SCOTUS Decision: Ban on "Talk" Conversion Therapy is Unconstitutional

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Children’s innocence and healthy development should be protected consistently, regardless of the identity or politics of the adults involved.

I agree.  Which is why I think children should be taught to be comfortable with their own bodies and the sight of others’, including nudity rather than shame being attached.

Unfortunately our culture went the other way (those silly Victorians took it way over the top) and we are still recovering.  Pity we can’t all grow up in nudist camps.  But then porn would simply switch to having clothes on most likely.

Edited April 7 by Calm

[smac97]

.

Edited April 8 by smac97

[Notatbm]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think you’ll find that the Church and its members have always treated gay and other queer people with nothing but love and concern for their wellbeing. Also respect. Lots of respect. Oodles of respect. And that AIDS was deserved for their sinful lifestyle and that they chose to be perverts of their own accord. And respect. Did I mention respect?

Very respected 

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Very respected 

 

Yeah, when I first saw that I rolled my eyes at how the divine instruments of God’s will are trying to figure out who is gay and seem open to the idea that all of journalism is somehow covering up whether people are gay if it would look bad in any way. It is gross. I wanted to believe the leaders weren’t falling for this conspiracy nonsense and it was just many of the members but nope, they will dig right in.

I am assured though that the Church has always treated gay people with kindness and a desire to help though so…..ummmm……what?

[gopher]

Why do these discussions always end with Nehor threatening to have a threesome or join an orgy?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

Why do these discussions always end with Nehor threatening to have a threesome or join an orgy?

Hey! Unfair!

That only happened three or maybe four times.

[longview]

4 hours ago, gopher said:

Why do these discussions always end with Nehor threatening to have a threesome or join an orgy?

This is a reflection on his nihilism and his staunch advocacy of hedonism.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, longview said:

This is a reflection on his nihilism and his staunch advocacy of hedonism.

More like sarcasm and a recognition of the absurdity 

[The Nehor]

I realize I have been a bit unfair. I keep referring to propagandists fighting against queer and specifically transgender causes without identifying them.

So I figured I would share. Around 80% of anti-transgender groups get a large portion of their money from fossil fuel executives and companies. Transgender people did not seek out the spotlight. Someone saw them as a target. So why would fossil fuel groups be pushing this along with other anti-intellectual causes like climate change denialism, white supremacist causes, Evangelical Christian prosperity gospel stuff, and anti-abortion groups and the like. Well, when you are doing things that are likely to cause huge damage to the biosphere of the planet it makes sense to make people look anywhere but at you. So creating cultural rifts and finding minority groups to scapegoat works at keeping all the little people fighting each other so you can do whatever you want.

This is a tried and true strategy as any deep student of history knows. In the late 1940s and 1950s big businesses HATED the New Deal and other policies that hampered their profits. So they funded a big Christian revival movement that tried to make Christianity (and by that I mean Protestant Christianity) into a force opposed to things like social safety nets for the poor, government initiatives to help people in general, and the like. So they hired some preachers and got to it. From that spawned “one nation under God” being added to the pledge of allegiance, “In God We Trust” being a national motto and somewhat laughably being printed on our money, and the idea that America was a Christian nation. This was also tied quite a bit to the last version of the KKK that would fight the Civil Rights Movment. It also called any kind of help for the poor a kind of “pagan statism” and a godless form of socialism. Sounds familiar right? Well, it worked pretty well. Church attendance went up and many of the preachers were saying the things the wealthy wanted and some of the others were picking up the talking points via osmosis.

Then in the 1980s things were going better but they needed more. More money was spent hiring and training preachers and this time the cause was abortion which most of Protestant Christianity was previously indifferent to. Suddenly it was the vilest form of murder. The real cause behind a lot of that was government pressure to desegregate some of the religious schools  but you couldn’t get the same enthusiasm about racism as you used to so abortion was a nice wedge issue. Throw in gay people as well of course because why not? AIDS you know. The prosperity gospel appeared and it tied neatly into a simplistic Christianity. If you are good you go to heaven and get rich. If you are bad or just aren’t trying hard enough you go to hell and you stay poor. It was a divine order and “socialism” was a satanic attempt to give the rewards of heaven to the unworthy. Yuck. So full court press on this. Again anything that helped promote any kind of equality was socialism. The religious revival worked. Church attendance went up.

