

To say they're 'not religious' would equate to them saying they're 'not Catholic', and not only would they feel like that's a misrepresentation, but their little mama would slap them hard. Err...okay, so that last point was more specifically about an Italian mate of mine. Ahem.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If people don't tell others that they're non practicing doctors, musicians or athletes because it would make them look ridiculous, why do they say that about religion?

I think the various answers one might come to for this question are very telling about the nature of religion itself.

I don't think the practice of a religion and believing a religion's tenets or stories have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with one another. Seriously. There is nothing I can think of that makes any activity you might undertake for a religion a prerequisite for having or maintaining beliefs about [X] deity, for example. Nothing.

Where a person who doesn't practice guitar could not play guitar to save their life, a person who does NOTHING whatsoever in service or practice of their religion can still believe in all its mental trappings and deity(ies). Says a lot, honestly, about religion not being tied in any way to real world experience or actual evidenced goings on.

Thank you for bringing this idea to my attention. This is a good nail in the coffin. Good thing I have a hammer.