Survey finds fewer Christians in America.

[steve s]

We're making progress, slowly but surely. From a survey by Trinity College being released today...

The survey of more than 54,000 people conducted between February and November of last year showed that the percentage of Americans identifying as Christians has dropped to 76 percent of the population, down from 86 percent in 1990. Those who do call themselves Christian are more frequently describing themselves as "nondenominational" "evangelical" or "born again," according to the American Religious Identification Survey.

The only group that grew in every U.S. state since the 2001 survey was people saying they had "no" religion; the survey says this group is now 15 percent of the population. Silk said this group is likely responsible for the shrinking percentage of Christians in the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801967.html?hpid=moreheadlines


Steve S.

[Rodibidably]

Among the key findings in the 2008 survey:
• So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists. In a nation that has long been mostly Christian, "the challenge to Christianity … does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of organized religion," the report concludes.

[steve s]

Yep. It's amazing just how few Jews, Mormons, Pentacostals, Muslims, and JWs there are. If you asked the average Joe on the street, he'd probably say all those groups outnumber Atheists.

ETA: What we need is a campaign of billboards or TV ads to point this out to people. Anybody got any really deep pockets?


Steve S.

[Professor Yaffle]

Most of the change seems to have been between 1990 and 2001, with little change between 2001 and 2008.

[madurobob]

"the challenge to Christianity … does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of organized religion," the report concludes.
That quote caught my eye as well. My immediate thought was no, the challenge to Christianity comes from within. The hate mongering, the westboro baptist types, the child abuse scandals, the sex scandals in general, preachers treating their congregations as their personal piggy banks... are pushing people away just as much as rational thought is keeping them away.

Blaming other religions or non-religion misses the root of the "problem" with their declining numbers.

[Fiona]

I was interested in this too, when Chicken Pot Pie showed it elsewhere.

The article does not show just what is being measured and I would like to have more detail on what is actually meant. The kind of confounder I mean is sort of explained in this article about religion in the uk. How many of those who say they are christian in the us are distinguishing themselves from other religions, rather than actually reflecting a belief which is acted on in the form of church attendance etc? If the questions were like those in the uk census there might be the same, apparently significant, over-estimate of those who are really religious. How much noise does each barrel make?

http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html

[SRW]

That is encouraging however, the thought of being called a "None" is a little weird I thought the Catholics had a lock on that one.

The 'Nones' are the only group to have grown in every state of the Union.
(http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/)
Just think if only "Nones" were allowed on airplanes the towers would still be standing.

I wonder what Sally Field (http://tinyurl.com/zhr7g) would think of that.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The article does not show just what is being measured and I would like to have more detail on what is actually meant.

That was about my reaction too, and I still haven't read those details yet.

However, I think the very general trend they report is similar to what the last Pew Foundation survey said, IIRC. That is, Christians are moving from well-defined churches to more vaguely defined categories (or giving up affiliation with one of the conventional named religions).

At the same time, though, these megachurches seem to be doing well around here. They're what I think of as commuter churches (a congregation drawn from a metropolitan area rather than just the immediate neighborhood). I wonder if some of these are non-denominational but at least more-or-less protestant Christian churches, though?

ETA: That is, I wonder if perhaps people who belong to churches like these wouldn't find anything to check on a standard list (like Episopalian, Lutheran, etc.), so would be counted as un-affiliated.

[godless dave]

Many Pentacostal churches call themselves "non-denominational". If the people who designed the survey didn't know that it would have thrown that part of the results off.

[The Atheist]

Most of the change seems to have been between 1990 and 2001, with little change between 2001 and 2008.

9/11 halted the slide, maybe?

There are no atheists in foxholes, apparently.

[Roadtoad]

That was about my reaction too, and I still haven't read those details yet.

However, I think the very general trend they report is similar to what the last Pew Foundation survey said, IIRC. That is, Christians are moving from well-defined churches to more vaguely defined categories (or giving up affiliation with one of the conventional named religions).

At the same time, though, these megachurches seem to be doing well around here. They're what I think of as commuter churches (a congregation drawn from a metropolitan area rather than just the immediate neighborhood). I wonder if some of these are non-denominational but at least more-or-less protestant Christian churches, though?

ETA: That is, I wonder if perhaps people who belong to churches like these wouldn't find anything to check on a standard list (like Episopalian, Lutheran, etc.), so would be counted as un-affiliated.

Until we know more about how this survey was created, what the questions were, where the bias lies, this is pretty interesting stuff, but nothing you can actually put any trust in. It's great for headlines, but not particularly useful elsewhere.

