1 out of 6 dutch preachers doubts/disbeliefs god

[dystopian]

Here my own translation of the article that appeared on fokzine.nl:

One out of 6 preachers in the Netherlands does not know wether there is a god or higher power, or doesn't believe in it at all. This is the result of a study presented at friday by religious sociologist Hijme Stoffels of the Free Univeristy.

The study, done for the IKON, was done under churches joined to that broadcast network. Cause is the 60 year existence of the IKON. Over 800 preachers were asked about their view of god.

The differences between the churches are very big. Preachers of the Salvation army and the Reformed League didn't doubt at all while 42% of the Remonstrantse Brotherhood says to doubt.

-

[Eldarion Lathria]

So? A man must earn his pesetas some way.

Eldarion Lathria

[angela2]

The differences between the churches are very big. Preachers of the Salvation army and the Reformed League didn't doubt at all while 42% of the Remonstrantse Brotherhood says to doubt.

-
Members of the Remonstrantse Brotherhood belong to an organization that believes the following:
IARF members affirm the one Spirit of life, in which we live and move and have our being. We acknowledge that we often mistake what is fleeting for this ultimate reality, and yet we know the truth of life is expressed in many ways. Therefore, we affirm that openness to diverse expressions of faith and wisdom is necessary for spiritual growth. We recognize our common humanity in our failures and sufferings, in our aspirations and hopes, and in the universal experience of love and friendship. In gratitude for the unity of all life, we seek with compassion to realize our true nature, and justice and peace in the world. http://www.geocities.com/~iarf/members99.html
How are you defining the word 'preacher?'

[dystopian]

How are you defining the word 'preacher?'

the guy that stands in front of a group of believers, in a church, and starts talking about hell, jesus, and which cars are misparked.

[angela2]

the guy that stands in front of a group of believers, in a church, and starts talking about hell, jesus, and which cars are misparked.
Then these guys don't qualify and the title of the thread should be changed.

[dystopian]

Then these guys don't qualify and the title of the thread should be changed.

Ofcourse they qualify.

[anevilpetingzoo]

I often wonder if people in general really believe in God... I never REALLY did I don't think, so I assume it could be true for others as well.

[steamer]

I often wonder if people in general really believe in God... I never REALLY did I don't think, so I assume it could be true for others as well.

My wife is kind of a "fluff bunny" Christian. The being described in the bible as god, is a far different thing than what she imagines god to be.

Think of the bible god and then erase every thing in the bible that the god is supposed to have done. What you are left with is pretty much all the nice things that were said about god in the stories.

In my estimation, my wifes idea of god as an idealized father is far superior to the description offerred by the hebrew goat-herders. Call it cherry-picking in the extreme, but surely an actual god wouldn't punish her for thinking him better than the bible depicts. The bible god probably would though :)

[angela2]

Ofcourse they qualify.
How so? They don't believe in Jesus.

[dystopian]

How so? They don't believe in Jesus.

Then obviously you don't know what you're talking about, since every page about it says they do. They are a purely dutch church society that split off from the dutch reformed church in the beginning of the 17th century. They clearly *do* believe in jesus and so on, according to their own statements. So either you are misinformed or are intentionally spreading falsehoods out of dislike of the facts brought up in the OP. According to their own website (dutch): http://www.remonstranten.org/

"De Remonstrantse Broederschap is een geloofsgemeenschap die, geworteld in het evangelie van Jezus Christus en getrouw aan haar beginsel van vrijheid en verdraagzaamheid, God wil eren en dienen."

translation:

"The Remonstrantse brotherhood is a church-community that, rooted in the evangel of jesus christ, and true to it's principle of freedom and tolerance, wants to honor and serve god"

[angela2]

translation:

"The Remonstrantse brotherhood is a church-community that, rooted in the evangel of jesus christ, and true to it's principle of freedom and tolerance, wants to honor and serve god"
All I know about them is what I cited above. You're right about that. However, being "rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ" may or may not equate to the preachers you described. Ditto with "honoring and serving God."

[wiploc]

Then these guys don't qualify and the title of the thread should be changed.

So if the pope is a secret atheist he's not really the pope?

crc

[wiccan windwalker]

maybe he's the anti-pope or whaddaya call it the anti christ???

