Jews and Judaism

New Ipsos survey includes newsworthy updates on religious attitudes worldwide

New Ipsos survey includes newsworthy updates on religious attitudes worldwide

There’s obvious news potential in a poll about religious attitudes that covers 26 nations and with fresh data (collected between January 20 and February 3).

Media chart-makers could have fun with the many numbers in the 40-page “Global Religion 2023: Religious Beliefs Across the World,” issued May 11 by Ipsos, the noted international market research and polling firm. For more information, see the full document (.pdf here) and the basic press release (.pdf here).

Coverage by the Southern Baptist Convention’s press service plucked out one notable number that others also emphasized: “Nearly half, 47%, of the global population believes that religion does more harm than good [though Ipsos] did not explore the reasons behind the perception . …”

By contrast, there were heavily positive attitudes toward religion’s impact in Thailand, Turkey and four South American nations. The U.S. fell in the middle range with 39% seeing “more harm.”  

But journalists need to note this: The harshly negative view was especially powerful in both secularized Sweden and in India, which on many other Ipsos measures has the globe’s most devout population! Go figure.

Before plunging into other data, The Guy offers colleagues a few preliminary thoughts on news reporting about this survey, which follows a similar Ipsos project in 2017, and whether instead it’s wiser to just keep the report on file for selective later use where pertinent.

The “26-country average” used by Ipsos lumps together all its findings, suggesting numbers like the 47% who see “more harm” represent the entire global population.

The Guy thinks these numbers may be too sketchy to tell us much.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Lots of interesting issues haunt this question! Should Christians Use Tarot Cards?

Lots of interesting issues haunt this question! Should Christians Use Tarot Cards?

QUESTION:

Should Christians Use Tarot Cards?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

If you think this topic is off the wall, at least it’s not off the news.

Tarot for Christians is promoted by the May cover story in The Christian Century, a venerable independent magazine that helps define what’s trendy and acceptable for “Mainline” and liberal Protestant readers.

The article’s author is the monthly’s own Associate Editor Jessica Mesman, who also co-founded the Sick Pilgrim blog aimed at “people who questioned EVERYTHING.” Her self-described social circle consists of fellow “lapsed Catholics” along with “exvangelicals, and other ‘deconstructing’ Christians” who seek to fill the vacuum left by their prior religious “narrative threads.”

For the uninitiated: Tarot cards consist of a deck numbering 78, with 22 to symbolize “Major Arcana” or life events, and 56 “Minor Arcana” that cover everyday occurrences.

Some devotees may claim the practice is rooted in ancient Egyptian magic. But conventional history says Tarot originated as an entertaining card game in 15th century Italy that later merged into the occult movement’s quest for liberating answers through access to hidden wisdom. Tarot was newly popularized as a “New Age” spiritual practice in America’s 1960s counterculture and the “Neo-Pagan” movement.

A Tarot card reader, whether a paid professional or the individual, turns over Tarot cards and reflects by intuition on what the images say. Often this is divination or “fortune telling,” believed to provide information and guidance about the future. But as with Christian writers like Brittany Muller, Mesman’s own practice reflects on the cards’ images as “a tool for self-directed spiritual contemplation,” rather like Enneagrams or the Myers-Briggs self-assessment questionnaire.

“There doesn’t have to be any magic involved — not in the sense of manipulation of supernatural power,” she explains.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

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

Plug-In: For GOP White House hopefuls, it's time for faith-and-freedom questions again

Plug-In: For GOP White House hopefuls, it's time for faith-and-freedom questions again

She was 19. I was 22. We said “I do” in a little church east of Oklahoma City exactly 33 years ago today. Happy anniversary to my wife, Tamie!

While you do the personal math on the above numbers, it’s time for another edition of Weekend Plug-in.

As always, I appreciate you reading this newsletter.

Pope Francis arrived in Hungary this morning, “walking, rather than using a wheelchair as he has on the last four foreign trips,” the National Catholic Reporter’s Christopher White notes.

