Protestantism No Longer A Majority In USA

[dales]

My WASP-y wings are all a-flutter.

Report: US Protestants lose majority status



RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer

Updated 9:47 p.m., Monday, October 8, 2012



NEW YORK (AP) — For the first time in its history, the United States does not have a Protestant majority, according to a new study. One reason: The number of Americans with no religious affiliation is on the rise.

The percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. has reached a low of 48 percent, the first time that Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has reported with certainty that the number has fallen below 50 percent. The drop has long been anticipated and comes at a time when no Protestants are on the U.S. Supreme Court and the Republicans have their first presidential ticket with no Protestant nominees.

Among the reasons for the change are the growth in nondenominational Christians who can no longer be categorized as Protestant, and a spike in the number of American adults who say they have no religion. The Pew study, released Tuesday, found that about 20 percent of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15 percent in the last five years.

Scholars have long debated whether people who say they no longer belong to a religious group should be considered secular. While the category as defined by Pew researchers includes atheists, it also encompasses majorities of people who say they believe in God, and a notable minority who pray daily or consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious." Still, Pew found overall that most of the unaffiliated aren't actively seeking another religious home, indicating that their ties with organized religion are permanently broken.

Growth among those with no religion has been a major preoccupation of American faith leaders who worry that the United States, a highly religious country, would go the way of Western Europe, where church attendance has plummeted. Pope Benedict XVI has partly dedicated his pontificate to combating secularism in the West. This week in Rome, he is convening a three-week synod, or assembly, of bishops from around the world aimed at bringing back Roman Catholics who have left the church.

The trend also has political implications. American voters who describe themselves as having no religion vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Pew found Americans with no religion support abortion rights and gay marriage at a much higher-rate than the U.S. public at large. These "nones" are an increasing segment of voters who are registered as Democrats or lean toward the party, growing from 17 percent to 24 percent over the last five years. The religiously unaffiliated are becoming as important a constituency to Democrats as evangelicals are to Republicans, Pew said.

The Pew analysis, conducted with PBS' "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly," is based on several surveys, including a poll of nearly 3,000 adults conducted June 28-July 9, 2012. The finding on the Protestant majority is based on responses from a larger group of more than 17,000 people and has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.9 percentage points, Pew researchers said. Pew said it had also previously calculated a drop slightly below 50 percent among U.S. Protestants, but those findings had fallen within the margin of error; the General Social Survey, which is conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, reported for 2010 that the percentage of U.S. Protestants was around 46.7 percent.

Researchers have been struggling for decades to find a definitive reason for the steady rise in those with no religion.' The spread of secularism in Western Europe was often viewed as a byproduct of growing wealth in the region. Yet among industrialized nations, the United States stood out for its deep religiosity in the face of increasing wealth.

Now, religion scholars say the decreased religiosity in the United States could reflect a change in how Americans describe their religious lives. In 2007, 60 percent of people who said they seldom or never attend religious services still identified themselves as part of a particular religious tradition. In 2012, that statistic fell to 50 percent, according to the Pew report.

"Part of what's going on here is that the stigma associated with not being part of any religious community has declined," said John Green, a specialist in religion and politics at the University of Akron, who advised Pew on the survey. "In some parts of the country, there is still a stigma. But overall, it's not the way it used to be."

The Pew study has found the growth in unaffiliated Americans spans a broad range of groups: men and women, college graduates and those without a college degree, people earning less than $30,000 annually and those earning $75,000 or more. However, along ethnic lines, the largest jump in "nones" has been among whites. One-fifth of whites describe themselves as having no religion.

More growth in "nones" is expected. One-third of adults under age 30 have no religious affiliation, compared to 9 percent of people 65 and older. Pew researchers wrote that "young adults today are much more likely to be unaffiliated than previous generations were at a similar stage in their lives," and aren't expected to become more religiously active as they age.

____

Online: http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/no ... -rise.aspx


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Repo ... z28neyf2wE

[rubato]

My WASP-y wings are all a-flutter.

