Secular folks should worry.

[MG 2.0]

…it's obvious you're frantically trying to attack others so you can avoid them. You know, like a troll would.

Marcus, if anyone is speaking irrationally and appears to be somewhat ‘frantic’, it’s you. But the fact that you keep coming back to my threads with hopes of a derail says something about troll like behavior.

Go back and read the VOA article. It’s a good place to start. Unless, of course, you’re living in a bubble/box of your own making…

Page 80…here we come. Unless, of course, we want to wrap things up?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Say what you will…and you will. Fact is, I’m pointing out that at the outset of this thread there was an intentional ‘strike’ against looking at relevant resources.

I’m hoping you might have initially ran across and read the VOA article. If not, I provided it for you. As it was, there seemed to be those intent on steering folks away from information that would burst their secular liberal humanist bubble that ‘all is well’.

Regards,
MG

From the VOA reference:

The early numbers from the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) suggest that 27% of people between the ages of 18 and 29 cast ballots Nov. 8, the second-highest youth midterms turnout in 30 years. (The highest was in 2018.)

“It is reproductive rights, climate change, immigration, racial justice, gender justice,” says Wihbey, listing the issues that drove young people to the polls.

Young evangelicals are not that different from their more liberal peers, according to a recent survey.

“They are diversity and equity conscious, more so than older generations and, therefore, they're going to take those things seriously and listen to people who talk about those things, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] or [Vermont Sen.] Bernie Sanders,” says Kevin Singer, co-director of Neighborly Faith, a partner in the study. “They're very, I guess you could say, cosmopolitan when it comes to their political perspectives.”

These are significant changes.

Much more to look at on the site I referred you to on the first page of this thread. Hopefully you weren’t derailed from reading ‘deep’ as a result of Res Ipsa’s negative comment.

There are trends which ARE and have been occurring that ought to be of interest to everyone.

Regards,
MG

Lol. Are you pretending that you don't know the study was misrepresented by the article you started with? Or did you forget?

And that the focus you bring up now fails to address the bigotry you introduced multiple times into this thread? Attempting to change the subject now doesn't fix your hypocrisy. Fix your bigotry, your stereotyping, your hypocritical judgements and then feel free to start a new topic. Not that you are a credible source, but sure, give honesty a try.

[MG 2.0]

…MG largely asserting thoughtless rightwing propoganda points rather than engaging in discussion.

You haven’t been reading my posts for full comprehension and context. As a result you are making stuff up.

“Thoughtless rightwing propaganda”.

Sure. Right.

Not.

You guys are so stinkin’ predictable.

My point, after 70 plus pages, still stands.

I’m actually quite surprised at the ‘kickback’. I find that very telling.

Are we ready to ‘you go your way and I’ll go mine’ yet?

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

MG

[Marcus]

…it's obvious you're frantically trying to attack others so you can avoid them. You know, like a troll would.

Marcus, if anyone is speaking irrationally and appears to be somewhat ‘frantic’, it’s you. But the fact that you keep coming back to my threads with hopes of a derail says something about troll like behavior.

Go back and read the VOA article. It’s a good place to start. Unless, of course, you’re living in a bubble/box of your own making…

Page 80…here we come. Unless, of course, we want to wrap things up?

Regards,
MG

You're not here to discuss. But, sure, explain your understanding of the article you mentioned, and how you feel it relates to the discussion at hand. Please be specific in referencing any statistics, and distinguishing between your opinion and statements that are supported by the data. What conclusion of the article do you feel supports the positions you've taken in this thread?

[MG 2.0]

Lol. Are you pretending that you don't know the study was misrepresented by the article you started with? Or did you forget?

And that the focus you bring up now fails to address the bigotry you introduced multiple times into this thread? Attempting to change the subject now doesn't fix your hypocrisy. Fix your bigotry, your stereotyping, your hypocritical judgements and then feel free to start a new topic. Not that you are a credible source, but sure, give honesty a try.

Yada, yada, yada.

You haven’t read the supporting links that further expand on the study referred to in the first link.

Again, start here:

https://www.neighborlyfaith.org/

But you won’t.

You’re just running your mouth at this point.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Lol. Are you pretending that you don't know the study was misrepresented by the article you started with? Or did you forget?

And that the focus you bring up now fails to address the bigotry you introduced multiple times into this thread? Attempting to change the subject now doesn't fix your hypocrisy. Fix your bigotry, your stereotyping, your hypocritical judgements and then feel free to start a new topic. Not that you are a credible source, but sure, give honesty a try.

Yada, yada, yada.

You haven’t read the supporting links that further expand on the study referred to in the first link.

Again, start here:

https://www.neighborlyfaith.org/

But you won’t.

You’re just running your mouth at this point.

Regards,
MG

You're not here to discuss. But, sure, explain your understanding of the article you mentioned, and how you feel it relates to the discussion at hand. Please be specific in referencing any statistics, and distinguishing between your opinion and statements that are supported by the data. What conclusion of the article do you feel supports the positions you've taken in this thread?

[MG 2.0]

*snip

Mr. Chung, this isn’t the first time you’ve done a ‘drive by’ with nothing useful to contribute. And it won’t be the last.

For those others that are reading this thread who have an open mind or are just coming into this thread I encourage you to go back and browse through the thread, read the links, dig deep, and come up with your own conclusions as to whether or not we have concerns that ought to be addressed as we are now moving into the age of GenZ.

Don’t listen to the naysayers, do your own thinking and your own research. I’ve given some places to begin if you choose to.

Then go on from there.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Sitting back again to let others have their say. I’ll check back at a later time.

Let’s see what piles up this time around.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Mr. Chung, this isn’t the first time you’ve done a ‘drive by’ with nothing useful to contribute. And it won’t be the last.

For those others that are reading this thread who have an open mind or are just coming into this thread I encourage you to go back and browse through the thread, read the links, dig deep

Now hold on MG, you mean you expect people to read the thread and even dig deep? Yet, you showed up on my cult thread and shamelessly admitted you hadn't read my OP and weren't planning on it.