Atheists & Agnostics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Here is a strange question: Why doesn't the U.S. Census ask questions about religion?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Here is a strange question: Why doesn't the U.S. Census ask questions about religion?

QUESTION:

“Why doesn’t the U.S. Census ask about religion?”

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Most Americans may never have thought about this, an odd omission considering that religion is such an important aspect of society. Canada’s government, for example, has asked about religious affiliations since 1871.

But from the first once-a-decade U.S. Census conducted in 1790, the federal government has never directly asked all Americans about their religion (or lack thereof). Responses are anonymous, which should remove any sensitivities about answering such a question. The usual explanation is that “separation of church and state” forbids such questionining by a government agency, which is debatable.

Much of the history below draws upon an April 12  article about the Census by the Pew Research Center that has further detail for those interested, available by clicking here.

Instead of church-and-state entanglement, The Guy offers a different sort of objection to Census involvement. Religious affiliation or identity may be too complicated a matter for government nose-counters to deal with accurately.

Several non-government agencies with more expertise in this area collect standard data on Americans’ religion, with numbers that regularly conflict due to differing methods, assumptions and definitions.

One of the most important is Pew Research’s own Religious Landscape Study, last issued in 2014. www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/Groundwork for the next round has already begun. Pew’s precision on religious factions and identities is vital because Protestant categories like “Lutheran” or “Presbyterian” mask big differences among groups with that label.

That sort of specificity is also provided in the “U.S. Religion Census” conducted each decade since 1990 by experts in religion statistics.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Black Americans are as likely to be 'nones' as other racial groups (but with a difference)

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Black Americans are as likely to be 'nones' as other racial groups (but with a difference)

One of the most difficult things to describe to the average person about religious classification is Black Protestants.

In 2000, a group of scholars created the RELTRAD classification scheme which divided Protestants up into three categories — evangelical, mainline and Black Protestant. Why are Hispanic and white evangelicals grouped together, but Black Protestants get their own separate category? What about Black evangelicals, Black Pentecostals and Black mainline Protestants?

It’s not an easy question answer, really. 

Paul Djupe and I tried to answer that a few years ago in a post at Religion in Public. The answer will not shock GetReligion readers.

In short: politics. But, it’s a bit more than just how they vote on election day. Anyone who has ever worshipped with a predominantly Black congregation knows that it tends to be a bit different than how the United Methodists and lots of other folks do things on a Sunday morning.

I’ve always been fascinated by the role that the church plays in Black culture and was wondering if the rising tide of secularization had been blunted in a bit among African Americans — or if they were seeing the same trend lines as other racial groups.

In 2008, Black Americans were noticeably less likely to report no religious affiliation compared to their White counterparts. About one in five Black Americans were nones in 2008. That’s no different than Hispanics and three points less than White respondents.

But over the last few years, that gap has essentially disappeared.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Welcome to $$$$$$$ Easter: Lots of candy, booze and Jesus-free fun for half of America

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Welcome to $$$$$$$ Easter: Lots of candy, booze and Jesus-free fun for half of America

Easter is, without a doubt, the most important holy day in Christianity.

Christianity remains the largest faith group in the world.

There’s no way around the fact that Easter is the celebration of the doctrinal conviction that unites traditional Christians around the world: “Christ is risen!”

What a downer. This is a problem for people who decorate shopping malls and make the obligatory A1 holiday photo assignments for newspapers. There is more to this dilemma (ask Google) than struggling to photograph religious rites that take place at midnight or sunrise.

But people love fun, food, candy, parties, greeting cards, etc. Businesses love selling lots of stuff. And, in case you have not heard, a growing number of people in the mushy, old-mainstream middle of religious life — in America and elsewhere in the Western World — are cutting their ties to organized faith (“Nones” and others) and moving into a business, political and cultural coalition with atheists and agnostics.

This is a big $$$$$$$ deal.

This leads to this totally valid — even if rather depressing, for believers — headline at Religion New Service: “Adult egg hunts and kiddie pools full of gifts: Is Easter the new Christmas?”

