Daily Archives: August 14, 2021

Fewer Americans are identifying as Christians and more have no religious affiliation. How will secular Americans transform politics?RyanBurgetracksthe decline in mainline protestants and the rise of Americans with no particular religious identity. He says they are part of a broader anti-institutional trend in American life, with only atheists and agnostics sticking out as the political subset.JohnC. Greenfindsa rise in avowed secularists who are motivated by politics and changing the face of the Democratic party. But these secularists dont represent everyone who lacks a tie to organized religion.

Guests:Ryan Burge, Eastern Illinois University;John C. Green, University of Akron

Studies:The Nones;Secular Surge

Matt Grossmann: The Growing Influence of Nonreligious Americans, this week on The Science of Politics. For the Niskanen Center, Im Matt Grossmann. Fewer Americans are identifying as Christians and more have no religious affiliation. Thats both an outcome of our religiously divided politics and a potential driver of change. Will secular Americans transform politics the way that Evangelicals did? Is there anything holding together these Americans whove dropped out of organized religion?

This week, I talk to Ryan Burge of Eastern Illinois University about his new Fortress Press book, The Nones. He tracks the decline in Mainline Protestants and the rise of Americans with no particular religious identity. He says theyre a part of a broader anti-institutional trend in American life with only atheists and agnostics sticking out as the political subset of the Nones.

I also talk to John C. Green of the University of Akron about his new Cambridge book with David Campbell and Geoffrey Layman, Secular Surge. They find a rise in avowed secularists who are motivated by politics and changing the face of the Democratic Party, but secularists certainly dont represent everyone who lacks a tie to organized religion. Burge starts with the broadest trend, the big rise in people without religious affiliation, but that category mixes up a lot of people.

Ryan Burge: Well, the first is that the Nones have just exploded. I think thats something that we I dont think we fully understand all the implications of that, but in the 1970s, the Nones were probably at one in 20 Americans were a None. Today, its likely around 30% or even higher depending on how you do a survey and how you ask the questions. Theres actually evidence that Gen Z and millennials, its closer to 40% are Nones. Just an unbelievable rapid rise, and its touched every segment of the American population. Its not just a thing amongst the educated or amongst white people or even amongst liberals, although the Nones do tend to be more liberal, everyone has become more secular over the last 20 or 30 years.

The other thing is that all Nones are not created equal. For a long time, social science kind of saw them as this monolithic block, where we just call them the Nones, the people who have no faith, but if you dig into the data and you separate it by atheists, agnostics, and then a third group called nothing in particular, you see that these groups are vastly different. Especially the nothing in particular group from the atheists.

For instance, atheists are one of the most educated groups in America today. About 47% of atheists have a four-year college degree. Its only 20% of nothing in particulars. Nothing in particulars are the least educated religious group in America today, so lumping them together, from a methodological perspective, is actually kind of really bad because youre lumping together two groups that share the same ideas about faith but dont share much else. I hope, from a social science side, that we all really start thinking about how we sub If were going to subdivide Protestants into three different categories, we should subdivide the Nones into at least two categories, atheists, agnostics, and then everybody else.

Matt Grossmann: Green, Campbell, and Layman focus on secularists.

John C. Green: The Secular Surge is a book about contemporary politics of secular citizens in the United States. In the book, my coauthors and I share that there are important political differences amongst secular citizens. Some people have an explicit secular [inaudible 00:03:21], which is in many ways an alternative to religion. We call those people secularists in the book.

Then, theres another group of people who are simply not involved in religion but dont share a secular world view, and we call them None religionists. What we find is that those two groups are quite distinct on many political attitudes and activities. My colleagues [inaudible 00:03:47] and coauthors, David Campbell and Geoff Layman, and I have worked for a long time together on religion and politics in the United States. One of the things that have always interested us were secular people, people who are not involved in organized religion, many in fact who see themselves as, in some sense, having an alternative world view to at least the most common religion.

I mean, there are all different kinds that work together, so when we decided to look at the secular population, we thought we would approach it from a variety of different angles. The book uses a lot of variety of methods. We have some original surveys that we conducted, we used some well-established surveys, but from public sources. We did survey experiments. We did interviews; we did all different kinds of analysis. I think what it gives us is a view of secular citizens from a number of different angles through a number of different lenses.

What it suggests to us is really two things. One is that the secular [inaudible 00:04:53] recent increase in non-religiosity in the United States is not a passing fad. Its something that we think will be with us going into the future, but also, its very complex and all secular people are not alike.

Matt Grossmann: Theyre pointing to similar trends. Burge says, How people are defined depends on the survey question.

Ryan Burge: The first religion questions that we have that are sort of valid go back to 1972, asked by the General Social Survey. That question said, Whats your present religion, if any, and it gave people basically four or five options, things like Protestant, Catholic, something else, and then it said none. On the GSS, there isnt a follow-up question after that, so if you say none, youre None. You could be an atheist, or you could be a nothing in particular, or you could be a secular or a humanist, and you would all be lumped under that none category.

Pugh came along, and about 15 years ago said, Lets ask more options amongst the broad religion question, so now theres about 11 or 12 options, depending on the survey. For the Nones, now there are three options. Theres atheist, theres agnostic, and then theres an option thats actually called nothing in particular, which I see in my mind as the shrug question. Like, I dont know. Im not an atheist, but Im not a Christian either, so Ill just shrug and check the nothing in particular box.

The other innovation thats really happened, thats really important when it comes to religious doing religious measurement on surveys, is moving from a face-to-face format to an online format. The GSS has always been face-to-face. The CES or CCS, as its sometimes called, is done online, and we know, and Pugh has backed this up by doing a split survey, half online, half in-person, theyve found that when you ask religion questions in a face-to-face format, you get smaller number of people who say they have no religious affiliation than if you ask the same questions on an online survey.

When we look at online surveys, were actually seeing many more Nones than we ever saw in the GSS for two reasons. One, because the GSS only gives them one option, no faith, while the CCS gives them three options. The other is because the GSS has always been done face-to-face, which drives up social desirability bias while the CES does it online. We think were actually getting closer to whats really going on with American religion when we ask these questions in an online format.

Matt Grossmann: The big pattern is the decline in white, mainline Protestants that allowed the Nones to gain.

