Searched for Religious affiliation shift and got Pew Study!!!
Offline http://pewforum.org/Interactive-Reasons-for-Joining-Reasons-for-Leaving.aspx
Interactive...even.
See why people are leaving their childhood superstition. Whether or not they re-affiliate; whether they choose a different superstition to affiliate with or just go about their lives AND even shows those who are childhood unaffiliated who later choose a superstition to affiliate and what is the reason for becoming affiliated with a superstition.
[Hint...the reason for an unaffiliated person to become affiliated is IMO for sex...one of the guilty pleasures.]
The whole thing starts here
http://pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux(2).aspx
"Faith must have adequate evidence else it is mere superstition"...Alexander Hodge (1823-1886)
"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes"...James Feibleman (1904-1987)
Respectfully, Lyz
- Login to post comments
Hope this comes through...
Changing Faiths Share of # of
U.S. adult recontact
population interviews
%
Do not currently belong to childhood faith 44 1,894
Raised Catholic, now unaffiliated 4 401
Raised Catholic, now Protestant 5 343
Raised Protestant, now unaffiliated 7 360
Raised Protestant, now different Protestant faith 15 292
Raised unaffiliated, now affiliated 4 350
Other change in religious affiliation* 9 148
Same faith as childhood** 56 973
Changed faith at some point 9
Have not changed faith 47
Total 100 2,867
Due to rounding, numbers in this report may not sum to 100, and nested figures may not sum to subtotals indicated.
*This group consists of converts from a variety of different backgrounds, including converts to Catholicism and converts from or to religions other than Catholicism or Protestantism. Because this is such a disparate group, it is not analyzed in most of this report.
**Estimate of religious change among those still in their childhood faith comes from this recontact survey; other estimates from 2007 “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey.”
Note: A small number of respondents were excluded from the recontact survey because they gave an ambiguous response to one of the religious affiliation items in the original Landscape Survey, converted within the unaffiliated tradition or belong to small groups within the “other Christian,” “other world religions” or “other faiths” religious traditions. In total, these excluded cases represent roughly 4% of the U.S. population.
"Faith must have adequate evidence else it is mere superstition"...Alexander Hodge (1823-1886)
"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes"...James Feibleman (1904-1987)
Respectfully, Lyz
Interesting the most common response for becoming unaffilieated is "Drifting away from religion." [71% for both catholic and protostant to unafflieated]
Also the number reason to become afflieated with religion being "spirtual needs not met"
If you go to the Reasons for joining current religion tab, the most common is "enjoy the religious service and style of worship"
I think the former can be attributed to them finding some friends outside the social group of religion while the latter is finding friends within a religion.
Religion is little more than group dynamics. We can't wave a magic wand and magically get rid of it. We have to replace it.
Thats exactly what people are starting to realise about so-called "New Atheism"
Get religion out of the public square....so that its left to the secular atheists and the secular corporations and any other secular lobby group who wants - lets admit it - POLITICAL POWER.
Cpt_pinapple. Bravely speaking the truth about atheISM.
BTW - I hope nobody objects to me quoting only part of the above post. I dont want to get accused of taking it out of context, misrepresentation or quote mining. Hopefully people will notice that the two related posts are both within centimeters of each other. When my ban gets lifted over at rationalskeptics I am going to quote other peoples posts in their entirety, verbatim, irrespective of which part I am responding to. That way I wont get done for "making it sound like" Spearthrower was saying something different. There are some pretty anal-retentive folk over there.
This is exactly what I don't want to see. We don't need to do anything. Let people deal with their own lives. Sure tell people why they should be atheists if you want (when appropriate) but don't try sell them in joining another little club to replace their last one.
Edit
In clarification what I mean by that is, I don't want to see any sort of organized atheism.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
What are you talking about? What truth about atheism?
Some people use religion for political power, some want religion gone so there's not competition for their political power. So what? What does that have to do with atheism?
goddamn right. there are some of us who would do a great deal with political power, and many theists wouldn't like it. many atheists wouldn't either.
but by "us" i do not mean atheists. like cap said, it has nothing to do with atheism as such.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Views About Government's Role in Protecting Morality
U.S. Religious Traditions
Government should do more to protect morality
Government is too involved in morality
Neither/ both
Don't know/ refused
Sample Size
National Total:
40%
52%
3%
5%
35556
Evangelical Churches
50%
41%
4%
5%
9472
Mainline Churches
33%
58%
4%
5%
7470
Historically Black Churches
48%
42%
3%
6%
1995
Catholics
43%
49%
3%
5%
8054
Mormons
54%
39%
4%
3%
581
Orthodox
43%
48%
3%
6%
363
Jehovah's Witnesses
38%
36%
10%
16%
215
Other Christians
23%
69%
3%
5%
129
Jews
22%
71%
3%
5%
682
Muslims
59%
29%
4%
8%
1050
Buddhists
26%
67%
3%
4%
411
Hindus
44%
45%
4%
7%
257
Other Faiths
18%
75%
3%
4%
449
Unaffiliated
27%
66%
3%
4%
5048
Question wording: Now I'm going to read you a few pairs of statements. For each pair, tell me whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own views --even if neither is exactly right. 1 - The government should do more to protect morality in society, OR 2 - I worry the government is getting too involved in the issue of morality.
