Are young Americans turning away from religion?
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam recently spoke at the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life about his latest research on religion in America. He discussed the increasing lack of affiliation with any religion amongst younger generations in the United States, saying that the percentage of Americans in their 20s that declare no affiliation is now between 30 and 40 percent.
This comes on the heels of the recent news from the Pew Forum’s US Religious Landscape Survey that over 15 percent of Americans now report themselves to be unaffiliated with any religion. But looking at Putnam’s recent work, it is clear that there is a generational divide: young people are more secular than ever.
Why? Writing about Putnam’s speech, former George W. Bush speechwriter and Washington Post op-ed columnist Michael Gerson characterizes the trend this way:
The politicization of religion by the religious right, argues Putnam, caused many young people in the 1990s to turn against religion itself, adopting the attitude: “If this is religion, I’m not interested.”
And as ABC news reported on Putnam’s speech:
This movement away from organized religion, says Putnam, may have enormous consequences for American culture and politics for years to come.
“That is the future of America,” he says. “Their views and their habits religiously are going to persist and have a huge effect on the future.”
For just one example of this, look at the generational divide on support for marriage equality (found via Daily Kos)
Fifty-four percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday say marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, with 44 percent suggesting they should be considered legal.
But among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents aged 35 to 49, and to 41 percent for those aged 50 to 64. Only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages, according to the poll. (emphasis added)
With full marriage equality in five states now and New Hampshire poised to soon be the sixth, it is clear that the political landscape for marriage equality is shifting. The current generation of young voters are less likely to support future efforts to limit or repeal marriage equality. Hopefully Proposition 8 in California will be one of the last of its kind – while two-thirds of voters over the age of 65 supported it, the measure failed to gain a majority in any other age group.
While some of the political implications of this increase in lack of religious affiliation among young Americans are clear, another major question is, will it stick? Are young Americans going to be secular for good? As reported by Gerson::
Putnam regards the growth of the “nones” as a spike, not a permanent trend. The young, in general, are not committed secularists. “They are not in church, but they might be if a church weren’t like the religious right. . . . There are almost certain to be religious entrepreneurs to fill that niche with a moderate evangelical religion, without political overtones.”
Putnam’s book on this research is yet to be published, but I’ll be interested to read it when it comes out, because his discussion with the Pew Forum seemed to mainly focus on politics and the negative impact of the Religious Right on religious affiliation amongst younger Americans. But political and social views are only part of the picture. What else influences younger people’s lack of religious affiliation? In their report Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S., the Pew Forum provided additional research on this very subject, examining the reasons why Americans in general change affiliations or leave their former religious affiliations without adopting a new one. From the executive summary of the report:
Two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated and half of former Protestants who have become unaffiliated say they left their childhood faith because they stopped believing in its teachings, and roughly four-in-ten say they became unaffiliated because they do not believe in God or the teachings of most religions. Additionally, many people who left a religion to become unaffiliated say they did so in part because they think of religious people as hypocritical or judgmental, because religious organizations focus too much on rules or because religious leaders are too focused on power and money. Far fewer say they became unaffiliated because they believe that modern science proves that religion is just superstition. (emphasis added)
I initially thought that the increase in the number of people that are unaffiliated with organized religions would be driven in large part by increased scientific literacy. But even if this is happening, it’s not a very conscious process; as the Pew Forum reports, not many people credit science for their changes in religious outlook. Rather, the changes take place in light of what the report calls “disenchantment with religious people or institutions.” This is similar to Putnam’s characterization of the younger unaffiliated being driven away by intolerant religious conservatives.
Also significant is the age range at which the Pew Forum found people make their most monumental religious changes:
The survey finds that religious change begins early in life. Most of those who decided to leave their childhood faith say they did so before reaching age 24, and a large majority say they joined their current religion before reaching age 36. Very few report changing religions after reaching age 50.
