Americans see religion in decline yet want more of it. What's up with that?

[cbayer]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2013/0530/Americans-see-religion-in-decline-yet-want-more-of-it.-What-s-up-with-that

A Gallup poll shows people see less religious influence today, but they also say America would be better with more religion. Such attitudes reflect the social times more than personal faith. They also point to religion's endurance.

By the Monitor's Editorial Board / May 30, 2013


A star with the word 'Love' hangs on a telephone pole in front of the United Methodist Church in Newtown, Connecticut, last February. The church is helping the community heal after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults in the local elementary school in December 2012. The church was open for prayer after the shooting and the congregation brought meals and comfort to those affected.
Photo by Melanie Stetson Freeman/The Christian Science Monitor

In many professional fields, from neuroscience to evolutionary biology, it’s popular today to build entire careers on the study of religion. Where does faith come from? What does it achieve? Why is it so prevalent? And so on.

Perhaps the most extended research, however, comes from the Gallup poll. Since 1957, Gallup has asked Americans this simple question: Is religion increasing its influence? The poll is not a measure of religious or spiritual beliefs but rather a perception of religion’s role in society. The latest poll, released Wednesday, shows the most negative public opinion toward the impact of religion since 1970.

The last time a majority of Americans saw religion as increasing in influence was just after the 9/11 attacks. Today, in sharp contrast, 77 percent believe it is losing influence. That’s about the same percentage as during the late 1960s.

“In 1969 and 1970, with the Vietnam War raging in controversial fashion and with the cultural and sexual revolutions underway, and to a lesser degree at times in the 1990s, Americans held negative views similar to those they hold today,” wrote Gallup editor in chief Frank Newport in an analysis of the poll. “The degree to which these views changed during the Reagan years, and after 9/11, suggest that they could change again in the years ahead.”

more at link

[defacto7]

1. Entertainment. n/t

[hrmjustin]

2. I like to think our faith is evolving.

That we are getting better at throwing away some old rubbish in our religions and embracing a more reasonable faith that works for us. Then again I could be dreaming.

[cbayer]

3. I agree with you, justin.

I think we are undergoing a very significant change where the religious left will take back much of what was co-opted by the religious right. I see a rise in issues of social justice and civil rights, which is the religion I was raised in. And I very much hope for coalitions between people of many faiths and between people of faith and non-believers.

[hrmjustin]

5. If religion is to survive it has to speak to the people of each generation.

Unfortunately i think too many clergy don't realize it or just can not adapt to it.

[cbayer]

6. Agree again. But there are those that will see it and adapt.

And I think many will flock to them.

[hrmjustin]

37. I got my star today.

[cbayer]

38. Congratulations! You are a DU treasure.

[hrmjustin]

39. Thanks! I became a host for LBN and the Lounge.

[Dawson Leery]

27. Clergy, particularly the RCC's Bishops/Cardinals and Evangelicals

are set in their ways. They are fundamentalists who do not desire to understand the evolution of society.

[hrmjustin]

29. In the 60's the RCC bisops made changes because the need was there. If they want to survive

they will make changes. It may depend on how long the Global south part of the church takes to push them. The church is still going strong there so they don't feel threatened yet. But rest assured they will.

Evangelicals are much more of what works for this individual church. As long as social conservatism sells in some parts of the world the evangelical church will still be conservative. But even this has changed somewhat.

[Warpy]

4. They think their ticket to heaven has been punched

but they want all that churchgoing and hymn singing for the rest of you sinners.

That is the explanation.

[cbayer]

7. Well that is not consistent with the Gallup data.

This year’s poll also asked if society would be better if more Americans were religious. More than three-quarters said yes. Even a majority of those with little or no religious affiliation agreed

Here is a link to the gallup report:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162803/americans-say-religion-losing-influence.aspx

[Warpy]

15. It said exactly that

"Hey, I'm doing just fine, but those other sinners out there need to get some religion!"

[trotsky]

19. Precisely.

It's always the other guy's fault. "Congress stinks, they should all be voted out. Except my rep, she's OK!"

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. That 'majority' may be because some of them had 'little' affiliation

which is still an affiliation. Unfortunately, that particular statistic that the CMS editorial quoted doesn't appear in the Gallup summary of the poll. But we do get this:

close to one in three Americans who say religion is not important to them personally still say it would be positive for society if more Americans were religious.

So a majority of those who say religion is not very important to them personally also think more Americans being religious would be negative. And I'm not surprised that those with 'little' affiliation still see it as a good thing.

[dimbear]

8. Nostalgia for an earlier, simpler time when a reasonable person could still believe.

Just my best guess.

[rug]

9. As opposed to a more recent, complex time when only unreasonable people believe?

You have a weird view of reason.

[cbayer]

10. Perhaps there is some recognition that religion can be a positive force in society.

And perhaps that view is held by both believers and non-believers.