[Clivedurdle]

Welcome dystopian!

I think you have brought up a very important subject that is evidence of chinks of light in a very important group. The infection will spread!

I have just been to Holland on holiday and loved it! Because you have won your country from the sea, it is obvious that rationality is central to all you do.

You have a very rich heritage of solving problems that is directly attacking fantastic notions, and putting them where they belong in the realm of fantasy.

Next stage, polder the North Sea?

How did you achieve such high levels of cycling? Superb!

[wordy]

anevilpetingzoo asks I often wonder if people in general really believe in God

Could be much truth in this. It all depends on how we use words. They behaves as if they have that belief. They say it in written documents and the rituals have such words. But deep within they could be in cognitive dissonance. And some years later they lose their faith and get conscious of it too.

I've known one such person. She was fervently defending Jesus for years and suddenly losing the faith and saw herself as atheistic but didn't want to participate in any atheist acivities. Saw her atheism as a temporary "desert" experience that could change to an enthusiastic worship in the future.

I found her fervent enthusiasm to be a kind of wishful thinking. If I really do it right then Jesus will love me right. As if hard trying would make religion true.

[Gooch's dad]

angela, it seems that you are completely missing the point. It isn't about defining who is/isn't a "true Christian". The point is that 1/6 of preachers in Dutch Christian churches have doubts about whether God exists.

I've chatted with at least two such preachers myself. One was an Army chaplain who was hired as a Christian chaplain, but no longer believed in God.

This is far from an unusual occurrence, given that many divinity schools actually require their students to study the early history of Christianity, without the modern fundamentalist spin that is put on this history.

[angela2]

angela, it seems that you are completely missing the point. It isn't about defining who is/isn't a "true Christian". The point is that 1/6 of preachers in Dutch Christian churches have doubts about whether God exists.
No, you've missed the point. I'd like some proof that churches of the Remonstrantse brotherhood are Christian.

[Clivedurdle]

No, you've missed the point. I'd like some proof that churches of the Remonstrantse brotherhood are Christian.

But this depends on your definition of xian!

There are groups who believe there are 144,000 elect and everyone else has had it. That point was probably reached about 300 CE!

Then there are fundies, pentes, catholics, unitarians, JW's evangelicals, southern baptists, anglicans, russian and eastern orthodox, liberals......(mormons?)

Could Islam be defined as a xian sect?

This is a wonderful example of the meeting of the real, secular, modern world with an old supernaturally based world. We are looking at history in the making as we slowly wake up from our dreams and realise we can make our dreams come true ourselves.

[fatpie42]

Members of the Remonstrantse Brotherhood belong to an organization that believes the following:
IARF members affirm the one Spirit of life, in which we live and move and have our being. We acknowledge that we often mistake what is fleeting for this ultimate reality, and yet we know the truth of life is expressed in many ways. Therefore, we affirm that openness to diverse expressions of faith and wisdom is necessary for spiritual growth. We recognize our common humanity in our failures and sufferings, in our aspirations and hopes, and in the universal experience of love and friendship. In gratitude for the unity of all life, we seek with compassion to realize our true nature, and justice and peace in the world. http://www.geocities.com/~iarf/members99.html


That's so cool. That's either religious pluralism or a religious inclusivist recognition of the plurality of beliefs. Some might say that all religions involve some kind of higher power, whereas others might feel that the term 'God' or 'higher power' has exclusive connotations which they feel should be discouraged.

Even so, that site only says that they consist in: "liberal Christians, Unitarians and Universalists, Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Zoroastrian groups, as well as tribal communities" so I'm not sure what their opinion is of Post-Christian religious stances which do not insist on a sentient or other-worldly conception of the divine.

[fatpie42]

No, you've missed the point. I'd like some proof that churches of the Remonstrantse brotherhood are Christian.

Many muslims would ask for proof that the suicide bombers involved in 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK were muslims, but that doesn't prevent most of the world from taking those suicide bombers at their word. The Remonstantse brotherhood call themselves Christian and claim to follow Christ. What more do you want? It seems to me that you are not asking whether they are Christian, but whether they adopt YOUR kind of Christianity. To be honest, there are so many different denominations out there that any method of differentiating the 'true' Christians from the 'fake' seems a bit arbitrary.