What I see happening this Sunday, though, is a lot of pastors pointing to the newspaper article, and bewailing the sad state of affairs in America. "Woe to us! Our nation is rejecting God."

This ignores what Madurobob noted: Most people who are turning away from churches are doing so mainly out of a sense of self-preservation. How else do you respond to the bigoted clods like Fred Phelps, the hypocrites like Ted Haggard, or the perverts like Paul Shanley? When you take a reasoned view of people like this, how else can you respond to Benny Hinn or Oral Roberts? The excesses are easy to spot, and if you only go to church on Christmas Eve and Easter, why would you deepen your commitment? Only if you were a fool.

But this is only one part of the tale. It's the smaller abuses that force people out, the things they see when those who have made a commitment to a local congregation show up on Sunday morning. It's the cliques, the little groups that are focused on their own little corner of "heaven." It's people like the Friends of Pastor, the ones who build these little walls around the clergy, trying to control what is and is not seen. I can't speak for anyone else, but my experience is that what is called "Sin" is not defined objectively, but very subjectively, based upon what the FoPs allow to be known.

It's things like turning a blind eye to one group of kids who bully another. It's the shunning of "certain" people, the divorced, the physically disabled, the "liberals." It's the pastor choosing to visit one church member when that person is ill, but not doing so when it's another. It's turning your attention to those who tithe, and ignoring the others. It's rude clergy, like the one I know who won't talk to you once you've decided to leave his church, who ignores you, as if you aren't even there. (And then he doesn't understand why you left.)

It's moral cowardice in the face of blatant hate, as we see whenever Fred Phelps shows his face in any town. Ever notice that it isn't the church who drives Phelps and his crowd of misanthropes away? It's the lesser versions of hate, such as the support for Prop. 8 in California, and the veiled declarations that those who contracted HIV somehow "deserved" their fate, even as the church ignores open adultery in some cases among straight people.

And it's the blatant stupidity in the face of facts, such as we see with the debate regarding Intelligent Design, and the continued opposition to stem cell research, the latter brought about by a man who openly declared it was a religious decision, rather than a scientific one.

There's a great deal people can tolerate. They will not, however, tolerate the miniature cruelties dealt them in the name of a "loving" god. They don't have to.

When I left the Church, I discovered something wonderful: I could lay in bed next to Peggy, and we could enjoy one another's company without having to tolerate the open contempt that came to us in the name of "Jesus." I could tell her I loved her, and not have that filtered through what those in the ministry were trying to tell us I was really meaning when I said that. And for once, I could really communicate with my sons, and was able to get off that sand castle pedestal which I was supposed to be standing on in the name of a "god" who in all probability wasn't there, and never had been.

My suspicion is that other people are discovering this, too. Lee Strobel can make all the claims he wants about what it will take to get people in church on Sunday morning, but if the church truly wanted anyone in attendance, the first thing they should have done was muzzled the haters, and instead of building those :rule10 mausoleums to an absent -- if not nonexistent -- deity, they should have looked at the very real needs of the communities they were supposed to serve, and gotten involved, feet first, without reservation. That you cannot find a church in the Sacramento area with a food closet, at least not without a great deal of phone calling and pleading, is a sign not that America is worldly, but that we cannot tolerate hypocrites and liars. Not only is god absent from our presence, but his people make the attempt to get to know "god" an exercise in masochism, and an effort in mass self-hypnosis, designed to silence any and all criticism directed against the damnable acts in extremis that we read about in the newspapers. Trust me: the Muslim extremists crying out for Salman Rushdie's head are nothing more than a bunch of whiny tyros compared to the American church.

People are leaving the church. We've seen that. This survey is farcical in that it does not make much of an effort, from what I've seen, to tell us why.

Too bad they didn't ask my family. We could have given them an earful.

[LarianLeQuella]

9/11 halted the slide, maybe?

There are no atheists in foxholes, apparently.

I'm an atheist, and I've been in a foxhole!

Although I think they were refering more to the Presidential effect
where W. made it seem okay to have a vacancy in the cranium. ;)

[Puppycow]

Most of the change seems to have been between 1990 and 2001, with little change between 2001 and 2008.

There's 11 years between '90 and '01, but only 7 between '01 and '08.

Still, it's a change in all 50 states. That's pretty impressive. Even in a general trend you would expect one or two exceptions to the rule.

[MattusMaximus]

9/11 halted the slide, maybe?