[dimbear]

11. It's perfectly true that religion can be a positive force in society. Not often enough to make me

wish there were more of it.

[cbayer]

12. Well, I've always found positive reinforcement to be a powerful tool.

[dimbear]

13. Are Iraq and Syria better off for all their religion?

The news reports the death toll of its consequences almost every day.

[cbayer]

14. What does that have to do with positive reinforcement for the good things that religion

does?

[dimbear]

16. Nothing, but a good deal to do with the purported value of religion, which is what the thread

is reporting.

BTW, did you see anywhere that the statistics were broken out against party affiliation for the belief that more religion would be a good thing? My uniformed guess is that far more Republicans would think so than Democrats.

The Rs certainly thought massively that religion's influence was waning.

[cbayer]

24. Is this what you are looking for?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162803/americans-say-religion-losing-influence.aspx

[dimbear]

44. That's the report you posted above, which doesn't seem to contain the answer to my question.

Certainly they have the data, but don't seem to report the answer to that question. Who thinks more religion is likely to better, Rs or Ds?

I don't know. I'm going out on a limb it's Rs.

Thanks for an interesting thread, BTW.

[trotsky]

18. Positive according to whose religious belief?

Fred Phelps has no doubt that homosexuality is evil and that by speaking out against it, he is working to prevent god's judgment and destruction of this country. These are his strongly-held personal beliefs and he thinks he is doing good.

Who are you to tell him he's wrong?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

21. Fred Phelps is no more an exemplar of Christianity than Lyndon LaRouche is a Democrat

(Yes, LaRouche does claim to be a Democrat).

Raising Fred Phelps in a consideration of religious values is a first rate example of the fallacy of the Hasty Generalization.

[trotsky]

26. According to your preferred interpretation of Christianity, of course.

Claiming that Fred Phelps isn't a Christian is a brilliant example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Regardless, Fred Phelps IS a religious man, and is professing his deeply-held religious beliefs. Do we need more religion? Guess it depends on whose, eh?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

42. No, it is not an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy

Your argument is "Here is a so-called Christian, who is a raving bigot. I am going to pretend that he is typical of all Christians." As you are doubtless aware, just about all Christians denounce Phelps; so, AS I CORRECTLY SAID, you are using a fallacious argument -- Phelps is no more a Christian than LaRouche is a Democrat.

[trotsky]

43. Please point out exactly where I said that Phelps is...

"typical of all Christians." (Let alone the rest of the completely falsified "quote" you have attributed to me!)

Provide my exact quote saying that. If you cannot, then retract your statement and apologize. Bottom line is, you have proven yourself so dishonest, intolerant, and belligerent, that there is little point in trying to discuss anything with you unless you can demonstrate a commitment to civil and honest discourse.

In fact, more than a few DU Christians probably doubt whether YOU'RE a Christian, given your terrible behavior. (Not to mention your belief in hell - most Christians here have grown past that primitive concept.)

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

46. I apologize

You did not say that Phelps was typical of Christians, although I believe that the implication was there.

After all, if the thread topic is "Christian values" -- and that is what it appears to be -- then mentioning Phelps carries at least the implication that Phelps exemplifies Christian values.

[trotsky]

47. Thank you for your apology.

And there was no implication - I don't appreciate your slander.

The thread topic isn't "Christian values" - it's the value of religion and its potential to be a "positive" force in society as claimed by cbayer. I asked her, "positive" according to whom? Fred Phelps is indeed a Christian, and in fact he shares many articles of faith with you:

* Belief in the Christian god
* Belief in Jesus Christ as a savior and redeemer
* Belief in a concept called "sin" for which we must receive forgiveness from god
* Belief in a place of eternal torment/punishment

And, as I pointed out, Rev. Phelps no doubt thinks his actions are positive because they are intended to spare his god's judgment from raining down upon the USA.

How are we to decide which versions of religion are "positive" without falling into a circular logic trap? ("My religion is good because it says it's good!&quot

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

50. Phelps CLAIMS to be a Christian

Just as Lyndon LaRouche claims to be a Democrat. In neither case is the claim accepted by members of the apposite group. I would say that actual Christians would know better than you who is a fellow Christian and who is not.

Second, you are taking ONE (1) far-out example, and apparently claiming that this person is representative of the norm. As I said before, this is an excellent example of the logical fallacy of the unrepresentative sample. It is as if I were to talk about the income of the typical American, with a sample consisting of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

How are we to decide which versions of religion are "positive" without falling into a circular logic trap?

This can be a real question. However, if the religion preaches hatred in the way that Phelps does, it can reasonably be called negative.

[trotsky]

51. You also can only CLAIM to be a Christian.

As I understand it, all of you fall short. Or are you the only Christian in existence who does not sin?

