Religion
Related: About this forum1 In 5 Americans Say Religion Is 'Not That Important' To Them
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/religion-poll-nbc-wsj_n_4957886.htmlPosted: 03/13/2014 1:59 pm EDT Updated: 03/13/2014 6:59 pm EDT
Americans are losing faith. At least, that's the conclusion of a new poll on religion.
Jointly conducted by NBC and The Wall Street Journal, the poll found that 21 percent of Americans feel religion is "not that important" in their lives.
This, NBC News writes, is the "highest percentage" recorded since the survey was first conducted in 1997. "The poll showed that these less religious Americans are more likely to be men, have an income over $75,000, to live in the Northeast or West and to be under the age of 35," says NBC..
This isn't the first time that a survey of the American public has indicated a dip in religiosity. A Harris Poll last year found that only 74 percent of American adults believe in God -- an 8 percent fall since 2009. Moreover, according to a 2012 WIN-Gallup International survey, the country is one of the top 10 in the world to have experienced a "notable decline in religiosity" since 2005.
more at link
Link to poll: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/losing-faith-21-percent-say-religion-not-important-n51256
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Surveys on church attendance are wildly exaggerated versus data collected from actual attendance rates.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Since there is a positive correlation between poverty and religion, I would suspect that if you mean "wealthy" by advanced, the overall rates of religion are lower.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)On reflection, I would say it's a country whose motivations are more tied to science than dogma. One wonders if "wealth" is the cause or the effect, or both.
--imm
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I've never seen that kind of breakdown. What about places like India, which have relatively high levels of both science and religion?
If by dogma, you mean religion, than the question has really answered itself with your definition.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)....but inequality and religiosity as well.
America may be among the wealthiest countries in the world, but a great deal of that wealth is concentrated in a rather small part of the population. The disparity between the enriched upper classes and everyone else-in terms of access to quality health care, education, building family wealth, maintaining a high standard of living, not going into great amounts of debt, not being nearly at risk of losing a job and benefits, etc.-has grown to an incredible level.When your daily life becomes more of a struggle, when your future has become more uncertain, then religion appeals to you more, as a general rule (not a hard rule, granted, but...).
I also think there's a definite correlation between the growth of religious fundamentalism and an increase in economic hardship (due to neo-liberalism and austerity measures at all levels of government) for the majority of Americans.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The least religious tend to be male, making good money, young and live in the richer parts of the country.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Which is awesome.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"The growth in the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans sometimes called the rise of the nones is largely driven by generational replacement, the gradual supplanting of older generations by newer ones.4 A third of adults under 30 have no religious affiliation (32%), compared with just one-in-ten who are 65 and older (9%). And young adults today are much more likely to be unaffiliated than previous generations were at a similar stage in their lives."
Hope for the future.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am not sure you can equate "no religious affiliation" with religion not being important.
Though they haven't done the kinds of breakdowns that would be helpful, at least some of the nones describe themselves as religious or spiritual, just not affiliated.
In addition, the data I have seen generally shows a lower level of religiosity in the young with a trend upward as age groups progress.
I don't think this represents hope as much as it indicates change. And I do think the change will be good.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)No dogma baggage.
In fact, I can recall no fights with any, in my life over line-item issues.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)associated with their beliefs.
There is also tremendous variation across different affiliations. The more dogmatic, the more difficult to really have a productive discussion, imo.
I'm not sure what "line-item issues" are.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I've disagreed with unaffiliated religious people. Usually we discuss it into a position where they just don't like or prefer it or see it as a negative, but wouldn't ban it. Because their faith isn't linked to any commandments or anything that can be interpreted as strictly anti-abortion.
I can co-exist with people who do not prefer abortion as a solution to unwanted pregnancy. Especially if they don't oppose better measures, like contraception.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)anti-abortion. I don't think she falls into the category you describe. OTOH, there are many religious people who are personally against abortion but still support choice.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But the monkey-shit-flinging fights over it only occur with religious people of a organized nature.
I've encountered anti-abortion atheists before. I've never had trouble reasoning them back into that position of 'I don't prefer it', without a huge fight.
Well, one guy admitted he was special pleading, and couldn't offer a reason for it. But for the most part, their position is malleable when you bring logic and evidence to bear.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)would probably take the same route as a fight with a religious person that holds the same POV.
If she supports choice (which isn't really clear from the article), her being personally against abortion become her individual choice.
Your experience is your experience, but anyone who is anti-choice is the same in my book. They want to control others.
There is no reason to think that a non-believer with that position is going to be any more reasonable than a believer.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Certainly there are those that want to control. Totally with you there. I define that as 'hard' pro-life.
I think there's a legit case for people who don't prefer it, or see it as a failure of some sort. Personally I do, to a degree, insofar as I think family planning of all sorts should be so accessible and so freely available, and the education so clear that abortion only arises as a question at all in some tiny infinitesimal percentage of cases.
People who occupy that space of thinking it's a negative, may, without explicit religious dogma of their own, adopt a 'hard' anti-stance toward it, but I find that when you start raising the facts of the matter, they DON'T go nuclear on the issue, can be reasoned down. There's no hard ideological basis for their position, and they recognize that.
So, at least in my experience, I certainly see a delta between the two groups.
I agree, that anti-choice is an attempt to control, but I think some of the people who hold that position don't want to control per se, but rather have adopted ideology proffered by the people who DO want to control. They are not cognizant of the control aspect at all.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are serious issues about access to reproductive services, particularly for poor women. And, sadly, there are still cultures in which men feel they really have not responsibility for birth control.
I have sympathy with those that have strong personal beliefs about abortion, particularly when they are presented with a situation in which is should be an option on the table. I think that their beliefs are often very sincere.
But I have no sympathy for those that want to make that choice for me. They may not recognize it as control and they often make all the the arguments that woman made in the other article. They see themselves as the voice of the voiceless and refuse to recognize that others see things differently.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)The future truly does rest in the hands of our children, a that future looks bright!