Religion in retreat in Britain

"A large-scale survey of British attitudes has been carried out by YouGov–Cambridge (a collaboration between pollsters YouGov and the University of Cambridge’s Department of Politics and International Studies) has some revealing statistics on religion. A representative sample of 64,303 adult Britons aged 18 and over responded.


78% (82% of the over-55s) agreed and 12% disagreed that religion should be a private matter and had no place in politics

In response to the question “What is your religion?” 40% of adults professed no religion, 55% were Christian and 5% of other faiths – age made a major difference, with only 38% of the 18–34s being Christian and 53% having no religion, whereas for the over-55s the figures were 70% and 26% respectively

35% described themselves as very or fairly religious and 63% as not very or not at all religious – there were no big variations by demographics (even by age), but Londoners (41%) did stand out as being disproportionately religious, doubtless reflecting the concentration of ethnic minorities in the capital

79% agreed and 11% disagreed that religion is a cause of much misery and conflict in the world today

72% agreed and 15% disagreed that religion is used as an excuse for bigotry and intolerance, with a high of 81% inScotlandwhere sectarianism has often been rife

35% agreed and 45% disagreed that religion is a force for good in the world, dissenters being more numerous among men (50%) than women (41%)

[...]


Full tables can be seen here."


National Secular Society, 23 Sep 2011

Lots more numbers in the article.

Fundamentalists of all stripes want to turn back the clock

"Despite all their theological and cultural differences, fundamentalists of every faith share at least one common characteristic: resistance to modernity. That’s the assessment of scholars and firsthand observers who have evaluated the varieties of religious expression. “Fundamentalism worldwide is religious anti-modernism,” noted Roger Olson, professor of theology at Baylor University’s George W. Truett Theological Seminary. “Fundamentalism reacts against various types of modernity,” echoed Bill Leonard, a church historian and dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School. Whether it’s Baptist preachers J. Frank Norris and Jerry Falwell calling America to return to pre-scientific Christianity or Ayatollah Khomeini and Muqtada al-Sadr calling Muslims to resist the intrusion of Western decadence, fundamentalism finds a home in most major faith groups."

Associated Baptist Press, April 1, 2008

It's a long article crammed with points. Apart from being against modernity there were four other subjects discussed: Dogmatic Faith, Identity, Fear and Politics.
It's the first in a series on Fundamentalism at Associated Baptist Press.

Virtual Museum of Offensive Art

In these times, when blasphemy is all the rage, the Virtual Museum of Offensive Art is a welcome resource website. You'll find a lot of controversial works of art here, that prudes of all types have wanted to ban. Plenty of blasphemy, but also plenty of sex and a little politics.

(Found at the NewHumanist blog.)

Think Religion Plays a Bigger Role in Politics Today? You're Right. Statistics Prove It.

"If one looks at nearly 360 major speeches that presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to George W. Bush have given, the increase in religiosity is astounding. The average president from FDR to Carter mentioned God in a minority of his speeches, doing so about 47% of the time. Reagan, in contrast, mentioned God in 96% of his speeches. George H. W. Bush did so 91% of the time, Clinton 93%, and the current Bush (through year six) was at 94%. Further, the total number of references to God in the average presidential speech since 1981 is 120% higher than the average speech from 1933-1980. References to broader religious terms, such as faith, pray, sacred, worship, crusade, and dozens of others increased by 60%.

[...]

This new age is one that many past presidents would hardly recognize. One can’t help but wonder what would become of a candidate today who, like John Kennedy in 1960, “believe[s] in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair.”"

Kevin Coe and David Domke (aouthors of The God Strategy), History News Network, 17. December 2007

What's wrong with the religious right?

"Now, less than four years after widespread declarations that the religious right had taken over the Republican Party, these social conservatives seem almost powerless to influence its nomination process.
It isn’t because they lack numbers. Pollster Tony Fabrizio has documented that moralists remain the biggest slice of GOP voters. More than a third of 2004 votes for President Bush were cast by evangelicals.
Yet organizations designed to mobilize these voters have atrophied. The Christian Coalition is a shadow of its former self. Efforts to relaunch the defunct Moral Majority haven’t fared much better. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy are dead, Pat Robertson past his prime.

[...]

When The Washington Post once described religious conservatives as largely “poor, uneducated and easy to command,” evangelicals protested that they weren’t poor or uneducated. Now, neither are they easy to command."

Politico.com, Sep 24, 2007

Good news!

A New Generation Expresses its Skepticism and Frustration with Christianity

"A new study by The Barna Group conducted among 16- to 29-year-olds shows that a new generation is more skeptical of and resistant to Christianity than were people of the same age just a decade ago.

[...]

The study explored twenty specific images related to Christianity, including ten favorable and ten unfavorable perceptions. Among young non-Christians, nine out of the top 12 perceptions were negative. Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%) - representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians. [...] Even among young Christians, many of the negative images generated significant traction. Half of young churchgoers said they perceive Christianity to be judgmental, hypocritical, and too political. One-third said it was old-fashioned and out of touch with reality.

[...]

Their perceptions about Christianity were not always accurate, but what surprised me was not only the severity of their frustration with Christians, but also how frequently young born again Christians expressed some of the very same comments as young non-Christians."

[...]