There are no atheists in foxholes, apparently.

Ahem, Pat Tillman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman)

[This Guy]

So, more Christians are in the non mainstream religions now, compared to earlier. These, I believe would be the "Prosperity" and other more conservative/fundamental groups I believe.

How long before they claim we godless heathens are a serious threat, and start a campaign against us?

Could it be that as more people wake up to reality and the mainstream religions slide away from a strict interpretation of the Bible, those remaining feel more and more threatened, and hunker down with those others that are battling the weakening of the "Word" by defending the accuracy of the cannon?

Just some thoughts to ponder :)

[MattusMaximus]

This Guy might be on to something. It seems to me that, more than anything, these survey results suggest that there is a polarization in the United States taking place along religious lines. Fewer people go along with more moderate religious beliefs, and more are going with either no religion at all (fine by me) or the more whackadoodle forms of Xianity (not fine by me).

Is it just me, or does anyone else see it that way?

[Roadtoad]

Read my comments above. I would say it dovetails into why this is.

[steve s]

The kind of confounder I mean is sort of explained in this article about religion in the uk. How many of those who say they are christian in the us are distinguishing themselves from other religions, rather than actually reflecting a belief which is acted on in the form of church attendance etc?

I agree. I recall one study which found that less than half of all Americans attend church regularly. For most people, religion just isn't an important part of their lives. But if you poll them about their relgion they'll say "Yes, I'm a Christian" simply because that's what they were raised as. Add to that the fact that people want to avoid the stigma associated with atheism, and that will skew the results of any poll.

Steve S.

[The_Animus]

The article can also be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm?imw=Y

So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists.The ARIS research also led in quantifying and planting a label on the "Nones" — people who said "None" when asked the survey's basic question: "What is your religious identity?"I would like to point out that this does not say that 15% of Americans are atheists. Many people believe in god but not in religion. I would assume the % of atheists is actually lower than 15%.

[Professor Yaffle]

A link to the report (as some people seem to be having difficulty finding it...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/aris030609.pdf

[skeptical]

I would like to point out that this does not say that 15% of Americans are atheists. Many people believe in god but not in religion. I would assume the % of atheists is actually lower than 15%.

Correct. According to the survey 12% identified as Atheist/Agnostic and 12% as Deistic (no personal God). Only 70% identified belief in a personal God, which to me is promising. (apparently 6% didn't want to answer?)

I'll take Deistic over Theistic any day. Actually, I'll take "don't follow a particular set of dogma" over the alternative and be quite happy, even if someone identifies as theistic.

[Jaxe]

That quote caught my eye as well. My immediate thought was no, the challenge to Christianity comes from within. The hate mongering, the westboro baptist types, the child abuse scandals, the sex scandals in general, preachers treating their congregations as their personal piggy banks... are pushing people away just as much as rational thought is keeping them away.

Blaming other religions or non-religion misses the root of the "problem" with their declining numbers.

That was my thought aswell, the best argument against religion is religion itself and it's followers.

[NobbyNobbs]

Yep. It's amazing just how few Jews, Mormons, Pentacostals, Muslims, and JWs there are. If you asked the average Joe on the street, he'd probably say all those groups outnumber Atheists.

ETA: What we need is a campaign of billboards or TV ads to point this out to people. Anybody got any really deep pockets?


Steve S.

Hold on a sec. Does "no religion" necessarily mean "atheist". I don't think so. Maybe they don't belong to a church. Maybe they are uncertain about whether God exists. Maybe the beleive ina god but aren't religious. There are many out there who, rather than labeling themselves "religious", instead say they are "spiritual".

I'd like to see the form the questions took.

ETA: Grr. I should probably read the whole thread before posting, just in case somebody made my point before me....

[alfalfafour]

Hold on a sec. Does "no religion" necessarily mean "atheist". I don't think so. Maybe they don't belong to a church. Maybe they are uncertain about whether God exists. Maybe the beleive ina god but aren't religious. .


I did a quick search of the text and found "no stated religious preference." Which means all of the possibilities which you stated, and probably many others. Believing in a god is not necessarily following a trained monkey who screams behind a pupit.

[Dragonrock]

I was in a foxhole and was an atheist also. But, it wasn't a popular view with some people as they felt that I needed to be converted, some were rather antagonistic about it.

[Soapy Sam]

Surely all foxes are atheist?

[MattusMaximus]

Correct. According to the survey 12% identified as Atheist/Agnostic and 12% as Deistic (no personal God). Only 70% identified belief in a personal God, which to me is promising. (apparently 6% didn't want to answer?)