Then we come to the late 2010s. A lot of the people from the last movement are old or are dead. So lets start another revival and that is what they did. This time transgender.people were thrown into the mix along with a lot of the old classics. There was always more than a bit of misogyny in the older movements but now being insufficiently feminine or masculine could also be policed and you could terrorize cis women who appeared or acted too masculine. Turning Point USA was supposed to be the big religious revival along with a bunch of other movements. The culture war was a perfect cover to teach people to be skeptical of the intellectuals who often know what they are talking about and to pit people along lines that didn’t threaten business interests.

Of course this most recent movement has a flaw in it. It is not working. Church attendance isn’t shooting up like last time. The “Gen Z Revival” that was recently pushed is laughably non-existent. If you trace the origin of this myth to the data that is supposed to back it up it is ridiculous to suggest it is a revival of any kind. I suspect the myth isn’t for regular people. I suspect it is the grifters who spent all this money they were given and the results are pretty underwhelming. Far from falling into line the younger generations are getting more skeptical of all the anti-intellectualism and the witch hunting for queers, commies, and non-conformists. So they need to hide their failure and stall for time.

Anyways, this is where the “drag queens and transgender people” are the scourge of modern society is coming from. The fossil fuel industry is running a distraction campaign and the blood and pain they inflict is irrelevant as long as the goal of letting them do whatever they like is achieved. And as to what their achievement is well, as Bill Nye said: “The world is on f&%!ing fire!”

I for one am tired of many of my friends facing all kinds of humiliation and danger because we have a bunch of dupes in love with this propaganda.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

This is a reflection on his nihilism and his staunch advocacy of hedonism.

The real nihilists are the ones burning up the world and defending the ones doing it.

I also only practice ethical hedonism.

[Senator]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I realize I have been a bit unfair. I keep referring to propagandists fighting against queer and specifically transgender causes without identifying them.

So I figured I would share. Around 80% of anti-transgender groups get a large portion of their money from fossil fuel executives and companies. Transgender people did not seek out the spotlight. Someone saw them as a target. So why would fossil fuel groups be pushing this along with other anti-intellectual causes like climate change denialism, white supremacist causes, Evangelical Christian prosperity gospel stuff, and anti-abortion groups and the like. Well, when you are doing things that are likely to cause huge damage to the biosphere of the planet it makes sense to make people look anywhere but at you. So creating cultural rifts and finding minority groups to scapegoat works at keeping all the little people fighting each other so you can do whatever you want.

This is a tried and true strategy as any deep student of history knows. In the late 1940s and 1950s big businesses HATED the New Deal and other policies that hampered their profits. So they funded a big Christian revival movement that tried to make Christianity (and by that I mean Protestant Christianity) into a force opposed to things like social safety nets for the poor, government initiatives to help people in general, and the like. So they hired some preachers and got to it. From that spawned “one nation under God” being added to the pledge of allegiance, “In God We Trust” being a national motto and somewhat laughably being printed on our money, and the idea that America was a Christian nation. This was also tied quite a bit to the last version of the KKK that would fight the Civil Rights Movment. It also called any kind of help for the poor a kind of “pagan statism” and a godless form of socialism. Sounds familiar right? Well, it worked pretty well. Church attendance went up and many of the preachers were saying the things the wealthy wanted and some of the others were picking up the talking points via osmosis.

Then in the 1980s things were going better but they needed more. More money was spent hiring and training preachers and this time the cause was abortion which most of Protestant Christianity was previously indifferent to. Suddenly it was the vilest form of murder. The real cause behind a lot of that was government pressure to desegregate some of the religious schools  but you couldn’t get the same enthusiasm about racism as you used to so abortion was a nice wedge issue. Throw in gay people as well of course because why not? AIDS you know. The prosperity gospel appeared and it tied neatly into a simplistic Christianity. If you are good you go to heaven and get rich. If you are bad or just aren’t trying hard enough you go to hell and you stay poor. It was a divine order and “socialism” was a satanic attempt to give the rewards of heaven to the unworthy. Yuck. So full court press on this. Again anything that helped promote any kind of equality was socialism. The religious revival worked. Church attendance went up.