So the religious decisions that people make in their younger years often end up staying with them. Nevertheless, the report points out that the unaffiliated population is one of the most dynamic religious populations in the United States, with over half of people who are raised without any affiliation later joining one.
I will be very curious to see how Putnam’s research fits with the picture painted by the Faith in Flux report. I certainly feel that humanists should not take for granted that the younger, less affiliated generation is going to automatically join our ranks. The Pew Forum reveals a dynamic religious population that may get disgusted with the politicization of religion or the frailty of human institutions but isn’t necessarily going to march in step with organized non-religion. The key, of course, will be humanist outreach to this population: we have to offer something of value, something beyond a critique of the institution of religion, something that offers the sense of community and togetherness that people are seeking, even as they decide that religious institutions are not serving their needs.
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that we should not assume that unaffiliated young people are going to join the humanist community. (In fact, some of the unaffiliated no doubt hold theistic beliefs and therefore would not be accurately described as humanists.) To attract and retain the unaffiliated who belong under the humanist tent, there are two things we need to do:
1. Make the humanist identity known to young unaffiliated people. After all, they won’t join our ranks if they do not even know about us.
2. Encourage young people not to drift back to the religion of their upbringing for insincere reasons. Many young people drift back to the church of their upbringing when it comes time to get married or when they have kids, even though they do not believe most of the basic teachings of the church. To the extent that we can discourage this “driftback,” by making the notion of insincerely associating with a religious institution unacceptable, we will reap benefits.
I agree with you on every pointbut I would suggest that if the religion of their (young, religiously unaffliated people) upbringing was Unitarian-Universalism they we should encourage them to go back to it. It is an open and very Humanist religion that allows Atheists and Agnostics in its ranks.
Let’s not fall into “either-or” Manichean ways of thinking that leads to forming mistaken conclusions.
What makes a religion “Humanist” is that it promotes ethics founded on human experience rather than on alleged revelation. That is not identical with atheism, a metaphysical position and not an ethical position. Humanism isn’t about metaphysics.
Religious bodies that “allow atheists and agnostics” in their ranks include many mainstream churches. I could introduce you to Roman Catholics and Anglicans who adhere to their faith NOT because of acceptance of the beliefs professed but because they value the sense of community there.
Contrary to the simplistic assumptions made by some critics of religion, many faith congregations include plenty of freethinkers. Some recite the Nicene Creed as a ritual without considering its propositions to be descriptive of fact.
Many adherents of the church love it as a man may love his wife, and will recite the creed as readily as a loving husband may say “Oh no dear, not at all, you’re not fat.”
Naturally the UU credo looks more like a Humanist statement than does the Nicene Creed. How could it be otherwise? When was the UU one compiled? The Nicene Creed dates from Constantine! The churches of the past half-millennium are infused with Renaissance Humanism.
I once encountered Australia’s highest-ranking Anglican, Archbishop Peter Carnley, on his way to give a lecture. We chatted and I was fascinated to see the printed handout he was preparing to distribute to his audience. He was amused by my surprise. Instead of the advocacy of orthodoxy I had expected, it was a page of excerpts from the arch-skeptic David Hume who declared himself an enemy of Christians.
Later I came across the Articles of Incorporation of the Anglican Catholicism movement. I kept a copy so now I can quote from its opening words:
“Respect for scholarship and free inquiry, a characteristic of Anglican churches since earliest times, is fully consistent with the status of those Churches as part of the Holy Cahtolic Church.”
Then, inquiring about the allegation that freethinkng is honored, I was informed by a priest that when Richard Hooker set up the Church under direction of Queen Elizabeth 1, he was told that the people of England were free to believe anything they like so long as their acts are in compliance with “the two sacraments established by Christ” – Baptism and the Eucharist.
In that sense, I compare that Catholic faith with Judaism, in which not belief but behavior (praxis, not theoria) is the point – keep kosher and you can argue the Talmud all night.