[angela2]

Even so, that site only says that they consist in: "liberal Christians, Unitarians and Universalists, Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Zoroastrian groups, as well as tribal communities" so I'm not sure what their opinion is of Post-Christian religious stances which do not insist on a sentient or other-worldly conception of the divine.
Which group does the R. brotherhood belong to? How do we know?

If the OP wants to use this group to demonstrate that 'preachers' don't believe what they preach, it behooves us to inquire what they believe because only then could we discover if they preach something they do not believe.

The definition the OP gave for 'preacher' was "the guy that stands in front of a group of believers, in a church, and starts talking about hell, jesus."

Thus the burden falls to the OP to provide evidence that this group does in fact believe in hell and Jesus.

[Gooch's dad]

Wow, believing in Jesus *and* in hell is necessary to be a "true Christian"?

How's that for shifting the goalposts?

angela, this is known as a "no true Scotsman fallacy". From your previous posts, I have the impression that you are quite well read in the areas of theology and possibly philosophy. Have you not heard of this fallacy?

It can also be called an ad hoc attempt to redefine one of the key terms of the discussion, to suit your own goals.

[dystopian]

Welcome dystopian!
Next stage, polder the North Sea?

Already done. The big lake in the center of the country used to be a lot bigger, and used to be directly connected to the north sea you know.


How did you achieve such high levels of cycling? Superb!

by being flat.

[dystopian]

Which group does the R. brotherhood belong to? How do we know?

If the OP wants to use this group to demonstrate that 'preachers' don't believe what they preach, it behooves us to inquire what they believe because only then could we discover if they preach something they do not believe.

As the study clearly stated, this group was merely a part of the study. They were the group with the highest number of doubters, but many other groups have similarly high numbers and the overall average turns out to be 1/6 whereas for the remonstranten it is almost 1 in 2. Therefore your above argument is flawed, pointless, and hereby nullified.


The definition the OP gave for 'preacher' was "the guy that stands in front of a group of believers, in a church, and starts talking about hell, jesus."

Thus the burden falls to the OP to provide evidence that this group does in fact believe in hell and Jesus.


This was already done. I quoted you their own words from their own official website. (in dutch): http://www.remonstranten.org/

Your apparant inability and/or unwillingness to accept this fact, does not change it's validity.

A little searching for english material would field a wikipedia entry on them at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remonstrant.

As such it is clear and obvious that while you have expended your efforts on calling into doubt the fact that this small subset of the study are christian, (which in itself is irrelevant to the larger issue of the study itself), you have failed utterly in your attempts to do so by virtue of not wanting to do even the simplest of research on the matter. Instead you picked the first text you found that you misinterpreted to support your position, and then subsequently did not expend the effort of verifying this information as you should have done.

In closing, you are not a worthy debate partner.

[angela2]

Wow, believing in Jesus *and* in hell is necessary to be a "true Christian"?

How's that for shifting the goalposts?

angela, this is known as a "no true Scotsman fallacy". From your previous posts, I have the impression that you are quite well read in the areas of theology and possibly philosophy. Have you not heard of this fallacy?

It can also be called an ad hoc attempt to redefine one of the key terms of the discussion, to suit your own goals.
If you read the thread, you will find that this is the OP's definition of preachers, not mine.

If he can prove that the preachers in the R. brotherhood do nt believe these things but preach them, he has proven his point to my satisfaction.

But if we are to judge by the statement of the group to which they belong, these preachers never claimed to believe those things so in fact they would be preaching what they believe contrary to the OP's assumption.

[angela2]

As the study clearly stated, this group was merely a part of the study. They were the group with the highest number of doubters, but many other groups have similarly high numbers and the overall average turns out to be 1/6 whereas for the remonstranten it is almost 1 in 2. Therefore your above argument is flawed, pointless, and hereby nullified.

This was already done. I quoted you their own words from their own official website. (in dutch): http://www.remonstranten.org/

Your apparant inability and/or unwillingness to accept this fact, does not change it's validity.
I don't read Dutch. But your OP stated that 46% of the fit you scenario. That would be the group with the highest percentage since as you state other group were included.

Averages here mean nothing.

A little searching for english material would field a wikipedia entry on them at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remonstrant.
You know as well as I that wiki is just someone's (perhaps learned) opinion.