Then we come to the late 2010s. A lot of the people from the last movement are old or are dead. So lets start another revival and that is what they did. This time transgender.people were thrown into the mix along with a lot of the old classics. There was always more than a bit of misogyny in the older movements but now being insufficiently feminine or masculine could also be policed and you could terrorize cis women who appeared or acted too masculine. Turning Point USA was supposed to be the big religious revival along with a bunch of other movements. The culture war was a perfect cover to teach people to be skeptical of the intellectuals who often know what they are talking about and to pit people along lines that didn’t threaten business interests.

Of course this most recent movement has a flaw in it. It is not working. Church attendance isn’t shooting up like last time. The “Gen Z Revival” that was recently pushed is laughably non-existent. If you trace the origin of this myth to the data that is supposed to back it up it is ridiculous to suggest it is a revival of any kind. I suspect the myth isn’t for regular people. I suspect it is the grifters who spent all this money they were given and the results are pretty underwhelming. Far from falling into line the younger generations are getting more skeptical of all the anti-intellectualism and the witch hunting for queers, commies, and non-conformists. So they need to hide their failure and stall for time.

Anyways, this is where the “drag queens and transgender people” are the scourge of modern society is coming from. The fossil fuel industry is running a distraction campaign and the blood and pain they inflict is irrelevant as long as the goal of letting them do whatever they like is achieved. And as to what their achievement is well, as Bill Nye said: “The world is on f&%!ing fire!”

I for one am tired of many of my friends facing all kinds of humiliation and danger because we have a bunch of dupes in love with this propaganda.

Feel better?

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Senator said:

Feel better?

Not until it stops. So……no.

And that wasn’t a vent as your tone seems to imply. I have vented here before. I am much more caustic and biting when I am venting.

Edit: If you would like I suppose I could write up a version of that where I am venting but it would probably get me thread banned and possibly the whole thread shut down.

Edited April 8 by The Nehor

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Around 80% of anti-transgender groups get a large portion of their money from fossil fuel executives and companies.

I assume you are referencing and relying on this article?

Fossil fuel billionaires are bankrolling the anti-trans movement

A Grok summary:

Quote

The claim originates from a June 10, 2025, article published by Atmos and HEATED (a climate-focused outlet). It is based on an independent, non-peer-reviewed analysis conducted by three researchers who examined 45 right-wing groups that they identified as actively advocating against trans rights in the U.S. (through lobbying, model legislation, litigation, events, and publications).

What the claim actually says

The researchers found that 80% of those 45 groups had received donations from fossil fuel companies or billionaires whose wealth comes from oil/gas. The article does not claim that 80% of all groups critical of certain trans policies get fossil fuel money — only that 80% of the specific 45 they studied did.

Specific examples cited:

• Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — One of the most active groups in anti-trans litigation and drafting model bills (e.g., bathroom/sports bills). Received $58,002 from Shell USA Company Foundation (2013–2022) and $110,000 from Phil Anschutz (fossil fuel billionaire) between 2011–2013.
• Other groups mentioned in the analysis include recipients of donations from fracking billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks (who funded The Daily Wire and PragerU, both of which have run anti-trans content), the Koch network, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The analysis relied on public donor disclosures, tax records, and grant reports. It is not peer-reviewed and has been promoted heavily by left-leaning climate and LGBTQ+ advocacy outlets.

Alleged motive

The articles argue that fossil fuel interests fund these groups as part of a broader strategy to:

• Mobilize conservative voters using culture-war issues.
• Distract public attention from climate policy and fossil fuel regulation.
• Support right-wing organizations that also oppose environmental regulations, DEI, and “woke” policies.