So I want to ask a journalism question on this Easter Monday morning (for Western Christians, since this Holy Week for Orthodox Christians and other Eastern rites): What was the Easter art featured in your local media this year? Here in East Tennessee, the major daily featured GOP racism and Earth Day.

But back to that RNS story. Why call it “totally valid”?

For a simple reason: It’s describing Easter in a growing segment of the American cultural marketplace. The question is how journalists can feature this reality — while also noting the rites and traditions of, well, the largest faith group in the world.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Attention mass-media leaders: What should Americans know about each others' faiths?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Attention mass-media leaders: What should Americans know about each others' faiths?

America’s three biggest hamburger chains have 27,000 local outlets.

The three biggest of America’s 2,800 or so religious denominations alone have 97,000 local congregations.

Which is to simply remind readers that faiths retain powerful impact in society despite the increase of people with no religious affiliation and other secular inroads.

Relations among major faiths feel especially pertinent in 2023, since Islam’s holy month of Ramadan with concluding Eid festival overlaps Jewish Passover and the two Easter dates observed by Christians.

Zeenat Rahman, executive director of the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics, thinks American religion is “increasingly polarizing” and yet at the same time is “essential to rebuilding a strong civil society,” which means Americans “need a basic understanding of the faith of others.”

So, in practice what do people know about other major world religions? What should they know?

Those are important questions for regional or national journalists to explore via interviewing, plus polling if your medium has the money. Or consider commissioning brief articles where religious leaders sum up the basics they think others should know about their faiths and — especially helpful — what’s often misunderstood.

How about books? Stephen Wylen accepted this sort of challenge with his self-published “You Should Know This: A Rabbi Explains Christianity to Jews.” For years now, Terry Mattingly has also been recommending this classic by religion-beat veteran Mark Pinsky: “A Jew among the Evangelicals: A Guide for the Perplexed.”

Some standard book publisher should put together a non-sectarian and up-to-date anthology in which experts would depict their own religions for outsiders, including the main internal branches and variants.

Political scientist (and GetReligion contributor) Ryan Burge recently took up these matters, in a Religion News Service analysis, by re-examining 2019 interfaith data from the ubiquitous Pew Research Center.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Do the Math: Reporters use labels all the time, but religious life is more complex than that

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Do the Math: Reporters use labels all the time, but religious life is more complex than that

Everything I do on social media is a trade-off.

That’s the nature of data visualization. You have to take an incredibly complex and often messy social world and distill it into a rather straightforward graph that the average person scrolling Twitter can understand in five seconds or less. Not an easy task.

One of the ways in which social scientists have tried to make the concept of age more palatable is through the use of generations — Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, etc. There have been several pieces published in the last few years that have exhorted social scientists to stop using these concepts because they mean very little from an empirical perspective.

One reason is that they are completely arbitrary. Born in December of 1979 — you are a Gen X. Born just one month later — you’re a Millennial. And consider the fact that you can be born in 1981 or 1995 and are part of the same generation. That’s just nonsensical the more you think about it.

One way around is to use five-year birth cohorts.

Instead of 15 or 20 year spans for generations, a birth cohort can be just those born between 1940 and 1945. This helps to further isolate the impact of age on religious trends. I’ve been making graphs using this cohort strategy for a while now and they can provide a lot of illumination about American religion and politics.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Concerning Prince Harry, Episcopalians and the choices faced by millions of 'nones'

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Concerning Prince Harry, Episcopalians and the choices faced by millions of 'nones'

If low-church Anglican evangelicals were active in the whole naming-saints thing, you know that the process would already be in motion to honor Queen Elizabeth II. The quiet dignity of her Christian faith was at the heart of her long life of service.

This brings us to what I would argue is a valid religion-angle story linked to “Spare,” the tell-all confessional memoir Prince Harry has released from the media-friendly alternative palace that he is creating with Meghan Markle here in America.

Here is the basic question: In what church will Harry and Meghan raise their children?

This points, of course, to broader questions about the seismic changes inside England’s Royal Family after the passing of Elizabeth the Great. Yes, some of these questions are linked to the complex ecumenical history of King Charles III (see “The Religion of King Charles III” at The National Catholic Register). But it’s pretty clear that there is another divide — in style and content — between the king and Prince Harry.