Report: US Protestants lose majority status

"...

Growth among those with no religion has been a major preoccupation of American faith leaders who worry that the United States, a highly religious country, would go the way of Western Europe, where church attendance has plummeted. ... "

What? Our std of living is going to go up? Health care is going to improve? Poverty is going to go down?

Pray tell.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Good example of a headline and article that are intended to prove a point which is substantially false.

A few observations: On this very BBS we had a discussion a few months ago about whether Mormons were "Christians." I opined that they were not, since they reject, among many other orthodox Christian beliefs, MONOTHEISM, which most would say is de riguer. But generically, most people - even Christians - would consider LDS to be a non-Catholic, Christian religion, hence "protestant." And if you include Mormons, the scale tips back to the Protestant majority.

But more significantly, if you consider whether a majority of Americans is CHRISTIAN - a far more relevant question - you must include Catholics, and Christians are a substantial majority. Indeed, if all Christians voted one way in a quadrennial election, their chosen candidates would win virtually every office in the land, by a landslide.

And when you consider how the entertainment industry and the MSM have waged an incessant campaign for at least the last 40 years to marginalize, demonize, and ridicule both religion itself and religious believers, it is truly remarkable that this majority continues to exist. Surely, it is nothing but inertia, as the actual values taught by the Bible are as extinct as the dodo bird.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Researchers have been struggling for decades to find a definitive reason for the steady rise in those with no religion.

Fish in a barrel

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Romans 1:26-32 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Well they asked.

Meade

[Big RR]

So what? A decline in people identifying themselves as protestants is associated with a rise of homosexuality, which somehow causes people to be filled with all forms of wickedness? Somehow people would be less heartless and ruthless if they condemned these acts and gave these perverts their just desserts of death?

Somehow I seriously doubt such judgmental and vindictive people are desirable by any god of love and goodness, but maybe that's just me.

And that's the point--who is a protestant? Is it someone who is affiliated/a member of denominations traditionally recognized as protestant? A person professing to be a christian (yet not affiliated with any church) and not roman or orthodox catholic? Only someone who professes to literally believwe what the bible teaches (including, e.g., this citation from Romans)? Until the term is defined by those asking the questions, what can be concluded from the responses?

[MajGenl.Meade]

You seem to have unerringly misunderstood the Scripture and camped on homosexuality as if that were the point. It isn't. The subject "they" = "wicked people" who suppress the truth; claim wisdom but are fools; deny God and worship "images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles" (Rom 1:18-23).

Immoral sexual behaviour is just one result (and that not limited to homosexuality); other results are evil, greed, malice, envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, spite, gossip, scandal, hatred of God, insolence, haughtiness, boasting and so on. [Sounds like a description of most USA "comedy" shows or the activities of South African miners on illegal strikes].

People who practise such things "deserve death" - as do all sinners including me. But the Good News is that God sent Jesus to bring salvation to all those who choose to abandon their wicked ways. After all, that list of bad stuff in Romans 1 describes "what some of you used to be" (and that means you, Meade) "but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11). I still deserve death - that is, the eternal separation from God - and it would be my lot if not for God's forgiveness of sin.

Somehow I seriously doubt such judgmental and vindictive people are desirable by any god of love and goodness, but maybe that's just me

. Well there's only one and that has a capital G ....

....but no, it isn't just you. Forgiveness is available to me, you and all who truly believe because God does desire that we judgmental and vindictive people, whether professing Christ or not, should be reconciled to Him through His son so that what we deserve is in fact not what He will dish out.

My post intended to suggest that any decline in "protestantism" or a civil society for that matter is due to people wandering from God's truth and preferring self-aggrandising beliefs, non-beliefs and false gods such as that of the Mormons or Tom Cruise or First National Bank. This obviously is an answer that "researchers" would overlook since they will do their 'research' in the wrong books.

Regards
Meade

[dgs49]

BRR, what's wrong with being judgmental?

Is all behavior equal?

There are those on this board who scorn those who are financially successful. Is that "being judgmental."