In short: cultural wedge issues help advance a larger conservative/libertarian agenda that aligns with deregulation and limited government.

Is this a fair summary?

Quote

Transgender people did not seek out the spotlight. Someone saw them as a target.

More from Grok regarding this claim (in relation to the above article) :

Quote

Strength of the evidence

• Real donations exist — Shell, Anschutz, Wilks brothers, and others have given money to conservative groups that also oppose certain trans policies.
• But causation vs. correlation is heavily debated. Many of these groups (ADF, Heritage Foundation, etc.) have long-standing conservative/Christian missions on multiple issues (abortion, religious liberty, family structure, etc.). Fossil fuel donors often support them for those broader reasons, not solely (or even primarily) because of trans issues.
• The 80% figure comes from a selective sample of 45 groups chosen by the researchers. It does not represent all organizations critical of gender ideology or trans-related policies.
• Conservative critics call this a guilt-by-association tactic: many environmental groups also receive funding from left-leaning foundations, yet their positions on other issues aren’t dismissed as “astroturf.”

On “Transgender people did not seek out the spotlight”

This is a common framing in activist circles: the idea that trans individuals were quietly living their lives until “anti-trans” forces politicized the issue.

The counter-view (held by many gender-critical feminists, some lesbians/gay men, and parents’ groups) is that certain trans advocacy organizations and allies have actively pushed for high-visibility policy changes in recent years, including:

• Access to women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and prisons based on self-identified gender.
• Participation of biological males in women’s sports.
• Rapid-onset gender dysphoria and medical interventions (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, surgeries) for minors (“pediatric sex trait modification”).
• Drag Queen Story Hour and family-friendly drag events in schools/libraries.
• Removal of sex-based protections in law and policy (e.g., redefining “sex” to include gender identity in Title IX, civil rights law, etc.).

These efforts have been highly public, litigious, and media-driven, leading to widespread debate. Critics argue it is not “bigotry” to push back on policies that affect single-sex spaces, fair competition, child safeguarding, or data collection on sex.

Bottom line: The funding claim is based on a real (but selective and non-peer-reviewed) analysis of 45 groups. Fossil fuel money has gone to some prominent conservative organizations that also oppose certain trans policies — but the causal link and motive are contested. The “did not seek the spotlight” claim is a framing device; many on the other side point to very public activism and policy demands as the reason the issue became prominent.

This is a highly polarized topic. Both sides accuse the other of bad faith, astroturfing, or using children as pawns. The funding angle is one piece of a much larger cultural/political fight.

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Around 80% of anti-transgender groups get a large portion of their money from fossil fuel executives and companies

This seems like it should be documentable.  Do you have references?

added:  I see smac was wondering too.  If he’s correct and/or there is no additional documentation, just ignore this request. 

Edited April 9 by Calm

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Many of these groups (ADF, Heritage Foundation, etc.) have long-standing conservative/Christian missions on multiple issues (abortion, religious liberty, family structure, etc.). Fossil fuel donors often support them for those broader reasons, not solely (or even primarily) because of trans issues.

This would tie into Nehor’s claim of using religion as distraction. 

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I assume you are referencing and relying on this article?

Fossil fuel billionaires are bankrolling the anti-trans movement

A Grok summary:

Is this a fair summary?

More from Grok regarding this claim (in relation to the above article) :

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

Grok got several things wrong but the argument that they support other conservative causes is exactly what I said was going on. They aren’t just supporting anti-transgender organizations. They are funding all kinds of right-wing causes and more extreme Christian religious groups.

Also a lol at the idea that you would need to have a peer-reviewed study on basic reporting on funding sources. Whatever you say Grok.

[gopher]

14 hours ago, longview said:

This is a reflection on his nihilism and his staunch advocacy of hedonism.

Hey, I was just having fun.  I'm not looking to criticize or scold anyone here.

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

This seems like it should be documentable.  Do you have references?

added:  I see smac was wondering too.  If he’s correct and/or there is no additional documentation, just ignore this request. 