Check out White’s advance coverage of the pope’s trip.

Meanwhile, let’s jump right into the rest of the week’s top headlines and best reads in the world of faith.

What To Know: The Big Story

Is this heaven?: No, it’s Iowa. But not the one with Kevin Costner.

“The Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Spring Kick-off event on Saturday represented the first cattle call of the year, a forum for GOP candidates to court an indispensable voting bloc,” Christianity Today’s Kelsey Kramer McGinnis explains.

The key takeaway of McGinnis’ interviews with voters: “The world feels out of control. They want someone who will fix it.”

Trump vs. Pence: At New York Magazine, political columnist Ed Kilgore writes about former President Donald Trump, former Vice President Mike Pence and the “struggle for the souls of Iowa evangelicals.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

God's Word? Concerning modern scholarship and those bloodthirsty Bible passages

God's Word? Concerning modern scholarship and those bloodthirsty Bible passages

QUESTION:

How do scholars explain bloodthirsty Bible passages?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Skeptics seeking to disparage the Bible and, with it, Judaism and Christianity, cite certain passages in the Bible that depict all-out warfare as mandated by God. Consider Israel’s “conquest” of Canaan under Joshua, and a notably bloodthirsty passage like Deuteronomy 20:16-17, which says “you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them … as the LORD your God has commanded.”

Readers can see how that issue might, to say the least, be relevant to debates about some events in recent decades.

There’s been intriguing recent discussions of this complex issue. Even conservative evangelicals, who defend the Bible’s historical accuracy, are reinterpreting such passages, as we’ll see.

“Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary,” issued by Judaism’s Conservative branch, freely admits a modern reader “recoils” from a demand to wipe out a population group. It says the context is the Canaanites’ “abhorrent” deeds. Verse 18 goes on to explain combat is necessary so “they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods.”

Scholarly commentaries think ritual sacrifice of children was a major part of this. The context of such verses is said to be “the Torah’s abiding fear that these pagan nations will lead Israel astray.”

Here’s another part of the context. Risking any military advantage from surprise, Joshua informed Canaanites in advance about the invasion plan so they could flee from bloodshed, and he first offered a peace settlement before resorting to combat. (That was relatively humane for the cruel culture 3,000 years ago.) The same point is underscored by a classic source in Orthodox Judaism, the “Pentateuch & Haftorahs” compiled by Britain’s longtime chief rabbi, J.H. Hertz.

This Orthodox Jewish commentary also observes that the Israelites’ need for a homeland is part of all human history, including for most western nations.


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

Thinking about AI and faith: Can a computer 'get' what it means to be truly human?

Thinking about AI and faith: Can a computer 'get' what it means to be truly human?

Every now and then, I get an email from Ira Rifkin, who for many years wrote “Global Wire” posts for GetReligion about journalism issues in international events and trends. He signed off about half a year ago with an edgy post called, “Ciao, GetReligion: Thanks, all, for my tenure. Critic that I am, though, here are some final thoughts.”

With his unique mix of Jewish and Buddhist disciplines, Rifkin was also a keen observer of new ideas and concepts linked to what mass media tends to call “spirituality,” as opposed to more conventional forms of religious faith.

Several weeks ago, he send me a URL for a Los Angeles Times feature that ran with this headline: “Can religion save us from artificial intelligence?

I immediately put it into my “think piece” file, but held on to it for a while to put some cushion between it and my podcast/post with this title: “When is preaching a 'news' story? Ah, the temptation of ChatGPT sermons.” Here is a byte of that:

Right now, one of the hot topics in the public square is the rise of artificial intelligence and, to be specific, the ChatGPT website. Thus, this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) focused on several “newsy” angles of the recent Associated Press story that ran with the headline, “Pastors’ view: Sermons written by ChatGPT will have no soul.”

