Signs of sanity in the US emerging?

[Gob]

The number of Americans who identify as Christian has fallen nearly eight percentage points in only seven years, according to a new survey.

Pew Research Center found that 71% of Americans identified as Christian in 2014 - down from 78% in 2007. In the same period, Americans identifying as having no religion grew from 16% to 23%. Fifty-six million Americans do not observe any religion, the second largest community after Evangelicals.



The United States still remains home to more Christians than any other nation, with roughly seven-in-ten continuing to identify with some branch of Christianity. In 2007 and then again in 2014, Pew conducted the "Religious Landscape Study", interviewing 35,000 people each time.

Pew researchers say the losses they discovered were driven mainly by a decrease among liberal Protestants and Catholics and occurred in all regions of the US and among all ages and demographics. About 5 million less Americans now identify as Christian compared to when the study was conducted in 2007. In the South, those not-affiliated with religion - or as the researchers call them, "nones" - rose to 19% of the population, while in the Northeast they climbed to 25%. In the West "nones" are a larger group than any religion, making up 28% of the public.

Christians in the US

Americans who identify as Christian: 70.6%
Protestant faiths: 46.5%
Evangelical: 25.4%
Catholic: 20.8%
Mainline or liberal: 14.7%
Mormon: 1.6%
Jehovah's Witness: 0.8%
Identify as Other Christians: 0.4%
Source: Pew Research Center

[RayThom]

There's going to be a new sheriff in town any day now. And we will all be better off for it. Just wait and see. Amen.

And may secular humanism bless America.

[Big RR]

Well RayThom, just as secular humanists could become the majority, so could much more orthodox religions which demand conformity to their beliefs. I wouldn't blithely dismiss Christianity as I would bet a good number of them are not hardline and embrace the separation of church and state, something eschewed by adherents to other major world religions than Christians.

[Lord Jim]

I would point out (when you look at a more detailed and complete break down of this survey):



http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/amer ... landscape/

That "unaffiliated" includes "atheist" "agnostic" and "nothing in particular" (ie, "I just really don't give it any thought")

And of these three, "nothing in particular" is far and away the largest...

Atheists and agnostics combined still only represent about 7% of the population...

[Econoline]

"I suppose you should have figured that making the brand selfish, mean, and political might have unintended consequences to its marketing."

– Jesus, in His most insufferably correct I-told-you-so so far this week.

* (credit Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian)

[rubato]

I've always thought that religious affiliation should be measured by something more substantial than mere affirmation.

If you don't go to services more often than not, pay tithes and offerings for the support of the church and to charities, and make the other required sacrifices then you don't count as a member of that religion.


yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

Reza Aslan has recently been on tour making the point that "religion" today is more a form of personal identity rather than actual adherence to a prescribed set of beliefs and practices -- it says more about a person's own perception of his/her ethnic/social/political/cultural/national affiliation rather than religious doctrine. I think he's right.

[Big RR]

I've always thought that religious affiliation should be measured by something more substantial than mere affirmation.

If you don't go to services more often than not, pay tithes and offerings for the support of the church and to charities, and make the other required sacrifices then you don't count as a member of that religion.


yrs,
rubato

.

And who made you the arbiter of that? Many religions don't require any of those things for the members, so what gives you the authority to overrule them? Indeed, tithing is a requirement of only a very few religions.

[Lord Jim]

Beat me to it...

[rubato]

The meaning of terms depends on how they are defined. I am always entitled to point this out and suggest definitions which are of greater value. As is everyone else.

The meaning of our beliefs can be estimated by what we actually sacrifice for them.


And, as an empiricist, if being a Christian does not mean that ones behavior is different then being a Christian means nothing.




Yrs,
Rubato

[Big RR]

No rubato, on the one hand we are talking about being a member of something, not a term in a vacuum. If you want to be a freemason, you must meet the requirements of being a freemasonry as defined by that organization; ditto for a boy scout, eagle scout or whatever. Sacrifice has nothing to do with it, nor does behavior, unless the organization prescribes it as a condition of membership. So if one calls oneself Lutheran or episcopalean, they are claiming to be members of those organizations. If you feel that's meaningless, that's your prerogative.

On the other hand, we are discussing beliefs; broad generic terms like Christian or Buddhist encompass a wide array of beliefs and people can claim to be believers of followers of the philosophies and tenets of the faith without being the member of any group the sets specific requirements. But again, I fail to see how you, who profess to be a nonbeliever, can have anything to say about what a person must say or do to sufficiently document their beliefs to be called believers. I don't speak a word of Greek and would never tell a person claiming to speak Greek how to speak the language; how you can have the audacity to tell a person who claims a faith and belief how to manifest it makes about as much sense as me instructing a Greek speaker on the finer points of their language.

Again, if you think their belief is meaningless to you, well that's your prerogative.

[wesw]

big RR..., once again you are the the voice of reason around here. you win a cookie.