Here is the article @The Nehor is referencing: 

Fossil fuel billionaires are bankrolling the anti-trans movement

From that article:

Quote

ADF isn’t the only anti-trans organization with financial ties to the fossil fuel sector. An independent analysis of 45 right-wing groups advocating against trans rights found that 80% have received donations from fossil fuel companies or billionaires. The analysis, conducted by two independent researchers in 2023 and not peer-reviewed, was shared exclusively with Atmos and HEATED. Through a qualitative search, the researchers identified 45 groups advancing anti-trans lobbying, events, and publications and checked reports about their donor disclosures for fossil fuel funding. 

The linked Google doc tracks 45 groups. Columns include:

• Group name
• Evidence of “transphobia” (articles, policies, SPLC designations, etc.)
• Evidence of fossil fuel ties (direct or indirect)
• Specific billionaires (Kochs, Phil Anschutz, Farris & Dan Wilks, etc.)

It shows connections (some direct, many indirect via intermediaries like the National Christian Foundation) for virtually all 45 groups. Specific donation amounts are rare and mostly small/old (e.g., Shell gave ADF $58k over 9 years; Anschutz gave ADF $110k years earlier).

As is common in discussion such as these, loaded terms and conclusions are presumed rather than demonstrated.  Reasoned disagreement, even if framed in the most clinical and dispassionate terms, is "transphobia."  

I think there are some concerns with the validity of the article's conclusions.  A few thoughts:

1. Selection Bias / Cherry-Picking: The 45 groups were not randomly or comprehensively sampled. Researchers started by looking for “right-wing groups advancing anti-trans lobbying, events, and publications.” This produced a list dominated by broad conservative/Christian organizations (ADF, Family Research Council, ALEC, AEI, etc.) that have opposed many progressive causes for decades (abortion, same-sex marriage, religious liberty, school curricula, etc.). Trans issues are only one small part of their portfolios. The sample was constructed to find fossil-fuel ties, not to test whether such ties are unusually common or causal.
2. Correlation, Not Causation: Fossil fuel donors (Koch network, Anschutz, Wilks brothers) have long funded conservative causes for economic, religious, and limited-government reasons. There is no evidence in the article or spreadsheet that these donors earmark money specifically for trans issues or that anti-trans work is their primary motivation. The article simply assumes the funding exists because of trans opposition, when the far more plausible explanation is that donors support conservative groups that happen to also oppose certain trans policies.
3. Inflated and Indirect Ties: Many “connections” are indirect (e.g., donations to the National Christian Foundation, which then funds multiple groups). The spreadsheet marks indirect ties, yet the article presents them as straightforward “bankrolling.” Specific donation amounts are often tiny relative to group budgets and span many years.
4. No Scale or Percentage Context The article never discloses what fraction of any group’s total funding comes from fossil fuel sources. For many/most groups it may be a very small percentage. No comparison is made to other major conservative donors (religious foundations, individual philanthropists, etc.).
5. Activist-Driven, Non-Peer-Reviewed Source The researchers are climate and LGBTQ+ advocates. The analysis is explicitly not peer-reviewed and was shared exclusively with activist-oriented climate outlets. The framing is narrative-driven: fossil fuels = bigotry = distraction from climate action.
6. Guilt-by-Association and One-Sided Scrutiny The piece implies that because some conservative groups receive fossil fuel money and oppose certain trans policies, the fossil fuel industry must be orchestrating the opposition. This is classic guilt-by-association. No equivalent scrutiny is applied to pro-trans organizations, which receive substantial funding from left-leaning foundations, tech billionaires, and other sources.
7. Overbroad Definition of “Advocating Against Trans Rights” The list includes mainstream conservative groups that have taken positions on sports fairness, youth medicalization, bathroom privacy, or religious liberty — not single-issue “hate groups.”

Bottom Line:  

As I see it, the 80% statistic is technically “true” within the narrow, hand-picked sample of 45 groups, but it is highly misleading. It exaggerates the significance and purpose of the funding, ignores broader patterns of conservative philanthropy, and serves a clear political narrative: fossil fuels are the hidden driver of opposition to gender ideology. The article and underlying analysis are textbook examples of motivated reasoning and selective data presentation. They prove correlation and donor overlap, not causation or a coordinated “bankrolling” campaign.