So, according to that survey, almost 25% of the U.S. population falls into the agnostic/atheist/deistic category? I most certainly did not expect that!

Wow :eye-poppi

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Please, people, read the survey, it is linked above.

Self-Identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition

No Religion- 15.0%
-Agnostic- 0.9%
-Atheist- 0.7%
DK/Refused- 5.2%

Regarding the existence of God, do you think . . . ?

There is no such thing 2.3%
There is no way to know 4.3%
I’m not sure 5.7%
There is a higher power but no personal God 12.1%
There is definitely a personal God 69.5%
Refused 6.1%
n = 1,000 100%

Conclusion- people are stupid and can't keep consistent answers, and most probably don't know what "personal God" means.

[Shrike]

Until we know .... them an earful.

By Ed, you write well.

[Oliver]

Is there a world-wide survey about "christianity's decline" as well? It would be interesting to know if this is an international trend.

[Zelenius]

We're making progress, slowly but surely. From a survey by Trinity College being released today...





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801967.html?hpid=moreheadlines


Steve S.

This is promising, except that it suggests polarization. The loss of religious moderates is the gain for both the non-religious/atheists/agnostics/deists as well as the religious fundamentalists. It would also be interesting to see the IQ of all these different groups.

[LarianLeQuella]

I was in a foxhole and was an atheist also. But, it wasn't a popular view with some people as they felt that I needed to be converted, some were rather antagonistic about it.

TELL ME ABOUT IT!!!!!!! Although, there has lately been more of an upswing of atheists in the military, but it's been cancelled out by the hardcore evangelicals that are there as well.

Conclusion- people are stupid and can't keep consistent answers, and most probably don't know what "personal God" means.

This ALSO made me giggle, but then it also made me sad.

[Safe-Keeper]

There are as many Christians out there as before, but they're hesitant to come out of the closet due to the rampant persecution of their kind in America.

Yes, it'd be funny if a guy on a forum I sometimes visit (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2599482&postcount=4) hadn't said that and then gone on to defend the point for several posts (for the exchange, read the "do christians face discrimination" thread).

[Roadtoad]

Horse pucky.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Most of the change seems to have been between 1990 and 2001, with little change between 2001 and 2008.

I knew it. That damn Bush.

[Dragonrock]

TELL ME ABOUT IT!!!!!!! Although, there has lately been more of an upswing of atheists in the military, but it's been cancelled out by the hardcore evangelicals that are there as well.

My "favorite" was a conversation that we something like.

Biblethumber: What religion are you?
me: I'm an atheist.
BT: No, really, what religion are you?
me: None, I'm an atheist.
BT: What religion is your family?
me: I was raised catholic.
BT: Then you're catholic, you should go to the catholic service.
me: I shouldn't go to anything since I don't believe in god.
BT: (Placing his hand on my shoulder with a condescending look) Well he believes in you.

[Freethinker]

In reality, the survey found fewer people who selected "Christian" or one of its flavors as their answer to the survey. One can't infer that that implies a decrease in the number of Christians or an increase in the number of the non-religious. It may simply indicate more willingness on the part of the non-religious to tell the truth on the survey.

[skeptical]

Please, people, read the survey, it is linked above.

Self-Identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition

No Religion- 15.0%
-Agnostic- 0.9%
-Atheist- 0.7%
DK/Refused- 5.2%

Regarding the existence of God, do you think . . . ?

There is no such thing 2.3%
There is no way to know 4.3%
I’m not sure 5.7%
There is a higher power but no personal God 12.1%
There is definitely a personal God 69.5%
Refused 6.1%
n = 1,000 100%

Conclusion- people are stupid and can't keep consistent answers, and most probably don't know what "personal God" means.

While I don't necessarily disagree with the statement in your conclusion, I'm not sure that the survey indicates that. I have met people who identify themselves as Christian but when you ask them what they actually believe it is much closer to Deistic or Agnostic, they simply have always thought of themselves as Christian, in many cases based on moral principles.

As a historical example, Jefferson was definitely not a Christian in the sense that fundamentalists would consider (believing in magic and a resurrection), but he said he considered himself a follower of Jesus due to his moral teachings. So, one could self identify as a Christian, but still answer as a agnostic/deist in the God question.

[kurious_kathy]

There are as many Christians out there as before, but they're hesitant to come out of the closet due to the rampant persecution of their kind in America.