In my opinion the rise of freethought in the Anglophone world can be traced to Elizabeth and Hooker. Thanks to Catherine Parr she was educated by a Humanist, Roger Ascham, a friend of Erasmus. This is a far cry from the dogmatic and bigoted continental Protestantism of Luther, which was the nursery of Nazism and of Karl Marx.
I condemn what is false in all systems but I will not join in blinkered “them and us” division of humanity into “good guys and bad guys.”
Recommended: Julian Huxley’s essay in “The Humanist Frame” (1961). Rather than blanket hostility to the major faiths, let Humanism transcend them all, doing what good they do, better than they have done.
I agree with Francis’s comments that “ethics founded on human experience” rather than revelation”/magic,et al is the attraction many find in Humanism. It reminded me of the religious group I found in Japan years ago – “Mukyokai” The “No-Church Church” which offered a “Community” with humanist experience based ethics (Hippocraties: First Do no Harm) without the authoritarian trappings and dogmatism of Vaticanism,Evangelicals, pentacostals,et al.
I certainly hope that young people are turning away from organized religion. It is about time. To think that books (every religion has one) has all the answers of mankind, rules that will define our destiny! God loves us no matter what we believe. I don’t believe in damnation.
Religion has caused so much pain and suffering.
dear dave what kind of benefits that u can reap by nt sending youngs to church ……….
is nt u r intending to produce hate in young people against religion……..????
everybody should have respect for everybody’s religion……no matter what so ever it is……….
You are both very thoughtful. I see that you are both older than the “young people”.
The “humanistic community” will need to make room for the “young people” by listening to them. I think that there is a thirst for someone to attack the religionists. Ergo the popularity of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins. What do you think?
Thank you
From conversations with “younger people” and observations of their comments on various fora, I suspect that “younger people” are,indeed in attack mode against religionists.
They are very perceptive and will not be misled and are much more humanist than we could ever suspect.
The Catholic Church ownership of Three Thousand Billion dollars worth of real estate in USA alone, all for the worship of a mythical being, equates to them of possibility of the elimination of poverty and starvation and disease, the raising of levels of education in 3rd world countries and so much more.
“Younger people” are reaching out in a humanist way to embrace their counterparts in so many developing countries. It’s to be admired. One of the biggest developments that allows for universal contact is, of course, the World Wide Web.
It won’t happen in my lifetime, but religion will run its course and disappear, eventually, and a true humanist ethos will exist throughtout the World.
There is certainly a place for the arguments of Hitchens, et. al., but the effort to win over young people and keep them in our camp will take more than just zealous rational arguments against religion. We need to create a sense that we are a real, legitimate demographic. “None” and “Unaffiliated” just don’t cut it. People want a real identity, a place where they belong. Not that we need to have Sunday services or anything like that, but we need to solidify the notion of humanist/secular identity.
I think that Unitarian-Universalism is one way to do that. I also think that Ethical Culture organizations, such as the Ethical Humanist Society of Greater Chicago, and organizations like the North Texas Church of Freethought could serve the purpose well. We need many options for humanists to choose from not just one.
All of these organizations can create communities out of like minded individuals which will give people a sense of belonging. One of the problems being an atheist is that it can be a solitary existence. I think having a place one can go to reinforce his or her world views is extremely fulfilling. It would also be a wonderful way to strengthen our movement.
When you refer to any organization as a “church” such as the “North Texas Church of Freethought”, your bringing the connotation of religion to an otherwise non-religious group to the forefront, which will inevitably confuse the unaffiliated to inevitably believe that it is indeed a place of worship, therefor perpetuating a belief in an almighty creator, for Humanism to work we must distance ourselves from any religious affiliations, otherwise your just planting a seed for future crossover believers.
Religions do not require a belief in a supreme being or god. What separates religion from philosophy are ritualistic practices including but not limited to: marriages, burials services, memorial services , baptisms, baby naming ceremonies and UU dedications.