And "vindictive" implies imposing some sort of punishments or sanctions. What Christians/believers impose punishments on sinners? Compare with what was done to the CEO of Chic-fil-A: He was punished for having a thought that some people incorrectly thought was "hateful." Which side was being judgmental, vindictive?

[Big RR]

Well dgs, look at the next chapter of Romans (2), verse 1: "1: Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. "

Look at Jesus' admonition to look for the mote in they brother's eye while ignoring the log in your own.

That's what's wrong with being judgmental, and many use this judgment as an excuse to shun and exclude (or even physically harm) others, which is vindictive. Are there non-christians who are vindictive? Certainly.

[MajGenl.Meade]

In a limited way that is so Big RR. But you again select a little bit of Bible to make your point while discarding the rest of the very passage that states the opposite:

Matthew 7:3-4 which you refer to:

Look at Jesus' admonition to (sic) look for the mote in they brother's eye while ignoring the log in your own.

is followed by Matthew 7:5. "First remove the log from your own eye, then you will see clearly to help your brother remove the speck from his".

So the quote doesn't serve the purpose of your interpretation "don't judge". Judgement is not only recommended it is required. It is "wrong" judgement that must be avoided.

Believers also have a responsibility to judge matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matt. 18:15), but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. Believers are never to take over the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Heb. 10:30).

Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1995). Rev. ed. of: Nelson's illustrated Bible dictionary. Nashville: T. Nelson.

Jesus' point is and always has been that by the same measure we judge, so we too will be judged. So as you say, if one is vindictive in accusing others of sin, then one can expect to be judged for those very things in ourselves.

Paul says,  "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men;  not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one.  For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?  God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” (1 Cor 5:9-13 RSV).

Regards
Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

I forgot Romans 2:1 which you quote while discarding the rest of it:

"Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.  We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things.  Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?" (Rom 2:1-3 RSV)

Again, the warning is not to avoid judging. It is to condemn those who sin when one is doing exactly the same thing oneself. The judgement will come right on back at ya!

I'd recommend getting out of the KJV* and into RSV or even better ESV:

(same verses in ESV) "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man--you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself--that you will escape the judgment of God?"

*Aha! Did you download E-Sword with the standard KJV bible module but you haven't downloaded any of the wonderful other modules that are freely available? (WAG).

Cheers
Meade

[rubato]

Protestants are still the largest religious group, just less than 50% of the population due to the rise in non-religious.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Research! Just can't beat it!

[Big RR]

Meade--we can each interpret these verses, but I see jesus in the matthew 7 saying first address your own behavior, then help, not condemn, those other "sinners". As for matthew 18, I think it addresses the situation where someone commits a wrong (trespasses) against a person, not god; jesus counsels that we should try to reconcile our differences ourselves, then refer it to the church (which often served as a court for such disputes in those days), and, if it did not end, that we did not have be gluttons for pnsihment but could distance ourselves from further contact with the person. Indeed, if you look at the verses immediately preceding it, you can see how jesus describes god's joy in the return of a lost sheep; should we do any less and just condemn? I think not.

As foir the Romans citation, I don't think it means that those who do exactly the same things cannot judge, but others can. I think it means that all have sinned, and that we should avoid judgment because we each have a lofg in our own eye. Help you brother to remove the mote after you've worked on yourself? Perhaps, but then who has removed one's own shortcomings fully? Remember, for all hav sonned and fallen short of the glory of god. So lead by example, show people how you understand god wnats us to behave, and they will ook to your example for guidance. Judge and openly condemn, and you will lose your audience.

As for the KJV of the bible, I prefer its petry to the versions you have suggested. I know some scholars suggest the modern translations are more true to the original writings, but I often have my doubts about that.

[oldr_n_wsr]

That's what's wrong with being judgmental, and many use this judgment as an excuse to shun and exclude (or even physically harm) others, which is vindictive. Are there non-christians who are vindictive? Certainly.
Big RR Posts: 1459Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:47 pm

I can only take my own inventory, not others. Everyone should do so.
(yes, another lesson from the big book)

[MajGenl.Meade]

Big RR, I think that's where you are being rather narrow - "judging" is not the same thing as "condemning" - not does it mean being "judgmental".