[rubato]

No rubato, on the one hand we are talking about being a member of something, not a term in a vacuum. If you want to be a freemason, you must meet the requirements of being a freemasonry as defined by that organization; ditto for a boy scout, eagle scout or whatever. Sacrifice has nothing to do with it, nor does behavior, unless the organization prescribes it as a condition of membership. So if one calls oneself Lutheran or episcopalean, they are claiming to be members of those organizations. If you feel that's meaningless, that's your prerogative.

On the other hand, we are discussing beliefs; broad generic terms like Christian or Buddhist encompass a wide array of beliefs and people can claim to be believers of followers of the philosophies and tenets of the faith without being the member of any group the sets specific requirements. But again, I fail to see how you, who profess to be a nonbeliever, can have anything to say about what a person must say or do to sufficiently document their beliefs to be called believers. I don't speak a word of Greek and would never tell a person claiming to speak Greek how to speak the language; how you can have the audacity to tell a person who claims a faith and belief how to manifest it makes about as much sense as me instructing a Greek speaker on the finer points of their language.

Again, if you think their belief is meaningless to you, well that's your prerogative.

"being a freemasonry" ? the rest of your post is just as garbled. A little less booze before posting? My brother was a Mason and he believed that his membership in the Masons required him to behave differently.

If being an "X" does not mean that you behave differently than a "non X" then being an "X" means nothing at all. You are not different. The importance of membership in a faith is directly related to its effect on your life.

Unless you are saying that we ought to regard religious membership as no more important than taste in television comedies?


Look, I think most religion is trivia, but I am giving them the chance to prove otherwise. You are saying "no its all trivial shit don't bother".


yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

No, he's saying that Christianity - esp. Protestantism - requires acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Lord & savior and nothing else; failure to attend church is between you and God and many people of faith prefer to commune with God apart from organized religious service.

[Lord Jim]

A little less booze before posting?

After reading that post, I would strongly suggest you take your own advice...

Yet another splendid example of how when it comes to being insulting, rube, "only responds when attacked, and to a lesser extent"...

No, he's saying that Christianity - esp. Protestantism - requires acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Lord & savior and nothing else; failure to attend church is between you and God and many people of faith prefer to commune with God apart from organized religious service.

Additionally, it is up to the individual religions and sects within the religions (with whatever organizational system they have) to determine who is and is not a member of their church, and what is required for membership...

Not some pompous-assed, ignorant bloviating buffoon who knows less about organized religion then I know about how to construct a Falcon 9 rocket...

[wesw]

wherever two or three gather, in my name....

that s all it takes , according to jesus

[oldr_n_wsr]

if being a Christian does not mean that ones behavior is different then being a Christian means nothing.

Different than who/what?

I believe my behavior is Christian "like" but i do not call myself Christian, and have a different "definition" of God than they do.

wherever two or three gather, in my name....

that s all it takes , according to jesus

(AA has a similar "requirement" for gatherings)

[MajGenl.Meade]

I would think that rubato's point is clear and non-controversial. What's all the fuss?

He points out (correctly) that if one claims membership in an organization (not some nebulous personal faith but an organization) then one either follows the practices of that group or one does not. Failing to follow the practices - and in fact, practicing the opposite of what is taught, is presumptive evidence that a person is not, in fact, in membership but in opposition - more or less.

If one is a Christian (hard luck - there is a manual), then one's behavior should be observably different from the behavior of those who are not Christian and it should conform to the teaching pattern of the particular Christian church to which one belongs, which in turn should be based only upon God's word, the Bible. A persistent liar, a thief, a blasphemer - not a Christian. Ancestor worship? Not a Christian. Refusal to attend services or tithe to the church of membership or engage in the good works which God has prepared - not a Christian. And so on

You may disagree with him on this but his statements are eminently rational and er... correct.

[Big RR]

"being a freemasonry" ? the rest of your post is just as garbled. A little less booze before posting?

That's the best you can do? what's the point in responding to personal attacks? You might have suckered others into answering, but there's no point.

meade--no. rube's pint is that he can dictate what that behavior to qualify as a Christian should be IMHO; as he is a self-professed nonbeliever, that makes no sense to me. Doe it really matter to you?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well I disagree with rube on fundamentals, of course. But I don't think he was dictating behavior for "Christians". All he's saying (aside from the usual uncalled for ad hominems) is that those who say they are a thing should act as if they are that thing... and not the opposite.

If you don't go to services more often than not, pay tithes and offerings for the support of the church and to charities, and make the other required sacrifices then you don't count as a member of that religion.

To me, that's "if you're a Roman Catholic then you should subscribe to the Church teachings on belief etc." A claim to be a Catholic is kind of negated if one supports abortion, refuses to repent and confess, never take Mass and so on. Isn't he saying only that to truly belong to a group, one supports the beliefs and practices of that group? Obviously if one claims to be an atheist but faithfully follows all the teachings of the Buddha, one isn't really an atheist.

I think rather than "religion" it would be better to write "denomination". Is that clearer, do you think?

OTOH maybe he did mean "Christian", in which case I still agree with him anyway. We've discussed it. A Christian follows God's Word, the Bible. Anyone who says "If there is a God...." isn't a Christian and my understanding of the Bible is that Christians are indeed to gather together for worship etc. It says it somewhere or other....