This brings us to a good news-bad news situation for one of America’s most symbolic denominations.

The good news: Prince Harry would make a great Episcopalian.

The bad news: Prince Harry would make a great Episcopalian, or he could be another “none” or “nothing in particular.”

In a way, Prince Spare faces choices about faith — even liberal Protestant faith — linked to the great exodus of Americans from established religion and, in particular, from the fading “Seven Sisters” of liberal Protestantism. Will the Duke of Sussex and his family become active, vocal Episcopalians or will they become examples of trends described in the book “Nonverts: The Making of Ex-Christian America,” by Stephen Bullivant.

Think about this for a minute. If you sort through the 17,900,000 or so stories in a Google News file about “Spare,” it’s hard to find a better high-point in this drama than the 2018 wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. And who was the rock star of that media circus? It was the preacher — the leader of the Episcopal Church in the United States. You can hear the hosannas in the overture of this celebratory New York Times feature:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Top trends of 2022? There are plenty of political and religion stories in these tweets

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Top trends of 2022? There are plenty of political and religion stories in these tweets

It’s certainly been a volatile year on social media (#DUH).

Twitter is my platform of choice. It does exactly what I need it to do because it’s such a visual medium.

Post a graph. Write 50 or 60 words and then wait a few minutes to see what happens.

In many ways, it’s the antithesis of what it means to be an academic. We are taught to qualify every statement, to never engage in hyperbole, to use 1,000 words when 500 would do. Twitter has been teaching me over the last five years about how to visualize data in the simplest manner possible. It’s taught me that if the average reader can’t understand the point I’m trying to make in 280 characters, then it’s probably not worth making.

Then, Elon Musk bought the whole company. I can’t say that I agree with every decision that he is making in steering the Blue Bird Site, but I honestly don’t have a great alternative. So, I will go down with the ship, I suppose.

But, the end of the year always offers a nice opportunity to pause and reflect on what “worked” on Twitter. Out of the nearly 1,400 tweets I sent this year, I wanted to take the opportunity to catalog the five tweets that got the most retweets in 2022. Here they are in reverse order.

5. Education and Religion

I swear I could post a variation of this one once a month and it would get a ton of attention. It’s a really simple bit of analysis, to be honest.

The conclusion is straightforward and widely known among quantitative scholars of American religion. Folks with a higher level of education are more likely to align with a religious tradition and less likely to say that they are a religious “none.”

This reality replicates in every dataset that I’ve ever seen. Yet, it comes as an absolute shock to people on Twitter. Why is that? Any thoughts?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Overlooked voting trend: Atheists and agnostics are a growing force for Democrats

, , , , , , ,
Overlooked voting trend: Atheists and agnostics are a growing force for Democrats

It’s hard to remember now, given the attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, but the day after votes were cast, one theme stood out — voter turnout.

Every state in the nation saw higher turnout in 2020 than 2016, according to an analysis from the Pew Research Center. Overall, there were more than 158 million votes cast, according to the Federal Election Commission — nearly 22 million more than just four years prior.

Turnout will likely play an outsize role in the 2022 midterms, too, as voters determine what political party will have control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate in January 2023.

As a political scientist who studies the intersection of religion and politics, I am interested in which groups may have a strong impact on the balance of power. And if the data is any guide, there are two key communities political analysts often overlook — atheists and agnostics. Journalists need to be paying attention to these trends, as well.

In 2008, almost 8% of the entire U.S. population claimed to be atheist or agnostic, according to my analysis of data from the Cooperative Election Study, or CES — an annual survey coordinated by a team at Harvard University. Atheists believe that there is no higher power in the universe, while agnostics contend that a higher power may exist but it’s impossible to know for certain.

By 2021, that share had risen to just about 12%. But atheists and agnostics are often left-leaning in their political persuasion, and their rapid ascendance in the American religious landscape is proving much more consequential to the Democratic Party than the GOP.


Please respect our Commenting Policy