For instance, you strongly believe in the existence of hell. Few other Christians on DU do, from th threads I remember on the topic. They might not consider YOU to be an "actual Christian."

And quite frankly, Fred Phelps isn't exactly a lone "far-out" example. Look at how various churches are reacting to the recent decision by the Boy Scouts, some dropping their support of the organization entirely. For simply deciding to be inclusive.

Fred Phelps sees homosexuality as a violation of god's will. Just as you view other actions - thus necessitating the need for hell, where people will face the consequences of their actions. That's your belief.

If you knew someone was going to spend eternity in hell and you loved them dearly, how far would YOU go to spare them the eternal torment?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

52. So what you are saying is

Phelps claims to be a Christian. He rejects a major tenet of the Christian faith, but you accept his claim anyway. Actual Christians, even the vast majority of those who oppose homosexuality, reject Phelps as a fellow Christian.

Just as you view other actions - thus necessitating the need for hell, where people will face the consequences of their actions. That's your belief.

That is not actually my belief. "Necessitating" is your word, not mine. If there is a hell, then I agree with C S Lewis, who said "All who are in hell, choose it." I cannot understand why anyone would object to someone suffering the consequences of his or her own choices. Apparently, your belief is that actions should not have consequences. If you freely choose to act in a certain way, you should not have to bear the consequences of that act. As Aleister Crowley said, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

[trotsky]

53. Your claim that:

"He rejects a major tenet of the Christian faith" is fatally flawed.

Namely, you're begging the question: Who gets to define what constitutes "the Christian faith"? Are you the sole authority?

What if Phelps is right and other Christians are wrong? Neither of you can demonstrate that the other is wrong, because in a revealed religion like Christianity you must always allow for the possibility of direct communication (a new revelation) from your god to ANY believer (or even non-believer, for that matter).

And in a final wrinkle, as I noted, many other Christians on DU - most of them, it appears - reject the idea of hell. Do you consider them not to be Christians?

[hrmjustin]

22. It is our constitutional right to say someone is wrong. People tell others their views are wrong

like he does all the time. Now I do not like to tell anyone how to believe but if the belief is bigoted or harmful we need to speak out.

[trotsky]

28. Never said it wasn't a right.

But he's going to tell you your views are wrong. Both of you base your views on your religious opinions.

Now I do not like to tell anyone how to believe but if the belief is bigoted or harmful we need to speak out.

As I noted, Fred Phelps thinks homosexuality (and tolerating homosexuality) is harmful. That's his religious belief. He's just doing what you say he has the right to do - speaking out.

[hrmjustin]

31. People of faith need to stand up to these people more than we do.

[trotsky]

33. Fred Phelps is also a person of faith.

Deeply held faith.

I'm not sure you are completely getting the point here.

[hrmjustin]

34. yes but faith is a matter of opinion and it would be a good thing if people of faith

did not hold opinions like Phelps has.

[trotsky]

35. I'm certain he thinks it would also be a good thing if YOU...

didn't hold the opinions you do.

And so there we are.

[hrmjustin]

36. I know I have seen him up close.

He wants to execute people me and all other LGBT people.

[Socialistlemur]

17. Believe but please don't persecute me

Don't stone me, burn me alive or remove me from my land

[hrmjustin]

32. Congrats on 100 posts and getting stoned is not always bad my friend!

[goldent]

45. Well, they'll stone you when you're trying to be so good

They'll stone you just like they said they would

[rrneck]

20. People need what religion has historically provided but isn't.

And they can't imagine getting it anywhere else.

[cbayer]

23. In many communities, the church(es) are the major source of

socialization. Often. very little or nothing is often provided that would offer a substitute.

And then there is the spiritual side of people that often seeks for a place to share that - thus the large number of "spiritual but not religious".

[rrneck]

25. There are uncounted sources of socialization.

Even in the most remote places. From team sports to social networking sites, socialization is spread all over the place. The competition is stiff, and religions designed as wish fulfillment are one symptom of how religion is losing out to other more entertaining or fulfilling forms of spiritual socialization.

[cbayer]

40. Not everywhere.

My son lives in rural Texas where there is virtually nothing but churches for socialization. Even team sports have church roots. He does rely on the internet for a lot of his socialization, but that's just not the same.

I think you are right in terms of tradition religious institutions losing membership and I hope this leads to more diverse, even interfaith, kinds of organizations that welcome likeminded people of all stripes. The U/U's seem to be filling this void in lots of places, but it will come very slowly to some parts of the country.

[rrneck]

41. Well, yeah. Texas.

It's not just churches filling the gap. It's everything from team sports to soda pop. They all tap the same human impulse.

[el_bryanto]

48. "Most Americans are just religious enough to feel guilty that they aren't more religious" -

Keith Robinson.

I don't know if it's true or not.

Bryant

[Bad Thoughts]

49. Sounds more like a rallying call than an observation

Religion is dying. We must save religion!