Yes, it'd be funny if a guy on a forum I sometimes visit (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2599482&postcount=4) hadn't said that and then gone on to defend the point for several posts (for the exchange, read the "do christians face discrimination" thread).

If they want to feed me to the lions I will not back down. Jesus is Lord and all who deny him better repent before it is too late. You all here have been warned and I just pray some do have their spiritual eyes opened to the truth. Jesus lovs you!

[Fiona]

If they want to feed me to the lions I will not back down.

Are you really sure? There are saints who didn't do as well as that, you know ......

[schlitt]

Meanwhile...

Psychic powers, quantum flapdoodle, New Age charlatans, gain popularity.

Is the ability of people to reason rising, or is the falsehood of their ancient myths becoming more apparent?

The latter I suspect.

[quixotecoyote]

Are you really sure? There are saints who didn't do as well as that, you know ......

I wouldn't do that to a lion! Sanctimony gives horrible indigestion.

[Radically Rethinking]

Jefferson was definitely not a Christian in the sense that fundamentalists would consider (believing in magic and a resurrection)

Unfortunately, this doesn't stop fundamentalists from claiming that Jefferson was a Christian.

[Roadtoad]

Are you really sure? There are saints who didn't do as well as that, you know ......

Forget about the saints. Someone get those poor lions some Pepto Bismol.

[Beth]

Hi Roadtoad,

I wanted to respond to this because it touched me. Many of your posts do. I think you are a fantastic writer.

Until we know more about how this survey was created, what the questions were, where the bias lies, this is pretty interesting stuff, but nothing you can actually put any trust in. It's great for headlines, but not particularly useful elsewhere. Who did the survey? That's almost as important in evaluating the results as the exact wording of the questions.

What I see happening this Sunday, though, is a lot of pastors pointing to the newspaper article, and bewailing the sad state of affairs in America. "Woe to us! Our nation is rejecting God." Now, no doubt you are right, but you've made me curious. I've belonged to two churches in my life. The fundamentalist one that I was raised in. I never paid attention to the sermons much, so I couldn't tell you if they were ever topical. I often got in trouble for that too. :)

The one I sometimes attend these days has a preacher who does work in current events and politics, but is more likely to mention this in regard to dicussing what we can do to make our church a place that people want to come to. I think he's more likely to take the attitude that churches have not been meeting the needs of the people who are not coming. Perhaps I'll go this Sunday and see if he mentions anything about it.

This ignores what Madurobob noted: Most people who are turning away from churches are doing so mainly out of a sense of self-preservation. How else do you respond to the bigoted clods like Fred Phelps, the hypocrites like Ted Haggard, or the perverts like Paul Shanley? When you take a reasoned view of people like this, how else can you respond to Benny Hinn or Oral Roberts? The excesses are easy to spot, and if you only go to church on Christmas Eve and Easter, why would you deepen your commitment? Only if you were a fool. Phelps was in our town a couple of weeks ago. Demonstrating outside a local high school. I think it had something to do with abortion or birth control. My daughter, who is atheist, was one of the people who showed up to protest what they were saying. She told me their crowd was substantially larger than his.

But this is only one part of the tale. It's the smaller abuses that force people out, the things they see when those who have made a commitment to a local congregation show up on Sunday morning. It's the cliques, the little groups that are focused on their own little corner of "heaven." It's people like the Friends of Pastor, the ones who build these little walls around the clergy, trying to control what is and is not seen. I can't speak for anyone else, but my experience is that what is called "Sin" is not defined objectively, but very subjectively, based upon what the FoPs allow to be known. I haven't noticed anything like that at either church I've attended. But I'm pretty clueless about politics, so that doesn't really mean much. I'm lucky to have found a boss who's good at politics and lets me just sit at my desk and work most of the time.

It's things like turning a blind eye to one group of kids who bully another. It's the shunning of "certain" people, the divorced, the physically disabled, the "liberals." It's the pastor choosing to visit one church member when that person is ill, but not doing so when it's another. It's turning your attention to those who tithe, and ignoring the others. It's rude clergy, like the one I know who won't talk to you once you've decided to leave his church, who ignores you, as if you aren't even there. (And then he doesn't understand why you left.) I remember one of the preachers at the fundamentalist church who was just mean. Apparently even to his wife and kids to the point that she left him. While I never heard even a whisper that he abused them, after reading your posts in the 'my sister called' thread, I can only say I have no idea how he might have treated them in private. He was preacher there during my teen years. He was everything you describe in your fundamentalist minister and worse. I hated him with a passion. When I got married, I refused to be married by him, and ended up getting married in the Methodist church because I was friend's with the preacher's daughter and liked him. Hubby's an atheist.