Data for Muslims from "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream," Pew Research Center, 2007.
For more information, please see the detailed tables in the Full Reports section.
IMO, if you want to 'live in peace' keep government out of your religion and keep religion out of government.
The highlighting didn't work
Evangelical, Historically Black, Mormon and Muslim want more gov't involvement in deciding what is moral. Can't you just imagine the problems in this country if those four groups got more gov't involvement in their religious freedom?
"Faith must have adequate evidence else it is mere superstition"...Alexander Hodge (1823-1886)
"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes"...James Feibleman (1904-1987)
Respectfully, Lyz
...couldnt have said it better myself.
@rationalskepticism Moderators and the whiners they listen to.
See how easy it is for normal people to interact and selectively quote from a longer post and it's NOT ABOUT QUOTEMINING or TAKING STUFF OUT OF CONTEXT or MAKING IT SOUND LIKE someone said something they didnt mean.
iwbiek doesnt need to quote an entire post in order to respond to one small part. How anal retentive and conceited to think that your entire post is so delicately nuanced that one sentence is meaningless without the surrounding 1500 words (Calilasseia!)
Most ppl who complain about quote mining are really just annoyed the fact that they didnt THINK before they opened their mouth and someone picked them up and called them out.
Quoting stuff back at at people who wish they hadnt said "that" is NOT quote mining and its not intellectually dishonest.
I was doing you a favor Spearthrower!
I've found no website on the entire internet that was more pro-free speech, yet managed to maintain any level of professionalism and decorum, than this one.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
>>>
Lion IRC,
This isn't rationalskepticism website/forum (just in case you are confused).
Is it too much to ask that you keep your post to the thread topic and reserve your extraneous venting at someone named Calilasseia (who hasn't posted to this thread and probably hasn't seen your comments) for a more appropriate thread (or at least for someone who cares about your petty bickering over 'quoting protocols')?
If you like 'spitting in the wind'...I suggest that you make your own post about what is appropriate 'quoting protocols' and castigate Calilasseia there all you want.
Referring to someone as a 'spearthrower' is usually considered to be an insult...unless you can't throw a spear.
>>>
"Faith must have adequate evidence else it is mere superstition"...Alexander Hodge (1823-1886)
"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes"...James Feibleman (1904-1987)
Respectfully, Lyz
http://pewforum.org/Church-State-Law/Americans-Wary-of-Church-Involvement-in-Partisan-Politics.aspx
On Sunday, Sept. 28 (2011), more than two dozen pastors challenged a provision in the tax code that restricts the political activities of houses of worship and other tax-exempt organizations. Arguing that they have a constitutional right to speak out on political issues, the pastors discussed the 2008 presidential candidates from the pulpit and, in some cases, endorsed a particular candidate. On Sept. 29, the church-state watchdog group Americans United for Separation of Church and State filedcomplaints with the Internal Revenue Service based on the political content of six of these sermons. The Alliance Defense Fund, the conservative legal-advocacy group that organized "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," has said that if the IRS tries topenalize the houses of worship for their pastors' political advocacy, it will bring a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of these penalties.
Whatever the legal merits of the ADF's protest and Americans United's complaints, and regardless of the eventual outcome, many Americans clearly are uncomfortable with churches participating in partisan politics. While a strong majority of Americans support religion's role in public life, a solid majority also expresses opposition to churches coming out in favor of particular political candidates. Indeed, an August 2008 survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press shows that two-thirds (66%) of the public opposes churches and other houses of worship speaking out in favor of one candidate over another. The high level of opposition to such endorsements is consistent with Pew polling conducted in recent years.
Although Pew surveys often find major differences - both among religious traditions and among those with different levels of religious commitment - on other issues relating to religion and public life, there is widespread agreement on opposition to churches endorsing political candidates. For instance, among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants are nearly as opposed to such endorsements as are those who are unaffiliated with any particular religion (64% vs. 68%). Black Protestants register the lowest level of opposition, but even among this group, those who oppose such endorsements outnumber those who favor them by almost 20 percentage points (55% vs. 36%).
This strong opposition to church political endorsements also applies to people with different levels of religious commitment. For example, virtually the same level of opposition exists among those who say that religion is very important to them (66%) as among those who say religion is not too important or not at all important to them (69%).
Similarly, more than six-in-ten of those who attend religious services at least once a week oppose such services (63%), as do 69% of those who seldom or never attend services.
>>>
The charts might not be 'displaying' correctly...but the point is...of those who have a belief in a supernatural deity...most don't want their 'religious leader' expounding from the pulpit about politics.
I just wish the IRS would use the law and revoke (even for a year) the tax-exempt status of Churches that decide they can ignore, flaunt, and violate this law. Even one (1) year of taxes could be a nice 'piece of chump change' from some of the mega-churches. The parishioners also might not be able to deduct their contributions to the church from their taxes.
>>>
"Faith must have adequate evidence else it is mere superstition"...Alexander Hodge (1823-1886)
"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes"...James Feibleman (1904-1987)
Respectfully, Lyz
I did not refer to someone as "a spearthrower" or "a calilasseia"
BTW. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my "extraneous" post.
Why people came back to church is related to liking the community or personality of the minister or through a marriage/divorce.
It was a vision from god...but just some other human. Says a lot to me.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/