Facts about religion

[eamonnroma]

I would be interested in opinions on the accuracy of the following article.

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/27/10-facts-about-religion-in-america/

 

[TheAdvocate]

Nothing much to say except it all seems accurate to me, and that their finding are corroborated by many articles I’ve read.

Why? Was there a piece of data you found hard to believe?

 

[Lucretius]

You might want to look into whether some Evangicalists self-identified with the “non-affiliated,” since many of them often bash “religion,” claiming that “religion” gets in the way of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Monica, pray for us!

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Pew is usually accurate in their research findings. I was not surprised by any of the information. Is anyone else?

10 Facts about American Religion

1 Protestants no longer make up a majority of U.S. adults. Closely tied to the rise of the religious “nones” is the decline of Christians, including Protestants. The U.S. has a long history as a majority Protestant nation, and, as recently as the 2007 Pew Research Center Religious Landscape Study, more than half of U.S. adults (51.3%) identified as Protestants. But that figure has fallen, and our 2014 study found that 46.5% of Americans are now Protestants.

2 Religious switching is a common occurrence in the U.S. Depending on how “religious switching” is defined, as many as 42% of U.S. adults have switched religions. That definition counts switching between Protestant traditions, but even if Protestantism is regarded as a single group, about a third of Americans (34%) identify with a different religious group than the one in which they were raised.

3 There is a wide range of racial and ethnic diversity among U.S. religious groups and denominations. Seventh-day Adventists, Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the most racially and ethnically diverse U.S. religious groups. The least diverse are the National Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

4 Catholics Views on Global Warming Before Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment was published in June, U.S. Catholics’ views of climate change mirrored those of Americans overall – including major partisan divisions. While six-in-ten Catholic Democrats say global warming is caused by humans and that it is a very serious problem, only about a quarter of Catholic Republicans feel the same way.

5 In a typical week, about one-in-five Americans share their faith online. This is about the same as the number who tune in to religious talk radio, watch religious TV programs or listen to Christian rock music.

6 Americans have continued to become more supportive of same-sex marriage. Aggregated data from 2015 polls show that fully 55% of U.S. adults favor same-sex marriage, which is now legal nationwide following a Supreme Court ruling in June. That represents a rise of 20 percentage points over the last decade or so. Among the major religious groups, White evangelical Protestants are the least supportive of gay marriage (24%), while those without any religious affiliation are the most likely to favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed (82%).

7 Religious freedom or discrimination? A 2014 poll found Americans are divided on the question of whether wedding-related businesses should be allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples for religious reasons, with 47% saying businesses should be able to refuse service and 49% saying establishments should be required to serve same-sex couples.

8 On another hotly debated social issue – abortion – Americans’ views in the last two decades have largely held steady. A majority of U.S. adults (55%) continue to say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. At the same time, four-in-ten say it should be illegal in all or most cases.

9 Frequency of religious service attendance remains a strong predictor of how people will vote in elections. In the 2014 midterm elections, exit polls showed that those who attend worship services at least weekly voted for Republicans over Democrats for the House of Representatives by a 58%-to-40% margin. Meanwhile, those who never attend services leaned heavily toward Democrats (62% vs. 36%).

10 Christians continue to make up an overwhelming majority of members of Congress (92%), compared with 71% of the general public (as of 2014). At the same time, while 23% of U.S. adults are religiously unaffiliated, only one member of Congress (Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz.), or 0.2% of that body, claims no religious affiliation.

 

[frangiuliano115]

With all the presidential primaries going on, I did hear recently that Pres. Obama won the last election because 48% of evangelical christians did not vote. I found this to be very interesting. If they had voted, he would have lost the presidency. Proving, once again, that every vote counts.

I’ve always found the concept in no. 10 very interesting too. 71% of the general population considers themselves to be christian. And 92% in congress.

Why do we face so many moral problems which affect our every day lives???

With 92% christians in the congress and 71% in the general population, we should be living in an almost near utopia!

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

You might want to look into whether some Evangicalists self-identified with the “non-affiliated,” since many of them often bash “religion,” claiming that “religion” gets in the way of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Monica, pray for us!

What you mention is also true of mainline denominations of protestantism.

I must say, though, that the catholic church has also been declaring and teaching that we are to have a personal relationship with Jesus.

God bless

 

[chaunceygardner]

You might want to look into whether some Evangicalists self-identified with the “non-affiliated,” since many of them often bash “religion,” claiming that “religion” gets in the way of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Pew defines “unaffiliated” as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”. So this category would not likely include people who identify with a religion but are not officially members.

The rest of the data is consistent with other surveys so none of it us surprising. The reported trends are not new, and several books have been published over the past ten years or so about them.

I agree that item number 10 is interesting. Although there is no religious test for holding office, it has been expected that our Presidents, Congress people, etc., have some religious affiliation. An avowed atheist would find it difficult to win an election. Dwight Eisenhower apparently was not affiliated with any church in adulthood and only joined the Presbyterians after he became President. The story is that he was advised to do so, as Americans expected their President to belong to some (preferably a Christian) denomination.

 

[Lucretius]

Pew defines “unaffiliated” as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”. So this category would not likely include people who identify with a religion but are not officially members.