This does not mean fossil fuel money has no influence on conservative politics — it does, just as other large donors influence progressive politics. But the claim as presented is overstated, methodologically flawed, and designed more for activism than rigorous analysis.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited April 9 by smac97

[longview]

7 hours ago, gopher said:

Hey, I was just having fun.  I'm not looking to criticize or scold anyone here.

Beware the slippery slope of Sodom and Gomorrah.   

ETA: "Why am I in this handbasket AND where am i going?"   

Edited April 9 by longview

[california boy]

On 4/8/2026 at 3:45 PM, The Nehor said:

I realize I have been a bit unfair. I keep referring to propagandists fighting against queer and specifically transgender causes without identifying them.

So I figured I would share. Around 80% of anti-transgender groups get a large portion of their money from fossil fuel executives and companies. Transgender people did not seek out the spotlight. Someone saw them as a target. So why would fossil fuel groups be pushing this along with other anti-intellectual causes like climate change denialism, white supremacist causes, Evangelical Christian prosperity gospel stuff, and anti-abortion groups and the like. Well, when you are doing things that are likely to cause huge damage to the biosphere of the planet it makes sense to make people look anywhere but at you. So creating cultural rifts and finding minority groups to scapegoat works at keeping all the little people fighting each other so you can do whatever you want.

This is a tried and true strategy as any deep student of history knows. In the late 1940s and 1950s big businesses HATED the New Deal and other policies that hampered their profits. So they funded a big Christian revival movement that tried to make Christianity (and by that I mean Protestant Christianity) into a force opposed to things like social safety nets for the poor, government initiatives to help people in general, and the like. So they hired some preachers and got to it. From that spawned “one nation under God” being added to the pledge of allegiance, “In God We Trust” being a national motto and somewhat laughably being printed on our money, and the idea that America was a Christian nation. This was also tied quite a bit to the last version of the KKK that would fight the Civil Rights Movment. It also called any kind of help for the poor a kind of “pagan statism” and a godless form of socialism. Sounds familiar right? Well, it worked pretty well. Church attendance went up and many of the preachers were saying the things the wealthy wanted and some of the others were picking up the talking points via osmosis.

Then in the 1980s things were going better but they needed more. More money was spent hiring and training preachers and this time the cause was abortion which most of Protestant Christianity was previously indifferent to. Suddenly it was the vilest form of murder. The real cause behind a lot of that was government pressure to desegregate some of the religious schools  but you couldn’t get the same enthusiasm about racism as you used to so abortion was a nice wedge issue. Throw in gay people as well of course because why not? AIDS you know. The prosperity gospel appeared and it tied neatly into a simplistic Christianity. If you are good you go to heaven and get rich. If you are bad or just aren’t trying hard enough you go to hell and you stay poor. It was a divine order and “socialism” was a satanic attempt to give the rewards of heaven to the unworthy. Yuck. So full court press on this. Again anything that helped promote any kind of equality was socialism. The religious revival worked. Church attendance went up.

Then we come to the late 2010s. A lot of the people from the last movement are old or are dead. So lets start another revival and that is what they did. This time transgender.people were thrown into the mix along with a lot of the old classics. There was always more than a bit of misogyny in the older movements but now being insufficiently feminine or masculine could also be policed and you could terrorize cis women who appeared or acted too masculine. Turning Point USA was supposed to be the big religious revival along with a bunch of other movements. The culture war was a perfect cover to teach people to be skeptical of the intellectuals who often know what they are talking about and to pit people along lines that didn’t threaten business interests.

Of course this most recent movement has a flaw in it. It is not working. Church attendance isn’t shooting up like last time. The “Gen Z Revival” that was recently pushed is laughably non-existent. If you trace the origin of this myth to the data that is supposed to back it up it is ridiculous to suggest it is a revival of any kind. I suspect the myth isn’t for regular people. I suspect it is the grifters who spent all this money they were given and the results are pretty underwhelming. Far from falling into line the younger generations are getting more skeptical of all the anti-intellectualism and the witch hunting for queers, commies, and non-conformists. So they need to hide their failure and stall for time.