As such it is clear and obvious that while you have expended your efforts on calling into doubt the fact that this small subset of the study are christian
Not true. I merely asked you to document your claim that they fit your definition of preachers.
(which in itself is irrelevant to the larger issue of the study itself),
How is it irrelevant if they are the largest percentage of respondents?
you have failed utterly in your attempts to do so by virtue of not wanting to do even the simplest of research on the matter.
Not true. The research you presented is either in a language I can't read or questionable.
Instead you picked the first text you found
How would you know what I found first?
that you misinterpreted to support your position
untrue
and then subsequently did not expend the effort of verifying this information as you should have done.
Again, how would you know what effort I expended?

In closing, you are not a worthy debate partner.
Right back at you.

[KindBudz]

angela2, I really, really tried to give you the benefit of the dout after reading another thread you have posted in.

After your responses here it just seems like you are trying to derail the thread without adding anything to it.

If you had done any research at all on the OP you wouldn't have made the arguements you were making... So it seemed as if you posted the first thing that popped up in your browser and didn't take the time to understand what it was you were reading.

It seems as if you are dodging real issues with pointless disagreement over the least important facts.

In response to the OP I can only say.. It's easy to accept that the people who should know the truth have these douts. I am suprised that it would be so high in any one group of believers.

Anyone have any ideas why this one group has a higher average than most? Maybe we can try to reproduce it.. :D

[dystopian]

I don't read Dutch. But your OP stated that 46% of the fit you scenario. That would be the group with the highest percentage since as you state other group were included.

This sentence does not make grammatical sense, or sense of any kind, thus i cannot respond to it.


You know as well as I that wiki is just someone's (perhaps learned) opinion.

First of all, there is a large amount of other information in english available on this group. Second of all, *any* website could be described as just someone's opinion. Thirdly of all, wikipedia is structured in such a way that if someone does just post an "opinion", which is inaccurate, then others can come along and correct it. As such, it's validity is to be considered greater than some random website you come across. The only website of greater validity is that of the organization itself, which is in concordance with the wikipedia entry, which in itself describes the organization's history quite well. You are grasping at straws, frothing at the mouth in a futile attempt to ignore this reality.



Not true. I merely asked you to document your claim that they fit your definition of preachers.

done and done, despite your inability to acknowledge the reality of the documentation.


How is it irrelevant if they are the largest percentage of respondents?

Were you dropped on your head as a baby? *NOWHERE* have i, or the study, stated that this group is the largest percentage of respondents. They are the group with the largest number of doubters. NOT the largest group of respondents. Hence your argument is completely nullified.


Not true. The research you presented is either in a language I can't read or questionable.

You think ignorance is a defense? "I can't read it, so obviously it's not true!". Then you get someone to translate. Which incidentally i did. As for the research itself, that is *not* questionable. The study was performed at the behest of the IKON broadcast network. IKON stands for Inter-Kerkelijke-Omroep-Nederland, which anyone who speaks dutch (so you won't have to take my word for it) can tell you translates to: Inter-Church-Broadcastnetwork-Netherlands. You'd think if they were using questionable means and had questionable motivations, the study would be more in their favor.


untrue


Ofcourse it would appear that way to you. I'm not saying you misinterpreted it on *purpose*. But you *did* misinterpret it.


Again, how would you know what effort I expended?


By virtue of the simple fact that even a simple google search would result in an overwhelming amount of information, all of which supports exactly what i have been saying. Since that is the case, it is obvious you have not actually done your research.

As i already stated, you are not a worthy debate partner. My responses to you here are simply to correct your mistakes, faulty logic, and perhaps to pursuade you to adhere to the precepts of logic in future debates you might have with atheists. Although the fact that you are even here, coupled with the style of your discourse with others, suggests you have no intention of ever doing so.

[dystopian]

Anyone have any ideas why this one group has a higher average than most? Maybe we can try to reproduce it.. :D

Probably because of the fact they don't have any overarching doctrine, and believe that everyone is free to experience the faith on their own way. They have a statement of principle, which is based on Jesus Christ, and anyone who accepts that statement of principle is free to join. Each member is encouraged to form their own manner of belief. The formation of this group goes back to 1610 in Gouda, with a group of preachers resisting the teachings of the reformed church, and the doctrines of calvin. They were primarily opposed to the establishement of doctrine that stated what a believer was to believe, and what not. They established the 5 Articles of the Remonstranten which are the guiding principles of the group, and which make frequent mention of christ. (contrary to what angela would have us believe). Ofcourse they are written in dutch and quite lengthy, so a translation would take me some time, but if people are really interested i would be more than happy to oblige.