The rest of the data is consistent with other surveys so none of it us surprising. The reported trends are not new, and several books have been published over the past ten years or so about them.

I agree that item number 10 is interesting. Although there is no religious test for holding office, it has been expected that our Presidents, Congress people, etc., have some religious affiliation. An avowed atheist would find it difficult to win an election. Dwight Eisenhower apparently was not affiliated with any church in adulthood and only joined the Presbyterians after he became President. The story is that he was advised to do so, as Americans expected their President to belong to some (preferably a Christian) denomination.

This was just the first possible misunderstanding from the data that poped into my head. I have some experience with Statistics, which people misunderstand and interprete closemindedly all the time. Mark Twain is right on the mark with them

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Augustine, pray for us!

 

[frangiuliano115]

This was just the first possible misunderstanding from the data that poped into my head. I have some experience with Statistics, which people misunderstand and interprete closemindedly all the time. Mark Twain is right on the mark with them

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Augustine, pray for us!

I would hope that most people who read statistics have some idea of what goes on in both wording the question and maybe even interpreting the response.

I’m hoping you’re not referring to my post up there.

I’m not saying that 92% of congress IS christian or that 71% of the general population IS christian but they are CLAIMING TO BE and if it were only true that they were, we’d be living in a near utopia.

In other words, all depends on how the poll question was asked and what people mean by their answer - this cannot be determined from the outcome of the poll.

Maybe one day we could find out who REALLY IS christian and then maybe all the troubles we face would make sense!

God bless you
gosh. Not make sense, you know what I mean. Writing ideas is too time consuming!!

 

[Lucretius]

I would hope that most people who read statistics have some idea of what goes on in both wording the question and maybe even interpreting the response.

They don’t. For example, look at this mess: nbcnews.com/id/23574940/ns/health-childrens_health/t/teen-girls-has-sexually-transmitted-disease/

The study was done at inner city public health centers, so when they say “1 in 4 teen girls have a STD,” they really mean “1 in 4 teen girls who volunteerly entered a public health center, designed for the poor in the inner city, have an STD,” which really is not sensational. And that’s just one problem with the article!

I’m hoping you’re not referring to my post up there.

Nope

I’m not saying that 92% of congress IS christian or that 71% of the general population IS christian but they are CLAIMING TO BE and if it were only true that they were, we’d be living in a near utopia.

Yes! The study basically allows the respondent to define the term “Christian.” Those who are pro-choice can claim to be Christians, for example (like the President and Vice President). A study loses much usefulness in not defining terms objectively, but on the other hand, the point of this study doesn’t seem to be to find who truely is a Christian, but to find who identified as a Christian. (This lack of an objective definition for who a Christian is stems from Protestantism, as anyone who claim Divine inspiration can call himself a Christian, and who a Christian is ultimately defined by any person, which makes Christianity undefined. But I regress from the topic ).

God bless you
gosh. Not make sense, you know what I mean. Writing ideas is too time consuming!!

Yes, it takes a long time to write a detailed and satisfactory post on the Internet

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[frangiuliano115]

They don’t. For example, look at this mess: nbcnews.com/id/23574940/ns/health-childrens_health/t/teen-girls-has-sexually-transmitted-disease/

The study was done at inner city public health centers, so when they say “1 in 4 teen girls have a STD,” they really mean “1 in 4 teen girls who volunteerly entered a public health center, designed for the poor in the inner city, have an STD,” which really is not sensational. And that’s just one problem with the article!

Nope

Yes! The study basically allows the respondent to define the term “Christian.” Those who are pro-choice can claim to be Christians, for example (like the President and Vice President). A study loses much usefulness in not defining terms objectively, but on the other hand, the point of this study doesn’t seem to be to find who truely is a Christian, but to find who identified as a Christian. (This lack of an objective definition for who a Christian is stems from Protestantism, as anyone who claim Divine inspiration can call himself a Christian, and who a Christian is ultimately defined by any person, which makes Christianity undefined. But I regress from the topic ).

Yes, it takes a long time to write a detailed and satisfactory post on the Internet

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Thanks for your answer and I like all your explanations; since you’re experienced in the field they are very clear.

Unfortunately, I did click on the link. I have high blood pressure and shouldn’t be reading such stuff!!

Other “problems” with the article:

It started off hopeful (but what was I thinking?)

Startling government research on teenage girls and sexually transmitted diseases sends a blunt message to kids who think they’re immune:

What could the blunt message be: Don’t be sexually active at an early age???

**Blame is most often placed on inadequate sex education, from parents and from schools focusing too much on abstinence-only programs. **

Oh no. It’s those dumb schools not starting sex education at an early enough age. Maybe we should be starting in pre-kindergarten?? And abstinence. What kind of crazy idea is that? It’s 2015 for goodness sake!

“To talk about abstinence is not a bad thing,” but teen girls — and boys too — need to be informed about how to protect themselves if they do have sex, Alderman said.

They’re going to do it anyway, so we might as well show them how. Just can’t tame that ole’ animal instinct.

Well, I could go on but it’s almost dinner time over here.

I like to keep myself amused as things get crazier and crazier.

God bless you