In Texas in 1997, The Ethical Society of Austin(ESA,) an affiliate of the AHA, and Red River Unitarian-Universalist Church (RRUU) in Denison, Texas were denied a state tax-exemption as religious institutions because they did not worship a god(s). The case made its way through the Texas courts with the courts coming down on the side of the ESA and RRUU each time. In 2006, the Texas Supreme Court chose not to hear the state’s appeal on the issue and ever since then the ESA, RRU and the North Texas Church of Free Thought enjoy tax-exemptions as religious institutions. So at least by Texas state law, atheism is a religious belief and humanism is a religion.
In the first Humanist Manifesto written in 1933 refers to
You suggest that being an atheist can be a solitary existence. As an atheist I see myself as a member of the human race and I’m not solitary at all. No one shuns me because I don’t believe in a god or gods!
I take part in every community activity except going to church and so many people don’t go to church these days that I’m a member of the majority!
I always surprise people BECAUSE I’m an atheist. So many people I know have become atheists because of my presence, my attitudes, my devotion to the human race, mt charitable ways, my understanding, my non-judgemental attitudes, my acceptance of all people, races. colors, creeds.
No one needs a god or a religion to be a human being. In fact, religion is a selfish thing, because of that place in heaven being the carrot.
As a parent of two sons, I intentionally raised them without any religious affiliation, directly due to the toxic nature of my own experience with religion. Raising them in this manner was not always easy; just the mere fact of living in the Bible Belt oftentimes exposed them to religiosity via peer pressure or the influence of their teachers and/or their peers parents. Luckily, my older son now being 28 years old and my younger son being 25, I am very pleased that they have both grown up to be very good young men, each with a strong sense of morality and truth, as well as a deeply compassionate heart.
The primary thing this generation has in their favor is the intellectual stimulation they have received from the cradle onward, far and beyond their parents
Good for you! You should be applauded.
Here
I think you misunderstand the purpose of the sources. A Unitarian-Universalist chooses only those sources that he or she agrees with. The third and fourth principles allow UU’s to choose how they want to live the principles.
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; and
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
I am a Humanist and so I reject the other 5 sources and choose to follow the fifth source:
Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
In answer to your criticism about the “Humanist” source I would refer you to the Humanist manifestos. They do an excellent job outlining what the Fifth Source means.
I’m not sure what you mean by “enforcing warnings”. Could you explain it further?
“In that sense, I compare that Catholic faith with Judaism, in which not belief but behavior (praxis, not theoria) is the point – keep kosher and you can argue the Talmud all night.”
I believe we briefly discussed belief versus behavior in a different thread, but I still don’t understand your basis for the statement “keep kosher and you can argue the Talmud all night.”
I reject Unitarian-Universalism for several reasons.
One is that universalism is an empty concept. If you dissolve boundaries you are left with everything and nothing. The slogan “making bigger circles,” popular with UUs, was used by AHA as the title for a really bad film once, and I would be embarrassed to be associated with what it implies. It is “feel good” vacuous blather as silly as the Beatles’ “All you need is love, love is all you need.”
The ability to name things (c.f. Genesis 1 myth) is essential to humanness, and I think Confucius or Lao Tse says the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. Good and evil are real. Universalism tries to whitewash away the distinction and pretend that everything’s going to be all right when there’s not the slightest evidence that it is. No surprise that one of the most famous American hucksters and con men, P. T. Barnum, who said there’s a sucker born every minute, was a Universalist by religion.