We judge distances, we judge flower shows, we judge our own behaviour, we judge whether a new TV show is amusing and so on. We use good judgement, one hopes, to discriminate between among other things good and bad, nice and not nice, right and wrong, liked and disliked, interesting and boring, etc. If Pastor Roger gets up on his hind legs next Sunday and says that Jesus was the Anti-Christ, I am going to judge him to be in the wrong and tell him so. (Mind you, condemnation would follow if he insisted upon the point )

I agree with you that the intent of Matt 7:1 is to say "Condemn not that you be not condemned ... (for by the same standard that you condemn others, you also will be condemned". The English uses the word "judged" in that kind of negative sense in this passage.

Yes, Jesus says hypocrites are those who condemn their brother for having a speck in his eye but all the time have a log in their own. A great figure of speech. But, having dealt with the log (and Big RR the entire Bible addresses how sanctification operates through the Holy Spirit; if you want to start a thread about that prepare for a long argument!), only then can one "see clearly" (note that Jesus says we can and see clearly) to remove the speck from one's brother's eye. What is it that we see clearly? The speck which we have judged (considered, reflected upon, identified) to be a problem. This is helping the brother. Nothing to do with being judgmental in a negative sense.

It is futile to infer that until we achieve perfection we are unable to determine what is right and wrong because we "are all sinners" after all. I think that's the Joe Paterno playbook.

I agree 100% with the gist of what you say that we are not to condemn. But let's face it, you just judged my response to you to be less than satisfactory - do I feel condemned? No and I don't think you did anything bad. Just mistaken.

As for the Romans citation, I don't think it means that those who do exactly the same things cannot judge, but others can

.

Why would anyone think that "others can" - I don't see that? You brought it up to allege that Paul said we should not judge - no, he said we should not condemn others for doing what we do. This is not interpretation - it is 'reading what's there'

So lead by example, show people how you understand god wants us to behave, and they will look to your example for guidance. Judge and openly condemn, and you will lose your audience

That’s good to a point; I agree that Christ doesn’t expect us to point to the crowd and call them all liars, bigots, cheats and swine to win them over to him. But Jesus began to preach saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” Repent from what? “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart”. We’re not supposed to say that?

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits” How are we to recognize them if we have no ability to judge one thing from another?


“But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.” Somehow they achieve this without judging a thing?

On the KJV, it was put together in the early 1600s since which time knowledge of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the discovery of thousands of documents have actually improved the science (ha!) of scriptural study. Please don’t doubt that there are much more accurate translations. It is the most wonderfully written and poetic version – agreed. Perhaps you use Newton’s science textbooks? (Kidding!). No by all means, I use the KJV also. But the best translations are the ESV and er….. the ESV oh and the RSV. Some like NIV are “interpretative” translations – not directly translating the words but the ideas. It’s best to use more than one.

I’ve a fun thing for you. Check out Proverbs 26:10 in several Bibles and see what you make of it

Regards
Meade

[Econoline]

Ever tried The Jerusalem Bible, Meade?

[MajGenl.Meade]

No Eco, I have not. I know there are modules available for e-Sword and presumably The Word but have enough 'tabs' on those to sink the Bismark. Besides I don't know that it's free which is very key

Meade

[dales]

That's what's wrong with being judgmental, and many use this judgment as an excuse to shun and exclude (or even physically harm) others, which is vindictive. Are there non-christians who are vindictive? Certainly.
Big RR Posts: 1459Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:47 pm

I can only take my own inventory, not others. Everyone should do so.
(yes, another lesson from the big book)

Step 4 and Step 10.

[oldr_n_wsr]

You are correct, friend of Bill W's.

[dales]

If more would adopt the precepts of the Big Book, the world would be a better place. One does not have to have a substance abuse/addiction problem to benefit.