"Going into this three-year project, I assumed that people’s perceptions were generally soft, based on misinformation, and would gradually morph into more traditional views. But then, as we probed why young people had come to such conclusions, I was surprised how much their perceptions were rooted in specific stories and personal interactions with Christians and in churches. When they labeled Christians as judgmental this was not merely spiritual defensiveness. It was frequently the result of truly ‘unChristian’ experiences. We discovered that the descriptions that young people offered of Christianity were more thoughtful, nuanced, and experiential than expected."

Barna Group, September 24, 2007

No excerpt can do this survey justice, so better read the whole article!
You can even buy the book:

"The study of Christianity’s slipping image is explored in a new book, entitled unChristian, by David Kinnaman, the president of The Barna Group. The study is a result of collaboration between Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project."

Secular Party of Australia needs your help

"I'm not sure if I have any Australian readers here, but if you are an atheist living in Australia, the Secular Party of Australia needs your help. They want their party to be listed on the ballot for the upcoming election, and they need additional members to make this happen. Membership is free, and you would be helping to bring attention to secularism in Australia."

Friendly Atheist 25. August 2007

I'll gladly pass this on! Good luck!

We have every right to oppose God's law

I don't usually post excerpts from discussion forums, but I thought this post was quite illuminating. (It's picked up from CARM / christiandiscussionforums.org where you unfortunately have to register to read.)

"Essentially, it's just a simple argument from democracy. Since God acts as ultimate authority, and defines the law for us, he is, by definition, a dictator. If we believe in the principles of democracy, chiefly that the law is only legitimate if it has the consent of the governed, God's law is illegitimate. None of us voted for it, so it is unjust, illegitimate, and we have every right to oppose it. Furthermore, we are not at all deserving of punishment, as we have not given consent to the laws we've allegedly broken. God simply acts as a dictator, and as moral beings who believe in the principles of democracy, we are completely justified in opposing him."

BenTheBiased, christiandiscussionforums.org, 17. August. 2007

Religion and the Threat Effect

"Building on the "racial threat" hypothesis -- which states that as the number of African-Americans in a community increases, the more likely white voters are to support conservative candidates and oppose policies that benefit African-Americans -- Campbell set out to see whether he could identify a similar effect among evangelical voters. It turns out that, even when you control for factors like party identification, the more secular people there were within a county, the more likely that people from evangelical denominations living there would vote Republican.
In other words, the more that evangelicals saw non-religious people around them, the greater the likelihood they'd walk a straight line from the church door to the voting booth and pull the GOP lever.

[...]

Whatever the answer is, the possibility does seem real for secularism to achieve a new awakening of its own as a political and social movement. [...] Greater visibility makes it easier for the tribe to reproduce itself: The more we wear our tribal identity on our sleeves, the easier our fellow members are to spot, and the more likely we are to define membership as one of our primary criteria in mate selection and thus pass on our identity to others."

Paul Waldman, Prospect.org, June 13, 2007

See more here Religious 'Threat' In Presidential Elections" (PDF)

Atheists, Agnostics less likely to vote in USA

"A new study by The Barna Group examines the numbers, lifestyles and self-perceptions of America’s atheists and agnostics, contrasting the no-faith audience with those who actively participate in the Christian faith.

[...]

In the study, the no-faith segment was defined as anyone who openly identified themselves as an atheist, an agnostic, or who specifically said they have "no faith." In total, this group represents a surprisingly small slice of the adult population, about one out of every 11 Americans (9%). However, in a nation of more than 220 million adults, that comprises roughly 20 million people.

[...]

Atheists and agnostics are distinct demographically from the active-faith segment. The no-faith audience is younger, and more likely to be male and unmarried. They also earn more and are more likely to be college graduates.

[...]

Atheists and agnostics are also significantly less likely to say they are convinced they are right about things in life (38% versus 55%).

[...]

A Secular, Faith-Resistant Mindset
is More Common among Young Adults

generation current _____ages __ 1992 __ 2007
adult Mosaics ________ 18-22 __ -- _____ 19%
Busters _____________ 23-41 __ 16% ___ 14%
Boomers ____________ 42-60 __ 8% ____ 9%
Elders ______________61+ ____ 4% ____ 6%

[...]

They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as "active in the community" (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%). They are also more likely to be registered to vote as an independent or with a non-mainstream political party."

Barna.org June 11, 2007

More numbers in the article.

A lot of the numbers are as expected, but I was surprised about the voting difference. It can mean a disillusion with American politics, which is no surprise, considering the role that religion plays. This also corresponds with the fact that those who do vote are often voting for independents.
But remember: no vote, no change!

A thing that will no doubt look bad for the average American is that the non-faith group is less likely to spend money on charity while at the same time earn more. (Wonder how the stats would have looked if they accidentally phoned Bill Gates!) Considering the younger age, I think this may be an age/family thing. Even if charities for religious purposes are not counted (which dramatically decreased the gap), I think there's a fair chance that churches do collect money also for non-religious purposes, and that non-church goers therefore are not asked as much. Anyway, I don't live there, so I'll let others do the talking.
But just to have said it: in terms of foreign aid, European secular countries do a lot better than the US, so I don't accept the notion that without religion, no-one will care about other people. I've met too many non-believing bleeding heart liberals in my life to think otherwise. It's just that it's organized differently.

[Opinion] Against the grain: Religion should be kept out of politics

"Religion can distort people's moral sensibilities as much as it can inform them. The unimportant becomes important, the important becomes unimportant, as we're seeing with gay adoption and gay bishops."

Independent.co.uk, 05 April 2007