My main reason to reject UUs is personal observation of the quality of personality it produces. I can name a coward and a thief who were ordained in the UUA. On the other hand, I have known persons of extraordinary courage and commitment to do good, to serve humankind in responsible informed love, persons of integrity to whom I would entrust my life. One was Fr. John Duryea, quondam Roman Catholic chaplain at Stanford University. Another is Rev. Robert Cromey, Episcopal priest. Among nuns, I recall Sister Miriam Cherry, and will never forget the personalities of the Sisters of the Holy Nativity, an Anglican convent in Santa Barbara. I saw in them a quality of fulfilled womanhood and serenity of balanced lives beyond what I have witnessed anywhere else. And don’t get me started about Toby McCarroll, whom I knew when he was AHA’s executive director, now sustaining orphanages in California and in Africa. I have never seen lives of such quality in the UUA.
“I have known persons of extraordinary courage and commitment to do well, to serve humankind in responsible informed love, persons of integrity to whom I would entrust my life.”
I’m glad you get it Francis, it’s not about the religion, and it
And…our young people are from all ethnic backgrounds. So, while it may be a “numbers game” the numbers are actually in favor of the “young” regardless of their color or ethnicity.
That’s delusional Thompson, yes disconnected from true reality, and you’re wrong but entitled to fantasies that most teens will not believe in God in the future.
“They see greed, anger, egoism, prejudice, murder, war, suicide bombings, poverty, disease, ad infinitum.”
Yes but is it because of God. NOPE! Like it or not, did not the bible say these things would happen? So what if other books have stated ‘some’ things about the end times, BUT BUT BUT BUT none of them are, is or ever going to be the bestselling Book in the World like the Bible. Billions of copies sold each year!
“They don
BFBF-
This is the same bible that condones slavery, Right?
BFBF, I assume you know that “bible” isn’t just one particular book? That there are many different kinds/translations of bibles?
I own (at least) eight bibles in English (all different translations), two in Hebrew (Biblia Hebraica), two in Greek (Septuagint), one Greek New Testament, one Jewish Tanakh, and a Mormon Bible. I’m sure there are a few others, I forget. That’s 15 copies or more, for just one person.
Since I am not one of the “OUR” that you refer to with such typical hubris, your dependence upon “numbers” is totally meaningless, unless it concerns a publishers profit/loss statement.
umm…
I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but–*sigh*–never mind. I just don’t have the energy to engage with you on this nonsensical issue, i.e. the same old stuff, hashed and rehashed over and over again–yada, yada, yada, .
Maybe someone else will take your bait, but not me, not tonight.
I’m clearly pointing out that humanistic delusions will not change the real facts about religious growth in this country and around the world. I understand that you must encourage yourselves with words, but don’t do it with 1% truths such as with the latest so-called scientific poll or study. Most of my friends are non-believers and Jews, why, maybe because the Christians I know don’t like the fact that I can ignore the belief of a person and acknowledge the GOOD that the DO (not say).
Let me be frank with you Thompson, and I say this with all seriousness; if non-believers continue down the path of attacking the religion of a person, and not the way that person is using a religion, the violence will be deadly! We have some crazy MF in this country and most of them identify themselves as Christians. Things are getting worst here and these so-called Christian leaders from the pulpit are blaming gays, non-believers etc. for most of America’s problems, while stirring up the flock emotionally. I’m not saying that you must remain silent (I believe in fighting), but now is the time to be “Consequential” in ones approach to dealing with a religious majority. Martin Luther King is a good example, and Malcolm X is not, in the sense of using non-violence and words that were true, and not inflammatory words such as Cracka. I love Malcolm
One more thing. If you don’t think it could happen, just look at Israel. The Current treatment of the minority is acceptable; so what makes you as a minority (based on Religion vs. Non) better than the minority in Israel. Think about it.
BFBF
BFBF-
Yeah you’re right. India doesn’t have any of those problems you described and certainly none of them are religiously based.
Luke 12:42-48
More accurately, what Protestant fundamentalists call “the” Bible, regardless of the translation preferred, is NOT the only Bible.
The “real” Binle in the eyes of devout Judaists would be the Torah. Most Christians will then add on the so-called “New Testament,” and the Mormons add one more, since they consider the Book of Mormon to be a “Newer Testament.”