It's moral cowardice in the face of blatant hate, as we see whenever Fred Phelps shows his face in any town. Ever notice that it isn't the church who drives Phelps and his crowd of misanthropes away? It's the lesser versions of hate, such as the support for Prop. 8 in California, and the veiled declarations that those who contracted HIV somehow "deserved" their fate, even as the church ignores open adultery in some cases among straight people. I live in the same state he does. He's been protesting funerals here for decades. Most people here despise him as much as you do and it's the buckle of the bible belt. We older folks just sigh and try to ignore him. He barely even makes the news here. It's the young people, like my daughter and her friends, who get out and protest. More and more of them are not religious.

And it's the blatant stupidity in the face of facts, such as we see with the debate regarding Intelligent Design, and the continued opposition to stem cell research, the latter brought about by a man who openly declared it was a religious decision, rather than a scientific one.

There's a great deal people can tolerate. They will not, however, tolerate the miniature cruelties dealt them in the name of a "loving" god. They don't have to. "Miniature cruelties" - that's a nice turn of the phrase. You have a gift for it. When you talk about these minor meanesses, I am reminded of high school. An absolutely miserable time for me. A period of my life that was not improved by my religion as my mother insisted on dressing me in modest rather than modern clothing.
Ah well, I was a nerd and my mother dressed me funny. Junior high and high school was a long stretch of miserable for me.

When I left the Church, I discovered something wonderful: I could lay in bed next to Peggy, and we could enjoy one another's company without having to tolerate the open contempt that came to us in the name of "Jesus." I could tell her I loved her, and not have that filtered through what those in the ministry were trying to tell us I was really meaning when I said that. And for once, I could really communicate with my sons, and was able to get off that sand castle pedestal which I was supposed to be standing on in the name of a "god" who in all probability wasn't there, and never had been.
This reminds me of my relationship with my parents for most of my life.

My suspicion is that other people are discovering this, too. Lee Strobel can make all the claims he wants about what it will take to get people in church on Sunday morning, but if the church truly wanted anyone in attendance, the first thing they should have done was muzzled the haters, and instead of building those :rule10 mausoleums to an absent -- if not nonexistent -- deity, they should have looked at the very real needs of the communities they were supposed to serve, and gotten involved, feet first, without reservation. That you cannot find a church in the Sacramento area with a food closet, at least not without a great deal of phone calling and pleading, is a sign not that America is worldly, but that we cannot tolerate hypocrites and liars. Not only is god absent from our presence, but his people make the attempt to get to know "god" an exercise in masochism, and an effort in mass self-hypnosis, designed to silence any and all criticism directed against the damnable acts in extremis that we read about in the newspapers. Trust me: the Muslim extremists crying out for Salman Rushdie's head are nothing more than a bunch of whiny tyros compared to the American church.

People are leaving the church. We've seen that. This survey is farcical in that it does not make much of an effort, from what I've seen, to tell us why.

I don't know who did the survey or why. The kind of information you are asking for requires a great deal more time and effort to collect, both from paid interviewers and unpaid citizens volunteering their time. While I think it would be more interesting to know those details, I can't fault the survey for not including them without knowing more about why they were conducting it and what resources they had to do it with.


Too bad they didn't ask my family. We could have given them an earful. I'll bet.

[LarianLeQuella]

BT: (Placing his hand on my shoulder with a condescending look) Well he believes in you.


My favorite (in the sort of way you have a favorite terminal illness) is the "God doesn't believe in atheists" sticker I have seen about.

[The Atheist]

If they want to feed me to the lions I will not back down. Jesus is Lord and all who deny him better repent before it is too late. You all here have been warned and I just pray some do have their spiritual eyes opened to the truth. Jesus lovs you!

Are you really sure? There are saints who didn't do as well as that, you know ......

Going to heaven isn't good?

What gets me is with all that love of the baby Jesus and knowledge that they'll be swinging in his arms after death that more christians don't demand rights to be eaten by lions.

Why not get there now?

Meanwhile...

Psychic powers, quantum flapdoodle, New Age charlatans, gain popularity.

Is the ability of people to reason rising, or is the falsehood of their ancient myths becoming more apparent?

The latter I suspect.

Nope. If you look at your premise, it should be obvious that people are getting dumber. Belief in psychics has to be marginally dumber than the sky-daddy, doesn't it?

At least the sky-daddy people have a book.