[angela2]

Probably because of the fact they don't have any overarching doctrine, and believe that everyone is free to experience the faith on their own way. They have a statement of principle, which is based on Jesus Christ, and anyone who accepts that statement of principle is free to join. Each member is encouraged to form their own manner of belief. The formation of this group goes back to 1610 in Gouda, with a group of preachers resisting the teachings of the reformed church, and the doctrines of calvin. They were primarily opposed to the establishement of doctrine that stated what a believer was to believe, and what not. They established the 5 Articles of the Remonstranten which are the guiding principles of the group, and which make frequent mention of christ. (contrary to what angela would have us believe). Ofcourse they are written in dutch and quite lengthy, so a translation would take me some time, but if people are really interested i would be more than happy to oblige.
I'm amazed at this post. It proves my point that members of this group do not qualify as preachers as per your definition.
Each member is encouraged to form their own manner of belief.
They were primarily opposed to the establishement of doctrine that stated what a believer was to believe, and what not.
EXamples.

Explain why you would criticize someone for not believing something they said they were free not to believe.

[dystopian]

I'm amazed at this post. It proves my point that members of this group do not qualify as preachers as per your definition.


What the? No it doesn't. My definition (which was largely meant as humorous but whatever): Guy that stands in church in front of people talking about jesus etc. This is exactly what these preachers do. They have churches. They have congregations. Their beliefs are based on jesus christ. How the hell does what i posted disprove that? You're insane. The definition of a preacher does NOT include telling people what they can and can not believe. That may or may not be your narrow view of christianity, but obviously that view is a minority in today's world.

EXamples.

The doctrine of the reformed church dominant in the netherlands at that time, and the guiding calvinist principles. I assume you're familiar with calvinism. Seriously how the hell do you manage to keep nitpicking over completely irrelevant shit on the basis of YOU not understanding it? You're wasting everyone's time here. What the hell are you even doing on this forum?

Explain why you would criticize someone for not believing something they said they were free not to believe.

Again you demonstrate a complete lack of comprehensive reading skills. The remonstranten have guiding principles of faith, which *must* be accepted before one can become a remonstrant. The remonstranten believe that there can be no such thing as a strictly laid out set of doctrine from above, and that every member is free to experience the faith as they wish. That said, they *must* believe in jesus and follow his teachings in order to be a remonstrant. This was made quite clear and you have either intentionally or unintentionally failed to understand this.

[Gooch's dad]

Um, angela, are you distinguishing between *members* of that brotherhood, and the preachers of that brotherhood? Or are you thinking that all members of the brotherhood were included in the survey? Because that doesn't seem to have been the case.

This may be based on just a simple disagreement. Or, as I said early, it could just be another "no true Scotsman" argument. We'll see.

[dystopian]

Um, angela, are you distinguishing between *members* of that brotherhood, and the preachers of that brotherhood? Or are you thinking that all members of the brotherhood were included in the survey? Because that doesn't seem to have been the case.

This may be based on just a simple disagreement. Or, as I said early, it could just be another "no true Scotsman" argument. We'll see.

The study was done under 800 preachers of *varying* christian churches. The remonstranten were only one of them, which just happened to have the highest number of doubting preachers. Apparantly angela misinterpreted this to mean they were the biggest group of people asked to participate in the study, wether she did that intentionally or not, indeed, remains to be seen.

[cajela]

You think ignorance is a defense? "I can't read it, so obviously it's not true!". Then you get someone to translate. Which incidentally i did. As for the research itself, that is *not* questionable. The study was performed at the behest of the IKON broadcast network. IKON stands for Inter-Kerkelijke-Omroep-Nederland, which anyone who speaks dutch (so you won't have to take my word for it) can tell you translates to: Inter-Church-Broadcastnetwork-Netherlands.
I speak a ittle Dutch and the translation seems correct to me.

Dag, dystopian! Ik spreek zeer weinig Nederlands, en dat met slechte grammatika, maar ik kan meer verstaan. Welkom naar IIDB.