Anyways, this is where the “drag queens and transgender people” are the scourge of modern society is coming from. The fossil fuel industry is running a distraction campaign and the blood and pain they inflict is irrelevant as long as the goal of letting them do whatever they like is achieved. And as to what their achievement is well, as Bill Nye said: “The world is on f&%!ing fire!”

I for one am tired of many of my friends facing all kinds of humiliation and danger because we have a bunch of dupes in love with this propaganda.

Here is an article that talks about the myth of a revival.  There are a bunch of articles addressing this issue.

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/is-the-christian-revival-a-myth-the-truth-over-the-viral-data.html

Quote

 

Recently, the Bible Society of the UK pulled a much-discussed report that had suggested the nation was undergoing a “quiet revival.” On the website, CEO Paul Williams admitted that “the 2024 survey sample on which our report 'The Quiet Revival' was based was faulty, and it can no longer be regarded as a reliable source of information about the spiritual landscape in Britain.” The data in question had been compiled by market research firm YouGov, which recently acknowledged that it had not employed usual quality controls and had included responses now known to be “fraudulent.”  

 

There are also a bunch of articles about the myth that there is a religious revival in the U.S as well.  Here is the summary from ChatGPT

Recent claims of a U.S. religious revival, particularly among Gen Z, are largely a myth driven by anecdotal stories and misinterpreted data. Sociological data shows a stabilization of religious decline rather than a nationwide resurgence, with church attendance and belief remaining far lower than in previous decades. 

 

 

Quote

 

Why the "Revival" is Considered a Myth

• No Statistical Surge: High-quality polling from Pew Research Center and other experts shows no clear evidence of a large-scale nationwide resurgence.
• Plateau, Not Rebound: While long-term declines in Christian identification have slowed since roughly 2019, this is a plateau (hovering around 60–70% identifying with a religion) rather than a comeback.
• Gen Z Data Misinterpretation: Reports of a Gen Z revival often rely on opt-in surveys focusing on already-religious youth, failing to show that Gen Z as a whole is less religious and has lower church attendance than previous generations.
• Pandemic Recovery vs. Growth: Reported increases in church attendance are often just churches regaining congregants who stopped attending during the pandemic, rather than attracting new converts. 
  YouTube +4

Pockets of Intensity vs. General Decline

• Elite Revival: Some evidence suggests an "elite revival," where religion becomes more prominent among specific groups, such as college campuses, without reversing the overall downward trend in mainstream denominations like Baptist or Catholic.
• Conversion Stories: Vivid stories of conversions to Roman Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity exist but do not constitute a broad statistical change, as many other people are disaffiliating.
• "Quiet Revival" Claims: Some reports, such as those from the Bible Society, have claimed a "quiet revival" and rising Bible sales, but these are often disputed by broader, more rigorous studies showing sustained long-term decline in traditional Christian faith. 
  YouTube +4

In summary, the narrative of a national religious resurgence is likely overstated, with current trends indicating a steady or slightly declining religious landscape rather than a renewed "Great Awakening". 

KDBC +1

 

Nehor is dead on. right.

 

Anyone feel like they are being manipulated?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here is the article @The Nehor is referencing: 

Fossil fuel billionaires are bankrolling the anti-trans movement

I assume you are assuming this is all he has unless he said so and I missed it (always possible the way I typically pop in and out of the board). It may be since he didn’t add more, but I am still curious if he does.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

I assume you are referencing and relying on this article?

Fossil fuel billionaires are bankrolling the anti-trans movement

Quote

Here is the article @The Nehor is referencing: 

Fossil fuel billionaires are bankrolling the anti-trans movement

I assume you are assuming this is all he has unless he said so and I missed it (always possible the way I typically pop in and out of the board).

Yes, I guess that's my assumption.

11 hours ago, Calm said:

It may be since he didn’t add more, but I am still curious if he does.

If he has other references, I would like to review them.  But I don't think he does.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

On 4/8/2026 at 3:45 PM, The Nehor said:

Then we come to the late 2010s. A lot of the people from the last movement are old or are dead. So lets start another revival and that is what they did. This time transgender.people were thrown into the mix along with a lot of the old classics. There was always more than a bit of misogyny in the older movements but now being insufficiently feminine or masculine could also be policed and you could terrorize cis women who appeared or acted too masculine. Turning Point USA was supposed to be the big religious revival along with a bunch of other movements. The culture war was a perfect cover to teach people to be skeptical of the intellectuals who often know what they are talking about and to pit people along lines that didn’t threaten business interests.

I for one am tired of many of my friends facing all kinds of humiliation and danger because we have a bunch of dupes in love with this propaganda.

This is how ridiculous things are and have been for some time now.  Take a look at this news cast.

https://www.mediamatters.org/newsmax/newsmax-host-gender-and-aliens-you-never-have-seen-alien-peeing-standing-movie

sorry I haven't ever figured out how to insert a video clip.  Here is part of his diatribe definitely referencing th ongoing transgender war propaganda 

 

Quote

 

ROB FINNERTY (HOST): And whether you believe in them or not, everybody has heard about beings from another planet. And the descriptions are almost always the same. They're smaller, big eyes, big heads, weak, stringy little arms, pale, no gender. And usually they're feminine and they always look the same. You never have seen an alien peeing standing up in a movie or like, yucking it up with his alien buddies. That's never happened.

And for some reason, the lines between gender are always blurred with aliens, which I think is very odd.

 

 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

This is how ridiculous things are and have been for some time now.  Take a look at this news cast.

https://www.mediamatters.org/newsmax/newsmax-host-gender-and-aliens-you-never-have-seen-alien-peeing-standing-movie

sorry I haven't ever figured out how to insert a video clip.  Here is part of his diatribe definitely referencing th ongoing transgender war propaganda 

I think the weirdest situation I heard of was Tala the storyteller. A library in the UK got a new mascot. A gender neutral alien designed to appeal to small children.

They ended up with angry parents thinking this literal alien was destroying gender norms. There were people (purportedly adults) demanding to know how this alien species that is designed to be cute and relatable to small children reproduces. These people somehow think they are the well-adjusted normal ones.

[Daniel2]

On 3/31/2026 at 10:02 AM, smac97 said:

The Church has a fairly sensible approach to "Conversion Therapy."

"Abusive practices" is key.

From October 2019:

Today: 

Supreme Court rules against Colorado's conversion therapy ban on First Amendment grounds

A Grok summary:

I will be curious as to how this ruling shakes out in the real world.  Candidly, I think the effect will not be substantial.  I think "conversion therapy" will now be absent from therapeutic practices due to de facto, rather than de jure, considerations.

So the case really isn't over.  The lower courts now have to re-do the constitutional analysis. 

Beautiful words.  I am grateful for the First Amendment.

The pushback continues apace.

Thoughts?

"Including talk therapy."

Yes, the asymmetry sure is glaring.

Thanks,

-Smac

As someone who underwent talk conversion therapy with two different LDS therapists in the early 1990's (having been referred to both by my LDS bishops at the time on two separate occasions, one while still single and attending BYU, the other after years after I was married to a woman--both employees of LDS Social Services), I'm grateful to read how far The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has come in terms of disavowing and distancing itself from conversion therapy. 

I find it gratifying that The Church has really demonstrated a willingness to harmonize its approach to sexual orientation with evidence-based findings of modern science, medicine, and psychology, as well as compromises in its approach to equal civil rights for same-gender couples in recent years. And while The Church is still far more progressive than many Christian conservatives with regards to transgender individuals, I remain hopeful that as the years continue to unfold, they will increasingly do the same in their approach to those with gender dysphoria, as well. 

Thank you for sharing all those examples, Smac.  

 

Edited April 17 by Daniel2