There are many religions and many Bibles. The Zoroastrians have the Avestas. The Hindus have the Bhagavad Gita.
For Christians to assume that they are so special that they have some kind of God-given right to declare that OURS is “the” Buble and all the others are imposters is extraordinary arrogance, sustainable only by ignorance.
And let’s not even get started on the newer faiths. Scientologists think Dianetics is full of eternal truths. Some people like “A Course in Miracles.”
Muslims are content with the Holy Qu’ran. Christian Scientists have Mary Baker Eddy’s “Science and Health.”
However, there is an inherent fallacy worse than all the above. Fundamentalist Protestants assume that the Bible is the fountain and archive of Christian doctrine. Wrong. The custodian of the teachings of the Christian faith is the Church. The absurd doctrine of “sola scriptura” flies in the face of fifteen hundred years of Christian experience.
Jesus did NOT say “On this rock I will write my book.” Luther’s revulsion at the corruption of the Church is understandable; it was in terrible shape. However, his German Protestants cut themselves off from the apostolic tradition of authority in doctrine. The episcopal structure that maintains Christian doctrine is the magisterium, and it is sustained in the apostolic tradition by Orthodox, Roman, Anglican and Swedish Lutheran Christians. The rest of Protestantism is cut off from its roots and inevitably mired in confusion.
Read the latest article in Newsweek
Read the latest article in Newsweek “We are all Hindus now”. Thought provoking.
Hinduism, as I understand it, believes that everyone can find their own path to God. Via Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohammed, Judaism, Budha or worshipping a monkey , if you like. All paths are equally valid. That means every individual can decide the way he/she wishes to worship ( may be just chanting a nursery rhyme if that gives him/her the enlightenment) and what method / process suits that person.
After a thousand years, when everyone is educated, civilized and freed, no one will be BORN into a religion. You grow up, study, learn and decide what spiritual practice you wish to follow from a Menu as per your mental make up , need and inclination.
If that happens, sign are already there, then ( as per the implication of the Newsweek article) we will all become “Hindus” in concept. We will thus be intensely spiritual but not religious.
That’s not just Hinduism. Unitarian-Universalism allows the same freedom for individuals to cjose their own paths. UU Churches embrace theists, atheists, Pan-theists and polytheists. They embrace all manner of religions including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Paganism and Humanism.
Perhaps we are all UU’s as well.
[...] President Obama, they never noted that from 30 to 40 percent of people in their twenties are now unaffiliated with any religion. Needless to say, this has some profound implications for the future of the religious right, if the [...]
Church is a farce, an entity full of hypocrites and liars.
People that go to church are lost souls who have nothing in their lives except wanting to feel like they belong somewhere.
Churches of course let these people through the doors for their contributions and their volunteer work then fill their heads with “stories” of people better than them they must worship. Churches turn away people who actually need help or selectively choose who they want to help. It’s a business and they are in it for the money while they exploit our children and turn against us. Anyone can worship and pray anywhere they want, we don’t need ministers telling us what to do. Let them talk to the wall.
if u people do have problems with islam come to the islamic scholars and have debate….. dnt do such deeds……
it is the islamic scholars who make challenge for open debate bt nt ur pope……..
if u have truth come and debate………..
such acts shows how poor the english are………….
I believe the churches themselves have made our young people disenchanted with religion. They have become too involved in politics and trying to control every action of our government. The far right for example claims to be motivated by religious convictions. Those convictions have led to the nastiest political displays, name calling, hate filled internet postings, etc. that I have ever witnessed in my over 65 years. At the same time they claim to be against abortion because it kills people yet they defend unlimited access to weapons and have a turn your nose up attitude toward the environment – two other issues that kill people. Their stand on illegal immigration is not at all Christian. Young people see the hypocrisy. You can’t peddle Christianity and act the opposite. People are turning from religion because most religions have abandoned God’s principles while still marching under His banner. The hypocrisy is apparent to everyone.