Ryan Burge: Theres Evangelicals, which I think everyone sort of knows what an Evangelical is. Your Southern Baptist, your conservative theological folks, Pentecostals fall in that category as well, and a lot of non-denominational Christians are in the Evangelical camp. Then, theres black Protestants. These are people who are part of historically black churches. We subdivide them really because of political reasons. While theologically theyre very similar to Evangelicals, politically theyre the polar opposite of Evangelicals. 90% of them vote for Democrats, so theyre completely different politically than Evangelicals.

The last category which is called mainline Protestants, and thats probably a term that a lot of people havent heard before. Mainline Protestants are sort of your more moderate flavor of Protestant Christianity. These are people like United Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, and in the 1970s, they were the largest religious group in America. In 1975, over 30% of all Americans identified as mainline Protestant for every three mainline Protestants, there were only two Evangelicals, so mainline Protestants really dominated American political discourse all through World War I, World War II, all the way up into the 70s, and then they sort of just started declining in an incredibly rapid way. Now, theyre about 10% of the American population and theyre projected to be 5% probably in the next 10 or 15 years because the average mainline Protestant today is about 60 years old.

Its basically a group of old, white people who are aging rapidly. Theres not a lot of young kids in those churches, so really what we see in American Protestant Christianity, is black Protestants are holding pretty steady, Evangelicals are doing relatively well, and then mainline Protestants are collapsing, going from 30% to 10%. At the same time, the Nones, like we talked about, have gone from 5% to probably 25% or 30%, and demography, religious demography is a zero sum game, so if one group gets bigger, another group has to get smaller. Its pretty easy to say the Nones rising and the mainline tradition falling, coincide with one another.

Obviously, the story is a little bit more complicated than that because people are moving around the religious landscape all the time, but it does seem like that a lot of people who were raised mainline Protestant lets say 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, are no longer mainline Protestant. They have no religious affiliation. Very few of mainline Protestants became Catholics or Evangelicals or any other tradition. The reality is that the mainline Protestants decline has led to at least one of the reasons why the Nones have grown so rapidly.

Matt Grossmann: Despite differences across surveys, theres little evidence mainline Christians are increasing.

Ryan Burge: I see absolutely no evidence that the Nones are any smaller today than they were two, four, or six years ago. In fact, I see the opposite. Right now, according to CES, theyre 34% of the population, which is what they were in 2019 and 2020, and they had grown from 31 and a half percent in 2018. I continue to see those lines going up and up and up.

The thing about measuring religion is its incredibly hard and no one does it exactly the same way, which makes comparing its almost like apples and oranges. For instance, PRRI calls the mainline Protestant something different. They call a mainline Protestant someone who says theyre Protestant, but then says theyre not Evangelical when theyre asked to self-identify as Evangelical. Really, their mainline Protestant is what I would call a non-Evangelical Protestant, not necessarily a mainline Protestant.

Another reason why Im skeptical of the idea that mainline Protestants are increasing is, if you look at the seven largest mainline traditions, theyre called the Seven Sisters of the Mainline, in every case theyre smaller than they were 10 years ago, and in some cases, dramatically smaller than they were 10 years were talking about some denominations are 40% smaller today than they were 10 or 12 years ago. In some cases, its 25% smaller.

I mean, there is just no evidence on the membership role side that any of these denominations have seen any increases over the last 10 or 12 years, so Im wondering if its just an artifact of the way they conducted the survey or the way they asked the question or the way they operationalize mainline Protestant, but in everything I see and the GSS, by the way, has not come out for 2020 yet. Its coming out later in the summer, but the CES came out already and I dont see any evidence in the CSS of those trendlines reversing, of the Nones going up and mainline Protestants going down. When the GSS comes out, Ill have two different data sources, but I just dont see any evidence of the Nones declining or abating in any way. They just continue to rise.

Matt Grossmann: Church attendance declines are even larger than non-affiliation, but non-belief is still rare.

Ryan Burge: In the religion and politics space, we talk about the three Bs, behavior, belief, and belonging. The one we talk about, we talk about here a lot is belonging, which is saying you have no religious affiliation, you identify or affiliate with that tradition of having no religious affiliation. The other two are behavior. Behavior in this context is almost always measured as church attendance or religious service attendance because thats one that surveys almost always have as part of their battery, so we can do it in more surveys and its easier to do.

What we know is that religious behavior is actually a leading indicator of religious belonging going away. For instance, 40% of Americans today say they never go to church, which is the highest its ever been, so if you look at the Nones through that lens, its actually way higher than 25% or 30%. Its closer to 40%, and amongst the youngest generations, its about 50% of people say they seldom or never attend church. If youre a None, you love hearing that statistic because it makes your group look like its bigger and its growing and its a huge part of American population, but if you look at belief, and the GSS has been asking a religious belief question since 1988, they ask you what do you believe about God. The answers are I believe in God without a doubt on one end, and the other response option is I dont believe in God at all.

The share of Americans who express and atheist or agnostic belief in God today is only about 10%, so 90% of Americans still believe in God at some level, 40% never go to church, and about 25% or 30% say they have no religious affiliation. The answer when people ask me how many Nones there are, I almost want to say, well, whats your prism, whats the lens that you want to look at the world through? If you lay all three of those on top each other, only about 6% of Americans dont believe, dont belong, and dont behave.

In that context, the Nones are only about 6% of the population, not 40% or 25% or 30% or 10%, so its just all in what prism you want to use to think about the Nones because religion is incredibly diverse. Its not just one thing or another, and no two people practice religion in the exact same way. To put a category on that is difficult and overly reductive, Ill be the first admit that, but at some level, we have to generalize as social scientists, or we cant do our work. When we talk about the Nones, 10% dont believe, about 25% to 30% dont belong, and about 40% dont behave, so the answer is somewhere between those three numbers.

Matt Grossmann: Atheists stand out more than other types of the non-religious.

Ryan Burge: Atheists, especially, are incredibly white, and incredibly male. 60% of atheists in the data are men, 40% are women. If you look at nothing in particulars, its 50/50, which is kind of what you would expect to see in a random sample. Atheists are, in your head, if you think of an atheist, I think a lot of people think of like a philosophy professor, like an old white guy philosophy professor, thats kind of true, but the other thing is theres a lot of young atheists at the same time. The average age of an atheist today in America is about 43 years old, which is about 10 or 12 years younger than a white Evangelical, so theyre absolutely a lot younger, but the average atheist today is the same age as the average American. Muslims, the average Muslim in America today is 34 years old if you look at adults. The average adult Muslim is 34 years old. Average atheist is 43 years old.

The thing about atheists is theyre upper middle class. Theyre upwardly mobile, but, and this is really, really important, when we think about what the Nones look like, 6% of Americans are atheist, 6% of Americans are agnostic, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% or 22% of Americans are nothing in particular. If we put five Nones in a room, ones an atheist, ones an agnostic, and three are nothing in particular, so when people talk about the Nones, theyre almost always thinking about atheists and agnostics, but in reality, thats not what most Nones look like.

Heres something else about the atheists that are super interesting, and I think we need to think more about. Atheists are incredibly politically active. Theyre the most politically active religious group in America today. If you put them in a model and control for things like education, income, race, gender, all those things we talked about, theyre still much more politically active than white Evangelicals are. Theyre much more likely to give to a candidate, theyre much more likely to attend a rally or a protest or go to a local political meeting. Atheists are incredibly politically engaged. The other side of the coin is nothing in particulars, who are one of the least politically engaged religious groups in America today.

Some people ask me, Have atheists made politics their religion? I wouldnt go that far, but I would definitely say that politics is an animating force in the life of atheists and agnostics when its not so animating for really any other religious group. Dramatically different atheists are than other religious groups.

Matt Grossmann: Green, Campbell and Layman separate what they call secularists from others without religion.

John C. Green: A lot of religionists are people who are defined by what theyre not. These are people that tell us that theyre not involved with organized religion, in many cases, dont affiliate with any kind of religious community, but weve identified another group of people we call the secularists, which are people who are defined by what they are. These are people who partake of secular beliefs, and we developed a set of new, we think innovative ways, to capture secular beliefs, but they also tend to take those beliefs very seriously, in a way that many religious people take their religious beliefs seriously, and they also tend to identify with communities that hold those beliefs. Oftentimes, theyll describe themselves as atheists or agnostics or humanists or even secularist.

A lot of the most important effects come from secularism, and for the people who are both secular, but also not involved in organized religion, the people we call the secularists we think make up a little less than 25% of the adult population. Our non-religionists, people who dont partake in the secular world view, but are not involved in organized religion make up a little less than a fifth. Theres a rate of nuance and complexity. I found it fascinating the people, we call them religious secularists, and these are people that are both religious and partake of a secular world view, really fascinating group. Makes up about a sixth of the adult population. If you add that all up, whats left is about 30% of the population which are religionists of one kind or another.

Matt Grossmann: Green says there are a lot of ways to identify these groups.

John C. Green: The secular people are identified as theyre called Nones, thats N-O-N-E-S. Not religious nuns, as in the Catholic church, but the people who when asked a simple religious affiliated question, are you a Protestant, Catholic, Jew, other, none, say none. Within that group, they are really quite a diverse group of people, and some surveys, instead of asking none, the terminology is nothing in particular. Sometimes, in those questions, people are asked if they identify as an atheist or an agnostic or any number of other terms. The terminology spiritual, not religious, often comes up in these types of discussions. Also, individuals will often volunteer it at certain times.

One of the most common terms volunteered is the term humanist. In fact, there are a group of people who [inaudible 00:19:16] secular, who identify themselves as humanists. In this large group of people that dont identify with religious communities, theres a lot of diversity, but then, of course, we have that within religious communities so a lot of diversity, so maybe this shouldnt surprise us. The secularists, the people who partake of a distinctive secular world view, are [inaudible 00:19:41]. They tend to be well-educated; they are overwhelmingly white, they tend to be affluent, but interesting enough, theyre not particularly distinctive by age. Some of them are older people, some of them are younger people, so there doesnt seem to be an age dynamic there.

On the other hand, if you look at non-religionists, those people who are very not religious and defined by what theyre not, those people tend to be markedly less educated, they tend to be older, many of them are not affluent, and I think many of them are not engaged in a whole variety of things. [inaudible 00:20:25] not involved in religion, but theyre not involved in politics, theyre not involved in civic organizations, so theyre really quite distinct. I think these distinctions help explain some of the interesting findings that survey researchers have come with, but if you just look at the Nones, oftentimes they appear to be people who have just disengaged from society. The people that Robert Putnam wrote about in Bowling Alone, but if you can distinguish the secularists from the non-religionists, youll see quite an important distinction.

In terms of political attitudes, secularists are strongly progressive, strongly identify the with Democratic Party, and in an interesting exception for the lack of civic engagement that you see among secular people, secularists are very active in politics. This, of course, makes them very important in elections and other types of activities, but as the non-religionists are not very involved in politics at all.

Matt Grossmann: Theres been a broad decline in religiosity, but not all these trends go together.

John C. Green: We can say that over the last two or three decades there has been a steady decline in the net religiosity in the United States, but its occurred in different ways and the different measures of religion do not necessarily overlap completely. For instance, when you think of the Nones, were thinking about people who dont identify or affiliate with a religious community. Some of the people, however, who affiliate with a religious community, are not particular in terms of their regular attendance, theyre not very active. On the other hand, there are people who never darken of the door of a church or a synagogue or a mosque, but nonetheless very strong religious beliefs.

We see a great deal of diversity. Were not seeing a uniform decline in religiosity, but overall, the decline is clearly evident. Into that space, if you will, have emerged a growing and large secularist population, people who approach many of the same issues that religious people do, but from a distinctive secular perspective.

Matt Grossmann: Green says religion and politics both cause each other.

John C. Green: As a relationship between religion and politics is reciprocal, it is certainly the case that for many people in particular, in context, their religion leads them to a particular kind of politics, but its also the case, particularly after a little bit longer term, that peoples politics can lead them to a particular kind of religion and maybe out of religion completely. Thats one of the fascinating things about studying the religio-secular world and politics because that is very dynamic, and we have [inaudible 00:23:19] on both fronts simultaneously. We have people that are adjusting their religion to meet their politics, but there are people who are adjusting their politics to match their religion.

Matt Grossmann: Part of the non-religious rise is due to backlash to the religious right.

John C. Green: The rise of the religious right is in many ways a reaction to changes in American society, some of them having to do with gender, some of them having to do with race, but what we find, as in recent times, theres been a backlash in the opposite direction. That a fair number of people who were [inaudible 00:23:51] connected to a religious community, have left religion, they say they no longer have a religious affiliation as a backlash to the religious right.

Now, its almost as if these people were saying, Im not so sure about religion, but whatever it is, its definitely not the religious right. We did some survey experiments, which were fascinating. We measured peoples religiosity or lack of religiosity at two different time points, and in between, exposed them to a set of stories about candidates, which on a lot of things have voiced support or allegiance with the religious right. We saw some very clear effects on people who were marginally religious deciding that they werent religious anymore. This experiment showed that there can be a backlash with regard to affiliation, that people can move from identifying with a religion, to not identifying with it at all. Thats where a lot of the Nones apparently came from.

Whats interesting though, is as far as we could tell in our experiment, that does not necessarily turn people from Nones into secularists. There seemed to be an additional step required there. Part of the interesting politics of secularism these days is to what extent can secularists activists get the non-religionists to adopt their world view and adopt their political positions.

Matt Grossmann: Burge agrees, politics can be a cause of religious change.

Ryan Burge: For a long time in the religion of politics literature, even 30 or 40 years ago, we always assumed that religion was the first cause, and politics is downstream from that. You look at politics through a religious world view. If you grew up in a Christian church, you say a Christian world view, or see the world like Jesus would, or something like that. In the last 10 years or so, weve really started to challenge that assumption. Now, especially books like Michele Margolis, From Politics to the Pews, makes this really interesting argument that politics now is the first lens, and everything lies downstream of politics. Now, were viewing religion in a political lens as opposed to the opposite.

What were seeing in Paul Djupe, and a couple of others, published a piece in APSR a couple years ago where they found that people are leaving churches now in increasing numbers for political reasons. That why would you go to a church where you are having to listen to a pastor say things from the pulpit that you just disagree with over and over again. You dont have to be there, so what youre going to do is youre going to leave and either become maybe like a mainline Protestant if youre a Democrat or become a None because you just dont want to be subjected to that cognitive dissonance all the time.

Whats interesting, an interesting caveat that I found in my research is when we ask people to self-identify as Evangelical, we ask everybody that question, whether you say youre a Muslim or a Jew or a Protestant or a Catholic. We ask you the question, are you an Evangelical, a born again or an Evangelical Christian or not, the share of Americans who say yes to that question who are Catholics, who are Muslims, who are Jews, has gone up significantly over the last 10 years, and if you try to figure out for a long time I thought it was just survey error, people dont know what that term means, theyre just checking the wrong box because theyre in a hurry, but if you actually model that stuff and look at it over a long period of time, what you see is that more and more Americans are seeing the term evangelical as a political term and not a religious term. Were seeing this melding of politics and religion.

For instance, half of Republican Muslims who go attend services once a week or more identify as Evangelical because I think in their minds, what they see is to be religious and to be conservative is to be an Evangelical. Whats made it difficult to understand the causal arrows is, they sort of smoosh together, and politics and religion have sort of melded together where to be a white Christian in America especially is to be a Republican, and to be a None is to be a Democrat, so I think a lot of Americans are having a hard time understanding Evangelicalism as a religious or theological term. Theyre understanding it as a cultural or political term, so that makes it even harder for us to understand on surveys how are people and why are people answering the questions the way they do.

Matt Grossmann: Now the Nones are creating a big divide in the Democratic Party, but also, a long-time problem for the right.

Ryan Burge: Half of white liberals today identify as having no religious affiliation, half, so weve got to think, this is a growing coalition amongst the Democratic Party that they have to continue to find ways to I dont want to use the word pander, but they have to find ways to continue to keep these people in their tent. I think largely whats happened is the Democrats have gotten the Nones by default up to this point. Thats largely because the Republican Party is so intertwined with white Christianity, especially white Evangelical Christianity, 75% of Republicans today are white Christians. Its only 38% of Democrats.

The Democratic Party has to find a way, and I think this is actually really difficult, they have to find a way to keep all these different groups happy at the same time. For instance, theyve got to keep black Protestants happy, but they also have to keep white atheists happy who could not be more different on things like the Equality Act, which is a bill thats being debated in Congress and being kicked around right now that would basically say that churches could not fire people because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity. Black Protestants do not like that bill. They want churches to have religious autonomy and be able to hire and fire whoever they want based on theological concerns. White atheists could give a rip about that. They want no one to be discriminated against in any institution in America. Those things are at odds with each other.

How do the Democratic Party keep this one coalition happy, the white, liberal atheists, at the same time keeping lets say groups like black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics and Muslims happy, at the same time well have a completely different set of concerns over time, but the Republicans have a bigger problem, which is you cant bank your future on white Christians forever because theyre declining as a share of the population every single year because Christianity is declining, and America is becoming more racially diverse.

I think what were going to see is Republicans are going to try their best to try to reach out and bring in some of those Nones that are growing so much amongst the younger generation, but how do you do that but at the same time, keep the Christian nationalists happy. I think both parties have a difficult future in trying to keep their coalition while also trying to reach out to the changing American coalition of religious groups. I think that what were going to see, is were going to see a new group arise in America which are conservative Nones, conservative politically, conservative Nones. Libertarians, a lot of atheists have Libertarian tendencies because theyre high income and high education. I think were going to try to see the Republican Party find ways to reach out to this group, and I also think the Democrats are going to have to find ways to keep everyone happy at the same time. Its going to be fascinating to see how the parties position themselves next 15-20 years when America is 35% Nones, when its only 25% Nones right now.

Matt Grossmann: Green says secularists are connected to the rise of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party.

John C. Green: The secularists are having a big impact on the politics of both parties. We have strong religio-secular differences between Republicans and Democrats, but we also have to divisions within the parties based on these same dynamics. For instance, in 2016, and then again in 2020, before the pandemic hit, Bernie Sanders was [inaudible 00:31:27] large cadre of secular activists, which were strengthening and expanding the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

In many ways, that helped the Democratic Party. It gave them new resources, new energy, and ways to be different than the Republicans, but there were tensions as well. For instance, many of the secular activists found themselves in conflict with traditional democratic groups. For instance, black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics who may have come for similar policy positions, but out of deep traditional religious [inaudible 00:32:04]. It was really kind of interesting, many people remember that one of the true [inaudible 00:32:08] in the Democratic Presidential Primaries in 2020 was the South Carolina Democratic primary. Bernie Sanders was riding high at that point, but Joe Biden got strong endorsements from black leaders who are deeply religious and was able to win the South Carolina primary, really turned the dynamic around.

One of the ways that Joe Biden was able to prevail in the general election, obviously a very close and contentious election, is that he was able to hold together the ethnic and racial minorities, which are so important to a democratic coalition, but also, keep the secular activists involved and supportive of him. It will be very interesting going forward how Democrats manage that tension of between very religious Democrats of a certain kind and very secular Democrats of another kind. Heres where ideology and race play important roles. When I say [inaudible 00:33:08] I would say may be the more important effect, but part of this is a racial dynamic. Secularists tend to be white, other than minority Democrats are dominated by African Americans. [inaudible 00:33:21] all of them tend to be liberal, but theyre [inaudible 00:33:26] in different ways and on different issues, so theres room for cooperation, but theres also room for a great deal of conflict.

Matt Grossmann: Its hard to organize secularists when they have no organizational base.

John C. Green: Theres one important difference between the religious right and those efforts, and what you might call the secular left. Ive noticed that one of the advantages that religious people have in politics is that they belong to organizations. Many of them show up at the same place every weekend and talk to each other. Whether its on Friday night or Saturday or on Sunday morning, secularists while they have common beliefs and common identifications, as far as we can tell, they [inaudible 00:34:08] organizational commitment and they dont engage in secularist behaviors in a way that religious people engage in religious behaviors.

That poses a real challenge for leaders that want to organize groups and mobilize voters and where do you find secularists? Is it at Starbucks? [inaudible 00:34:26] its just a really interesting question, so theres some real challenges. People who would like to organize a secular left that would be counterpart to the religious right in politics.

Matt Grossmann: We dont know yet if American trends are like secularization in Europe.

John C. Green: The secular surge has created a lot of interest among theorists of secularization because I always [inaudible 00:34:52] an effort on how do you make Europe and other advanced industrial societies fit with the American case, which at least in terms of religion seem to be quite different. It may very well be that they have a broader secularization theory that would encompass what happened with Europe in the last century with whats happening in the United States now.

A lot of whats happening in the US is [inaudible 00:35:16] to the United States. Maybe thats true of most countries, and its partly because of the long history and strong numbers of religious people in the United States. Even after the secular surge, the United States remains distinctive compared to other similar countries as high level, of popular religiosity, its just that now, as opposed to 40 years ago, we have a much larger secular population. I think those two things, one is it adds the kind of dynamism that is not [inaudible 00:35:52] diversity to the American religious landscape. It also creates potential for intense conflict. That isnt as common in the United States as it might have been say in some European countries, but as we point out at the end of our book, we also see some real possibilities for new coalitions, for new forms of cooperation, for different kinds of religious communities might make common [inaudible 00:36:17] with the different kinds of secular people.

Matt Grossmann: Burge says the US still stands out for high levels of religion, which slow change.

Ryan Burge: America is stubbornly religious, and it has been for an entirety of its existence. America has always been more religious than other countries. Secularization says as a country becomes more economically prosperous and it has higher levels of education, theres going to be less religious people. Thats been absolutely true in Western Europe, you see places like France and Spain and Italy, and theyre largely secular countries at this point. America is way in the outlier if you model things like how important is religion versus GDP. We are way more religious than we should be. Actually, if you look at most models, we should have 0% of Americans say that religion is very important based on how economically prosperous we are.

Now, I think whats happened is the wave of secularization that swept over Europe lets say in the post-World War II, period has slowly drifted across the ocean, and it is now lapping on the American shores, and were seeing the first leading wave of secularization crest across America, but its going to take a long time for that to have an aggregate effect on America because the older generations are still very religious. Only about 15% of the silent generation says theyre Nones. Its in the low 20s amongst Baby Boomers, which 45% amongst Gen Z. For that really to change Americas religious composition overall, youre going to have to see a lot of old people die off and be replaced by a lot of young people.

Now, the question that we all have is, is that wave going to continue to rise and rise and rise, or is it going to plateau? Im a believer that were going to see a plateauing of secularization in America where maybe 45, maybe 50% of Americans at some point say they have no religious affiliation, but Evangelicalism is still very strong in America. Even in the future, were going to have 20% of Americans still say theyre Evangelical, and probably another 15% say theyre Catholic, but then we have groups like Mormons and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus, and you add all those groups together, I think in the future we see an America where were half theistic, half religious, and half secular, which is a tremendous change when you think that even 30 years ago, America was 80% or 85% Christian, to go to a future where were half secular, and then even Christians there only make up 35% of the population is a huge change. One that we havent even begun to understand the implications for all manners of society.

Matt Grossmann: Burge has an interesting personal story. Hes combined his social science with active work as a pastor.

Ryan Burge: I have been in the ministry my entire adult life, well, since my sophomore year in undergrad. I was a youth pastor for three years, and I pastored a little church in a town called Marion, Illinois for a year. Ive been at First Baptist Church of Mount Vernon, Illinois for it will be 15 years in October. Im the longest serving pastor in the history of the church. I went to a Christian college, a Free Methodist School for undergrad, and Ive always sort of been between these two worlds of academia and the religious sphere. I wanted to try to meld those in my career and not really segregate those. I think that one informs the other, and I think that my congregation has benefited from my social science background because I often talk about things in social science that Ive learned and read about society and culture and religiosity and all these things, but I also think it really helps inform my academic work because Im not just some sort of bland, neutral observer of American religion. Im a practitioner, so a lot of the questions I have are things that Ive seen in my ministry career.

What am I seeing? Is what Im seeing different than what other people are seeing? Why am I seeing the things that Im seeing? Why is my congregation now 15 people and it was 300 people 50 years ago? The book actually came out of a tweet where I basically just looked at the GSS and showed the Nones had risen exponentially over the last several years and were the same size as Evangelicals and Catholics. That tweet went viral and its interesting because it went viral in both the religious media sphere, but also, the general media sphere at the same time. In doing that, I sort of found that people are interested in secularization. Theyre interested in the Nones, and people who are Nones themselves are interested in understanding themselves, Christians are interested in understanding the Nones because they want to win them back to faith, and I thought, I sort of stood between these two worlds in a way that most other people dont. I can speak sort of authoritatively in a social science context about the Nones, what they look like demographically, economically, we can talk about tracking changes over time, but I can also speak to pastors and practitioners and say to them, Heres what you need to know about the Nones if youre trying to win them back to faith.

Thats what the first book is really about is trying to do both. Reading the reviews on Amazon makes me realize that people get mad at you if you try to do both. They want you to be one or the other. The atheist read my book, go, Im really mad at you because youre trying to tell ministers how to win Nones back. They get mad at me because I reveal a bias there I guess they think, but then, my pastor friends read the book, and go, I wish you would have given us more practical advice on how to win the Nones back.

I love living between these both worlds, but its also difficult because youre never enough for one, and youre never enough for the other, so you feel like you dont really fit in either sphere, which is a blessing and a curse at the same time.

Matt Grossmann: He sees change within academia as Christians decline there.

Ryan Burge: The big names in religion and politics from the 80s, the 90s, even in the 2000s were all people who were taught at Christian universities, places like Wheaton and Calvin. Guys like Ted Jelen and Corwin Schmidt and Bud Kellstedt at Wheaton, those guys were all Evangelicals, and theyve all died off over time. Now, theyre being replaced with a whole new crop of people, and by and large, this new crop of people are Nones, atheists, agnostics would be a significant portion of religion and politics scholars today. Lots of them grew up religious, but then left religion somewhere along the way in their teens and 20s. I think they bring a completely different perspective, but I do agree that I think that when we talk about diversity and academia, we almost always talk about racial diversity and gender diversity, which are absolutely laudable goals. We need to become less white and more female, I think theres no doubt about that, but I also think that we need to understand that a huge chunk of America is still Christians, and the academy does not reflect America in that way.

I think Im not an Evangelical myself, Im a mainline Protestant, but the number of devout academics, religiously devout academics is smaller today than its been at any point in the last 50 years, and I think that having academics studying religion who are also involved in religion, brings a nuance to the discussion that we may not see in the future when its all one thing, all one note. The one thing that Ive tried to do is, Ive tried to become a neutral referee, a neutral party where I dont want to make one group always look bad and another group always look good. I want to tell people what the data looks, which is difficult. I think that some people, its just easier to make one group look bad, another group look good over and over again. I think we need academics to understand their own blind spots as well.

I have a bias. Im a Christian, Im a pastor. I have a bias just like atheists and agnostics have a bias when they approach religion and politics research as well. I think the way that we overcome that is by having academics study religion and politics from various backgrounds, various biases, and in all that, the scientific process wins out and the data wins out and the empirics wins out. If we all come at it from the same perspective, I think were all missing something. I worry that in the future were going to have less religious diversity and were going to miss some things because were less religiously diverse than we were 20 or 30 years ago.

Matt Grossmann: Next stop, Burge will be doing more myth busting about religion and its role in politics.

Ryan Burge: I just shipped my second book thats going to come out in March of 2022. Its called 20 Myths About Religion and Politics in America. Its 20 little chapters, theyre about 2000 words each, a couple graphs. Just things that I keep hearing people say on social media and when they talk to me at dinner parties and things like that, theyll say thing that I know are empirically false, but I just dont have the space to refute them, like say in a tweet or even in a blog post. I wanted to give it a little more heft than that, so 20 things. 10 of them are religion and politics things, and 10 of them are strictly religious things, so things like Evangelicals are in decline that we just talked about. Theyre actually not really in decline. Things like Evangelicals did not like Donald Trump. They only voted for him because he was their only option. Thats also not true. If you look at the data, Evangelicals liked Trump even early in the primaries.

Ryan Burge: Just trying to upset what people think about the world, trying to make them think about the world in a different way, thats always been my goal. That book is slated to come out in March of 2021. Its going to be pitched more towards the blended audience, the popular audience in terms of not strictly academics. Its more for a general audience, an educated audience who are interested in religion and politics and the interplay between both.

Matt Grossmann: Theres a lot more to learn. The Science of Politics is available biweekly from the Niskanen Center and part of The Democracy Group Network. Im your host, Matt Grossmann. If you like this discussion, you should check out our previous episodes on How Americans Politics Changes Their Religion and Are Americans Becoming Tribal. Thanks to Ryan Burge and John C. Green for joining me. Please check out The Nones, and Secular Surge, and then listen in next time.

Read the original:

The Growing Influence of the Non-Religious - Niskanen Center

Reader responds to columns

This is a response to Tom Mays July 31 column, The Church wrestles with how to apply truth to turmoil and his Aug. 7 column, Show people first they are loved.

In his July 31 column, his subject addresses an age old, always reoccurring problem for the Christian: how to live in a culture of different believers and non-believers especially considering that only 47 percent of adults in a 2020 Gallup poll stated they were members of a religion. Nones, comprised of Agnostics, Atheist or nothing in particular came out 21 percent, Pew Research 26 percent and Cooperative Elections Study 32 percent. So, why the religious members decrease and nones increase? One explanation is that Christianity is becoming more politically conservative (Christian Nationalist) and people leaving often cite politics of the Christian right as the reason. Secondly, for decades, there has been a growing mistrust of large institutions and a view that organized religion is hypocritical. The third explanation is that this trend matches the trend we see around the world: wealthy countries are less religious and poorer countries are more religious. (meitler.com/2021/05/05)

Mr. May uses and describes the city population of Corinth as analogous to the Christians in our society today, certainly a good analogy. Pauls ministry there is covered in his I and II Corinthians letters and Paul addressed four major issues at this church: wisdom or spiritual insight, eating practices, spiritual gifts and rhetorical eloquence. Of course, he used Christ as his guide to address these issues and he also states for them to be imitators of himself, as he is of Christ (I Cor. 11:1), and he uses the human body as analogous to the body of believers (I Cor. 12-26). This contains his interesting eating meat sacrificed to idols solution. Christ gave up power for the sake of others. Those who know the idols are meaningless have the right to eat meat sacrificed to idols. But this could encourage their weaker believers to eat meat sacrificed to idols and weaken their faith: therefore, like Christ, those who have this right should give this power up in order to help those who are weak (I Cor 8). (TGC, Understanding the New Testament, Brakke)

One criticism I have is his statement, Can Christianity survive to the next generation in a modern, multi-cultural, ATHEISTIC community? (Capitalization mine). Using my first paragraph numbers, roughly 26 percent of our population are nones and Atheist are one of three parts of that group: ATHEISITC is inappropriate.

Finally, Mr. May list three issues Paul used to encourage the Corinthian church to relate to non-Christians but I am only going to address the first one. We discover unity when we embrace diversity and he uses the unity of those supporting IU basketball at a game. This speaks to me, hopefully, something I have seen change since I started reading his columns in 2015: there are many acceptable ways to interpret the Bible in being a Christian. As I wrote with a poem I composed for my grandsons 13th birthday, It is not the Bible that is evil; it is the abuse of the Bible that is evil.

In his Aug. 7 column, Mr. May spent most of it describing the city of Ephesus during Pauls time, archaeological discoveries and how they worshiped the goddess Dianna. For someone who will never visit there, I enjoyed this part of his column giving a feel for what life was like during this time. His second to last paragraph stresses the need to be tolerant of other beliefs we may disagree with and the last paragraph emphasizes the title. Great article!

Larry Farr

Jeffersonville

Reader questions Senator

Senator Braun,

Does this mean you are in favor of allowing tax cheats to get away with NOT paying their taxes?

See this FOX news quote:

Fox News | Mitch McConnell, Mike Braun to roll out bill to prevent Democrats from weaponizing IRS to target conservatives. Sounds like you are admitting that conservatives are the ones cheating on their taxes and you oppose making them pay.

Jamey Aebersold

New Albany

Go here to see the original:

Letters to the Editor | Opinion | newsandtribune.com - Evening News and Tribune

In case you missed FFRFs weekly roundup the last couple weeks (which you did, because we didnt write them!), its because FFRF debuted its revamped and upgraded website at ffrf.org. So, we had to shut down our online communications offerings temporarily.

But, the good news is, our new website is up and running and better than ever! Its designed to be responsive to whatever device you are viewing it on, be it a phone, tablet, laptop or desktop computer. Give it a look! (And if you find any glitches along the way, please report them to ffrf.us/webfeedback.)

Well, lets get you caught up on what FFRF has been up to these past couple weeks. As always, weve been busy fighting for your constitutional rights, and have been quite successful.

Board doesnt have a prayerFor example, on Aug. 5, we got the good news that the Canton (Ohio) Board of Education has ended its practice of opening each board meeting with a prayer. Board President Scott Hamilton said Tuesday that the board made the decision to discontinue its longstanding practice of invocation after reviewing the laws and court cases surrounding the issue of prayer at school board meetings, the local paper reported. A letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation on July 23 prompted the review.

Standing up to elected officialsAnd FFRF pushes for elected officials, including those in the highest office, to do the right thing, like we did with a letter to President Biden urging him to incentivize vaccination mandates.

While praising the recent federal employee and military Covid-19 vaccination mandates, these steps are still not nearly enough, FFRF Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote to the president.

Speaking of Covid-19, FFRF condemned Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis opportunistic promotion of public funding of religious schools under the guise of permitting parents to pull children from schools requiring masking. FFRF urged the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents to show some backbone and stand up to a religiously motivated state senator seeking to undermine Covid-19 mitigation efforts.

And FFRFs reproductive rights intern wrote an op-ed that ran in the Madison-Wis., newspaper The Capital Times urging Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin to respect science. In the op-ed, Barbara Alvarez tells Johnson to approve the budget that the House of Representatives recently passed, which doesnt include religion-inspired anti-abortion provisions.

The column concludes with an appeal: Sen. Johnson needs to do the right thing and approve the federal budget without the Hyde and Weldon Amendments.

Barbaras new blog this week warns how the draconian abortion ban in Texas endangers womens lives.

Speaking of blogs, read the blogs from FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor on how We need herd immunity, not herd mentality regarding the pandemic, and from FFRF Attorney Ryan Jayne on how financial abuse is one more reason to quit the Catholic Church.

Shadow dockets, prayer walks and blasphemyFFRF also blasted the Supreme Court for favoring religion in shadow dockets. A recent Reuters study revealed that religious groups looking to receive special treatment related to Covid-19 restrictions were granted a win for all cases brought before the Supreme Court with the help of the emergency voting procedure known as the shadow docket.

In the past 12 months, the court sided with 10 out of 10 churches or other religious entities challenging public health guidelines amid the coronavirus pandemic. Every such religious appeal to the Supreme Court through the shadow docket was decided in favor of religion.

FFRF has just released a short report itself about prayer walks in public schools, a bizarre but growing phenomenon. FFRFs report shows why such events typically involving religious leaders praying, sermonizing and even sprinkling holy water over school grounds are constitutionally impermissible.

While FFRF is relieved that blasphemy charges were dropped this week against an 8-year-old Pakistani Hindu boy, the case shows why blasphemy laws must go, and why the United States needs to demand that Pakistan repeal the ignoble law. The boy was accused of urinating on a carpet in a religious library. He and his family are in hiding and under protective police custody, fearing reprisals.

It is incomprehensible that Pakistani authorities could have charged a child with a victimless crime that carries a mandatory death penalty. And it is unthinkable that the crime of blasphemy could carry a mandatory death penalty. It is unacceptable that any country today still has blasphemy provisions on its books.

FFRF on social media, radio and TVOn FFRFs Facebook Live show, Ask an Atheist this week, we talked with Barbara Alvarez about disinformation and the harm that it causes not only to reproductive rights, but also to the separation between state and church.

On the show last week, we were joined by Robert P. Jones, the CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, who discussed PRRIs impressive 2020 Census for American Religion, which shows a shrinking white Christian majority and substantial inroads for unaffiliated Americans.

And if you didnt tune in to listen to Freethought Radio this week or last, heres what you missed. (But you didnt really miss it, because you can always go here to listen to previous episodes.)

On Aug. 5, the topic was Masks, vaccinations and religion. And we spoke with former minister Candace Gorham, a licensed mental health counselor, about her new book On Death, Dying, and Disbelief.

On the Aug. 12 show, FFRF Attorney Liz Cavell tells us about FFRFs new Prayer Walk Report. And former African imam Mohamed Cisse tells us why he left Islam and is now a board member of the secular Clergy Project.

For those who are anxious for the new season of Freethought Matters, your wait is almost over. Beginning Sunday, Sept. 5, FFRF will be airing its weekly TV show in 13 cities around the country and on FFRFs YouTube channel. (To view previous episodes, go to FFRFs YouTube channel or find them at ffrf.org/freethought-matters.)

Whew! That was a lot to get through, and that was only a smattering of what FFRF has been up to these past two weeks.

Stay safe and we hope you have an enjoyable weekend! And, as always, we thank you for being a member of FFRF!

PJ Slinger, Freethought Today editor, filling in for Communications Director Amit Pal, who is on a well-deserved vacation.

Read more:

Weekly Wrap: FFRF's new website, standing up to those in power, and a plethora of media options - Patheos

Why would anyone think it is OK for the Hennepin County Library director to live 1,500 miles away from the hundreds of staff who work on the front lines every day? ("Hennepin officials living in California," Aug. 11.) The arrogance and self-interest of a person who believes himself to be above ordinary interactions with staff and the public is appalling. He should be making the rounds. He should be present at a different library every day listening to his staff, lending a hand and hearing from library patrons.

And how ironic that a human resources director thinks that managing from afar is anything like actually providing leadership to an organization that supposedly has an interest in the morale of its staff. Add to that having the gall to claim that taking advantage of a policy he helped develop does not have "conflict of interest" written all over it. I would be embarrassed to have ever made such a claim.

As a Hennepin County resident, I am alarmed at the damage that abuse of this pandemic-related work policy can cause to the can-do spirit of dedicated staff facing the challenges of the pandemic. The county commissioners must act, and the Hennepin CountyLibrary Board must take a stand. These men should be recalled immediately and terminated if they resist.

Michael Waring, Edina

Hard to believe my taxes are paying for a county bureaucrat living in California! It must be nice to have so much money from the taxpayers that you can afford to live there. Most people in this county don't have that kind of money. It looks like maybe the county has more money than it needs if it can afford to hire people like that.

Stephen Johnston, Richfield

Unbelievable that Hennepin County leadership is allowing its library director and its human resources chief to live out of state. When everyone was working off-site, it didn't matter. Now, these public servants need to be contributing in our community! The library director should be experiencing how the libraries support each neighborhood's needs, who feels welcome, how the staff is performing and what challenges they are facing, which sites have safety concerns, which facilities need maintenance. And the HR leader being out-of-state? Ridiculous!

If leaders are not willing and eager to live in our community, learn the opportunities and challenges firsthand and be present for their teams, then they are the wrong people for the job. If the Hennepin County commissioners do not understand why this makes no sense, then the only option is to consider how this affects the commissioners' re-election bids. With talk about requiring police officers to live in the cities or counties they serve, how about two of the highest-paid Hennepin County professionals not even coming to work in the communities they serve? Let's reconsider!

Shannon Green, Minneapolis

I agree with the diverse group of religious community leaders arguing to retain the study of religion in the K-12 social studies standards ("Don't separate religion from state social studies standards," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 12.) Their reasoning is good, that understanding a variety of religions will help Minnesota's young students to become better thinkers and better citizens. They never mention, however, that the nonreligious should be included in the lessons.

According to a 2019 Pew survey, "the religiously unaffiliated share of the population, consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or 'nothing in particular,' now stands at 26%." This is larger than the percentage of Catholics, and much larger than any non-Christian religion. Students cannot comprehend the nature of American religious diversity without an understanding of nonreligious Americans. The authors note that students belonging to minority religions experience bullying. Nonreligious students do, too.

This group is not defined solely by its rejection of organized religion. The worldview of most of us rejects everything supernatural and mythical, and we find our values in what promotes the well-being of our fellow humans. Politically, we are united by our commitment to the separation of church and state.

George Francis Kane, St. Paul

I read "Don't separate religion from state social studies standards" with great interest. While advocating for increased religious literacy in Minnesota, its authors also represented pluralism at its best. Their collaborative message helps demonstrate why multifaith relationships are so powerful. Although not an advocacy organization, the Minnesota Multifaith Network (MnMN) builds relationships across faith traditions, laying the groundwork for cooperative efforts like this important commentary.

Rabbi Adam Stock Spilker, St. Paul

The writer is a board member of Minnesota Multifaith Network.

Having enjoyed many decades of wonderful experiences at the Great Minnesota Get-Together, we are deeply concerned about the lawsuit brought by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus demanding that permit holders be allowed to carry firearms on the grounds of the Minnesota State Fair ("Group sues to let in guns at State Fair," Aug. 11). The idea that anyone would be "safer" if people carried loaded guns among a crowd of hundreds of thousands is as ridiculous as it is dangerous. Think back to the 2019 State Fair, when a triple shooting outside the front gate left three people wounded and put hundreds leaving the fairgrounds at risk. Imagine how much more deadly that incident would have been if others in the crowd had pulled out guns and started shooting too.

No one would be safer if guns are allowed at the State Fair: not elected leaders, dairy princesses, mini-donut vendors, marching bands, blue ribbon bakers, young couples on the Ferris wheel, 4-H kids sleeping in the barn aisles, or parents pushing double strollers through the crowd. Especially not good guys with guns or the State Fair police. How could they tell who was a "good guy" in the chaos of a shooting?

It will be up to the court to determine whether the Minnesota State Fair is public property where permit holders can carry firearms as defined by Minnesota state statute. But if the Gun Owners Caucus prevails, we are committed to organizing our colleagues at the Capitol and gun reform advocates across the state to get the law changed next legislative session. The vast majority of Minnesotans are appalled that civilians can carry guns at public places like the State Capitol and the Minnesota Zoo. The State Fair would be the last straw. If it happens in 2021, we will work to ensure it doesn't happen again.

This letter was submitted by state legislators Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, Rep. Mike Freiberg, DFL-Golden Valley, and Rep. Cedrick Frazier, DFL-New Hope.

Maybe I should sue the State Fair to protect my right to attend while wearing a bandolier of Moderna-filled syringes to be used strictly for self-defense, of course.

Rich Brown, Minneapolis

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.

Read this article:

Readers Write: Hennepin officials living out of state, social studies standards, guns at the fair - Minneapolis Star Tribune