I suspect you'd have some similar results in England and Australia, with the Anglicans in particular being notoriously semi-atheist.

[Castorama]

OP:1 out of 6 dutch preachers doubts/disbeliefs godThey obviously don't come from Staphorst, then.

http://www.samenopstap.info/Staphorster%20Dag%202004%20008.jpg

[dystopian]

Ah yes, staphorst. The dutch hicksville, alabama. Fortunately the place is a complete joke everywhere else in the country.

[FatherMithras]

Canw e please get angela's stupid little derail into another subthread and get on with the discussion for people who expend the effort to acknowledge reality? This thread's entire original premise has been derailed because once again angela refuses to acknowlege facts and attack people.

[FatherMithras]

Not true. I merely asked you to document your claim that they fit your definition of preachers.

Uh....That was done here:

This was already done. I quoted you their own words from their own official website. (in dutch): http://www.remonstranten.org/

Your apparant inability and/or unwillingness to accept this fact, does not change it's validity.

A little searching for english material would field a wikipedia entry on them at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remonstrant.
Wow...

[dystopian]

Uh....That was done here:


Wow...

Don't you know? Wikipedia is just someone's opinion! in fact, all those other websites are just opinions! especially if they support what i said. In fact, the only website that isn't just an opinion is the one angela quoted. Why? Duh! Obviously because it supports her notion regarding the non-christian nature of these people, and if they're not christian, then duh! obviously this study doesn't reflect badly on the piety of christian preachers! It's all so simple, we're just too stupid to realize the truth.

[fatpie42]

Which group does the R. brotherhood belong to? How do we know?

If the OP wants to use this group to demonstrate that 'preachers' don't believe what they preach, it behooves us to inquire what they believe because only then could we discover if they preach something they do not believe.


Who said they had to be 'Christian' preachers?

It was YOU who made a big deal out of whether they were Christian or not. What I have shown is that Christians number amongst their number (thus, to my mind, clearing up the issue completely), and we also have a translation from one of the Dutch pages (since they are, after all, a Dutch group) explaining that :
"The Remonstrantse brotherhood is a church-community that, rooted in the evangel of jesus christ, and true to it's principle of freedom and tolerance, wants to honor and serve god"

What more do you want?

[fatpie42]

Not true. The research you presented is either in a language I can't read or questionable.


You don't accept evidence that isn't in your own language? Well that's the Bible out of the picture then! (I do believe the relevant part of the page was translated for you...)

[fatpie42]

Oh, sorry for bringing that up stuff up again. Seems she's given up the ghost.

Anyway, I was saying earlier that I think the Remonstranten sound really cool, apart from the, expecting you to focus your beliefs around Jesus thing. I wonder how they incorporate all those other religions with that overarching guiding principle?

[angela2]

Oh, sorry for bringing that up stuff up again. Seems she's given up the ghost.

Anyway, I was saying earlier that I think the Remonstranten sound really cool, apart from the, expecting you to focus your beliefs around Jesus thing. I wonder how they incorporate all those other religions with that overarching guiding principle?
What ghost? Hope that's not the Holy Spirit you're talking about. :D

Most of the time when you see stuff written that way it just means they are making a meaningless bow to their origins. You see a lot of that in contemporary theology.

I know one guy, writer, theologian, Dean of a divinity school, who says he believes in the trinity. Mind you, he's a practicing Buddhist as well as a Methodist.

How does that all come together? His conception of the Trinity is, shall we say, novel?

[azidhak]

the guy that stands in front of a group of believers, in a church, and starts talking about hell, jesus, and which cars are misparked.

Then these guys don't qualify and the title of the thread should be changed.

That's not true! They could still talk about misparked cars! :D
(Sorry but it was too tempting ;))

[StillDreaming]

FYI: Only 1.4 % of the respondents belong to the Remonstrantse Broederschap (12 out of 860). So even if someone wants to leave them out it would not change the result.

Most of the respondents (87 %) belong to the PKN (Protestant Church in the Netherlands), which is by far the largest Protestant church: Of all Protestant church members, 73 % belong to PKN, and 27 % belong to other Protestant churches.

[Clivedurdle]

I think the woman in the white clogs is an atheist.