During the podcast, I riffed on the whole issue that different kinds of technology can shape the content of communications in different ways. If ChatGPT sermons have a sense of “soul,” it would be a “soul” that is defined by the creator of the software and the tech platform.

The Los Angeles Times story that Rifkin sent me opens with an AI sermon hook — but the issue at the heart of the story is much, much bigger than that.

Nevertheless, it helps to start this “think piece” recommendation with that feature’s overture:

Sometimes Rabbi Joshua Franklin knows exactly what he wants to talk about in his weekly Shabbat sermons — other times, not so much. It was on one of those not-so-much days on a cold afternoon in late December that the spiritual leader of the Jewish Center of the Hamptons decided to turn to artificial intelligence.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Time to step up the mainstream coverage of transgender debates within U.S. religion

Time to step up the mainstream coverage of transgender debates within U.S. religion

News about transgender issues tends to deal with women’s athletic competitions and shelters, pronouns, girls’ locker rooms, public school sex education, competing rights claims (with parents on both sides of the dates) and resulting political and legal disputes.

There’s been less coverage of medical morality, especially concerning under-aged youths, and hardly any about how various religious groups understand gender and why.

Journalists should take notice when four vigorous arguments on the religious aspect appear in the space of just six days, as follows.

March 20: The leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops authorized publication (.pdf here) of an important but little-reported transgender policy. It declares that Catholic health-care agencies “must not” perform or help develop chemical or surgical procedures to transform a person’s bodily characteristics into those of the opposite sex.

The stated reasons are theological and moral. Key quotes: “We did not create human nature; it is a gift from a loving Creator,” so human dignity requires “genuine respect for this created order.” Sexual differentiation is a reality “willed by God” and a “ fundamental aspect of existence as a human being.”

Therefore, surgical and chemical techniques to switch a patient’s sexual characteristics, or puberty blockers to halt youths’ natural development, “are not morally justified.” To the bishops, such interventions are “injurious to the true flourishing of the human person” and violate doctors’ basic moral maxim to “do no harm.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

A Jewish book that Christian strategists (and reporters) should be reading right now

A Jewish book that Christian strategists (and reporters) should be reading right now

Much of organized Judaism in the U.S. is “crumbling” and destined to suffer even worse decline in coming years, contends Rabbi Danny Schiff in his new book “Judaism in a Digital Age: An Ancient Tradition Confronts a Transformative Era” (Palgrave Macmillan).

Christian strategists face much the same cultural upheaval and should pay attention to this examination, alongside Jews and religion-beat journalists. Echoes of the “Mainline” Protestant plight are especially noteworthy. And consider the stakes for Judaism when the United States has 70% of the world Jewish population.

Schiff, a scholar with the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh, focuses on the two branches that dominated U.S. Judaism over the past century. Reform Judaism is devoutly liberal, with broad individual choice on belief and practice. Conservative Judaism is more tradition-minded — but has lately floated in Reform’s direction. The book pays less notice to the faith’s growing third main branch, Orthodoxy, because it is relatively stable as it resists modern pressures.

Here’s the situation in a numerical nutshell: As of 1990, 73% of U.S. Jews identified with these two main non-Orthodox branches. By Pew Research Center’s major Jewish survey in 2020, their combined following was down to 54%, while 32% of Jews reported “no particular identity” in terms of religion. (The Orthodox were a 9% minority that will grow due to higher birth rates.)

For Schiff, the years around 1990 were the end of an era when “partial emancipation” from past social barriers and prejudice turned to “hyper-emancipation.” Antisemitism, though still existing, was extinct in polite society.

A related sign was the prevalence of intermarriage with non-Jews, once relatively rare. By the 2010-2020 decade, 72% of marriages by the non-Orthodox were with non-Jews. Inexorably, that lowered the odds that children would follow in Judaism as adults. Added problems were widespread divorce, less marriage and lower birth rates. Finally, “barriers to leaving Jewish life are virtually non-existent.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy