What's your religion? In US, a common reply now is "None"

[dalton99a]

https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-religion-0722d2f1484d38163d75b32b6f095ddf

What’s your religion? In US, a common reply now is “None”
By LUIS ANDRES HENAO, KWASI GYAMFI ASIEDU and DAVID CRARY

Nathalie Charles, even in her mid-teens, felt unwelcome in her Baptist congregation, with its conservative views on immigration, gender and sexuality. So she left.

“I just don’t feel like that gelled with my view of what God is and what God can be,” said Charles, an 18-year-old of Haitian descent who identifies as queer and is now a freshman at Princeton University.

After leaving her New Jersey church three years ago, she identified as atheist, then agnostic, before embracing a spiritual but not religious life. In her dorm, she blends rituals at an altar, chanting Buddhist, Taoist and Hindu mantras and paying homage to her ancestors as she meditates and prays.

The path taken by Charles places her among the religiously unaffiliated -- the fastest-growing group in surveys asking Americans about their religious identity. They describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular.”

According to a survey released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center, this group — commonly known as the “nones” — now constitutes 29% of American adults. That’s up from 23% in 2016 and 19% in 2011.

[brewens]

1. I don't answer it at all, so mine is not even "none". If someone asks if I'm gay, none of your

business, unless it's a nice guy that's seem interested in me, then I'll politely say no, but thanks for the compliment.

[MurrayDelph]

22. Depending on context

I often used the same answer I was taught to use when asked about my aerospace status 40+ years ago: "What's your need to know?"

When I've been admitted to Catholic hospitals and they ask, I've responded "None. Literally."

[keithbvadu2]

2. Many of us are ex-something or lapsed-something.

Many of us are ex-something or lapsed-something.

Organized religion has become more and more political/monetary.

[keithbvadu2]

3. Oftentimes, the method of religion is more important than the God of religion.

[Midnight Writer]

4. My Daddy told me that anyone who tells you they know God's will is either a conman or a fool.

I don't believe any of the religions to which I have been exposed. As a young man, I went to several different churches to check them out. None of them "stuck".

I reckon that makes me unaffiliated.

The closest thing I can think of to describe my beliefs is "There is things going on that you don't know".

[Sucha NastyWoman]

5. Just tell them you are still doing your research

And you’ll let them know once you find the truth.

[Solomon]

63. Perfect answer.

[Earth-shine]

6. Less than none. nt

[gay texan]

7. I thought it was BS from an early age

Glad to see it's on it's way out

[ProfessorGAC]

8. I Would Be A "None"

For 51 years now. I had enough of it at 14.

[smirkymonkey]

51. Same here.

Although I think I was disillusioned at an even earlier age. I was raised Episcopalian, Catholic and Unitarian Universalist (that last part was due to the influence of our NDN pastor whom we were very close to), and I would say that I am still UU, although not really practicing (but who is?)

I like the idea of the UU progressive fellowship, but I am not much of a joiner, however I still very much abide by their principles.

[PortTack]

9. Want to make someone uncomfortable that asks, stare at them in complete silence

[Sucha NastyWoman]

14. My neighbor asked me what church I went to

(This is a common thing to do in Texas)

Anyway when I told her none, she looked at me like she had never considered the possibility of anyone saying that.

[musette_sf]

41. Yep, that's the line

You've just met someone, exchanged names and shaken hands, and the next question is, "And what church do you go to?"

I'd just rattle off the name of the last church at which I'd attended a wedding/baptism/funeral.

[sir pball]

37. Actually, having dealt with my wifes hyper-Evangelical family,

You answer "yes I am Christian. I was baptized Episcopalian. I believe in Christ but probably not the Christ you believe in."

Then they ask what you mean, and you explain you believe in the Sermon on the Mount, and they get very uncomfortable and angry lolololol

[panader0]

10. I'm an agnostic, dyslexic insomniac.

I lay awake at night and wonder if there really is a dog.
Actually, never had a religion, never will.

[USALiberal]

48. Dog??

[panader0]

49. Dyslexic--dog is god spelled backwards.

[Runningdawg]

11. Churches in OK are telling members to answer the question this way.

Just like if anyone asks you if you own a gun the answer is always NO. Even when it's in your pocket. To answer otherwise is to be put on "the list".

[Mariana]

18. They're supposed to deny that they're Christians?

Do I understand correctly?

I thought denying Christ was a bad thing for Christians to do.

[Runningdawg]

25. Not any more. You can't fight the next crusade in prison. Jesus understands.

[Mariana]

28. Hilarious. The majority of the people in the country are Christian.

The overwhelming majority of the people in that state are Christian. And they're too chickenshit to say that they're Christians in that environment? And they imagine they're going to fight some kind of crusade for Jesus?

[Runningdawg]

45. Yes and yes. They truly believe we are hunting them. Who do you think the III% are??

[sir pball]

35. The Episcopal Church explicitly preaches

Against the ownership of guns...so what's your point?

[Runningdawg]

44. My point - That people don't follow EVERY tenant of their religion.

My aunt was a Quaker but it would be a mistake to assume she wouldn't fill you full of buckshot if you stepped on her land without permission. The Baptists preach against drinking and sex. How many Baptists do you know that abstain from either?

[LakeArenal]

12. Hmmm. Name some religions and I'll tell you.

Nope none of those. Thanks for asking.

[sir pball]

34. So you don't think the National Cathedral should be religious? nt

[LakeArenal]

40. More like I don't care if the National Cathedral is religious.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

42. Funny

[ARPad95]

13. A big fat NONE! I finally realized it's mostly about feeding the blackholes of existence of

narcissistic males who can't stand feeling they're not special nor their god's gift to the world.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. "unaffliated" covers a vast range, as this religious person (who denies she is religious) shows

"embracing a spiritual but not religious life" - but " she blends rituals at an altar, chanting Buddhist, Taoist and Hindu mantras and paying homage to her ancestors as she meditates and prays". I mean, that's religion. It's not communal religion, but those are religious rituals, from many sources. She's more religious than most members of organised religions.

In fact, the average "religiously unaffiliated" American is more religious, in many respects, than the average Western European Christian. The article points to this 2018 survey:

In fact, by several measures of religious commitment, religiously unaffiliated people in the U.S. are as religious as – or in some cases even more religious than – Christians throughout Western European countries. For example, while 20% of U.S. “nones” pray daily, only 6% of Christians in the UK do so. And religiously unaffiliated Americans are about twice as likely as German Christians to believe in God with absolute certainty (27% vs. 12%).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/05/u-s-adults-are-more-religious-than-western-europeans/

W Euro Christians and US unaffiliated are about matched on "religion is very important in their lives". More US religiously unaffiliated pray daily than W Euro Christians. More are certain that God exists. W Euro Christians just go to church more often.

[mvd]

16. Spiritual

I lean Christian in my philosophy, but I do not want to be bound by a particular religion.

[Wicked Blue]

17. Unitarian Universalist pagan nt

[Hekate]

24. Love the UUs

I haven’t gotten involved with CUUPS, though — yet

[Wicked Blue]

29. CUUPs didn't interest me, to be honest

Both of our local congregations have pagans who sometimes conduct services. My congregation had a lovely winter solstice service this past Sunday. I think the Rockville congregation's pagans will celebrate this coming Sunday but am unsure if it will be an actual service or a separate event Sunday evening.

[Hekate]

32. sigh. I moved 4+ years ago and never managed to really hook up with the local UUs...

…tho I am on their mailing list. I did have a couple of friends who spoke highly of CUUPS, but I also was not really drawn to them.

[sir pball]

26. Episcopal Agnostic here

I was baptized Episc, lapsed ages ago...but given how progressive the Episcopal Church is, I'm finding it useful to reaffirm my faith. I'm as Christian as the Falwells, if I wish to be.

[Wicked Blue]

30. I was raised Lutheran but gave that up in my late teens nt

[FakeNoose]

19. I was raised a Catholic but I rarely attend church anymore

The thing is, I don't think I'll ever have a desire to join another religion. In that respect I haven't actually "quit" being a Catholic. I'm just not a very good one, and I refuse to buy into their Catholic-guilt trip that they've used to control women for the last 1,000+ years.

[albacore]

20. I was raised Irish Catholic....but now I'm an American.

(George Carlin)

[sarcasmo]

21. Had None on my dog tags in the late 80's and still None.

[Elessar Zappa]

23. I don't adhere to any particular religion.

I think there might be a higher power and other things we can’t explain (I’ve had a few paranormal experiences that I have no rational answer for).

[old as dirt]

27. I'm atheist and my wife is Roman Catholic.

One of the very first things that my wife told me about her religion when we first met was Los Funerales del Angelitos:

[Skittles]

31. I don't need such nonsense to be a good person

END of fucking story

[sir pball]

33. That's nice. The government has endorsed "nonsense" though

If not explicitly, at least by their choice of the Cathedral where
major national religious services including laying former heads of state and other important folx to rest happens - we admit it's a religious, a Christian thing. At least it's the the least harmful denomination by a long shot.

Would you rather Bob Dole be eulogized in an anti-human rights Church, such as a Catholic cathedral?

Or do you think it should be an explicitly non-religious ceremony on the Capitol lawn?

[Skittles]

38. people can have what they want

I am just sick of being told I have to respect other people's delusions, and I am especially tired of its influence on our Supreme Court.

[quaker bill]

36. I have made it fairly obvious

the handle is accurate. Being non-creedal, we generally do not abide the term "religion" that much...

[iemanja]

39. In a hospital, I respond, "why?"

"Do you plan on killing me?" They never seem to find it as funny as I do.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

43. Every time

I go to a psych unit they ask what my religion is.

I tell them I have no religion but like to engage in some woo from time to time.

[Buckeyeblue]

46. I'm sure some ambitious preachers are paying attention

Religion follows the money. As soon as there is money in an open, accepting church that embraces human rights and denounces hate, we will see new magachurches based on such things. New preachers will emerge with a fresh take on the "scriputes."

It's just right now the steady money comes from hate.

Give the people what they want.

[hatrack]

47. After the past six years, not surprising . . .

After six years of megachurches and fundamentalist Christians showing exactly how venal, stupid and vicious they were willing to become in their naked quest for political power by latching onto President Shitstain and both of his Corinthians, no wonder the pews aren't filling like they used to.

Whether it's Joel Osteen not opening his church to flood victims during Hurricane Harvey, Kenneth Copeland's private jet or Jim Bakker's Survival Swill Buckets, the grift has never been more obvious or more repellent.

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. It's a bit more complicated than that.

Six years isn't long enough to produce a significant shift in demographics, and the general populace had been trending away from religion for a long time before TFG took office.

Moreover, it is the mainstream and liberal denominations that seem to be suffering the greatest losses. I don't know that anyone otherwise amenable to the idea of religion would throw up their hands and give up on, say, Episcopalianism, because of what some Southern Baptist a thousand miles away is doing.

People are more educated now than they were fifty years ago. They are more mobile now than they were fifty years ago. The social safety net is wider now than it was fifty years ago. The enticements drawing people into religion are fewer, as are the snares keeping them there.

[hatrack]

55. True enough, though I'd wager events since 2015 are going to accelerate a trend already in place

COVID is likely to speed things up even further.

[Mosby]

64. THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH IS BREAKING APART

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218324514

[VGNonly]

52. My sister is a none

[Greybnk48]

53. I've been a "none" for a very long time.

I used to say I was an atheist, but too many people don't understand that that word means "without religion," not anything more.

I like "nothing in particular." I will use that from now on.

[Goodheart]

54. Atheist since about 12 years old. I'm 68 now.

None of it made any sense to a 12 year old. Adult religionists only shoehorn nonsense into what they want to be true.

[msfiddlestix]

56. I do not believe Pew has the nearly the complete picture

Was this on line survey?

What was their method and and how far did it reach?

Serious question.

I recall in 2004, when I used to have cable and watched the news regularly, there had been an inordinate amount of "We are a Christian Nation" mentions. I'd hear the claim that 85% of the U.S. population identified as Christian. On CNN, all the time.

I intuited that figure just didn't seem credible to me... for a number of obvious reasons. so obvious, it would have seemed people would have taken CNN and cable news to task for making such claims as if it were an absolute fact.

I have no idea if people did complain to CNN about such claims, but CNN continued to use that "data point" in relation to electoral criteria in presidential contests. Kerry and Bush, like that was the "value" people were concerned about and would cast their presidential election vote. I recall the RNC Convention, stage backdrop huge cross lit as if Bush was anointed by GOD.

It was disgusting and infuriating to me. But CNN loved it. I guess viewers never had a problem with it either.

But they didn't have a problem with the obvious WMD lies for justifying invading Iraq either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Here you go:

https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/09/2021-NPORS-Methodology-Statement.pdf

[msfiddlestix]

58. Thank you.

Reading through this Methodology was interesting in that it seems to confirm my intuitions to the extent that the small sampling, relative to the total population isn't nearly sufficient for analyzing % of opinions or beliefs relative to the entire population.

I don't think I worded that quite right. But I don't know how to clarify my meaning any better.


If I'm reading the data accurately enough, 3,937 completed interviews out of 13,491 (or 13, 500 rounded off) arrived at the figure 29% responding. What those responses are exactly in this case, I'm not sure.

Some of the language of the methodology was also confusing to me, using language primarily for statisticians I'm guessing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. Nearly 4,000 respondents is a pretty large sample

Not many surveys have samples that large - most are just about 1,000 people, which gives 95% accuracy of about plus or minus 3%. Since this was a survey designed to show data for certain groups, the 3,937 was weighted - without weighting, it's equivalent to a sample of about 2,000 (see the end of the pdf) which is plus or minus 2%.

[msfiddlestix]

71. yeah I spotted that, but frankly it pretty much went over my head

I mean in terms of understanding the credibility of the final analysis of a question that only one in three bothered to answer, hence the 29% right? Could be I misunderstand that data point?


And does that mean all the responses were the same?

It's ok not to explain... I'm not purposely trying to be obtuse, I'm just dense on the subject and I've always experienced frustration with the reliance of polling that didn't seem to be a genuine accounting of the majority of the population.

To me, 4 or 5 thousand people of roughly 3 million just doesn't cut it.

[Sympthsical]

66. It's a self-selected response - i.e. totally meaningless poll

Makes for a nice clickable conversation piece, but it's not indicative of anything. Only one in three bothered.

Statistics 101 is that self-selected polling is completely pointless if the aim is having an accurate snapshot of a population.

It's meant for headlines about a topic.

[msfiddlestix]

69. that's my uneducated view...

never took Statistics and I don't have the math/analytic skills to understand the subject well enough.

But like you said, Only one in three bothered.

To me does not an accurate assessment make.

Yes, pointless.

[Sympthsical]

70. I have a Research Statistics final in five hours

Sitting here studying my notes while poking around online. So when I saw your subthread, I thought how appropriate to look!

Timely

[msfiddlestix]

72. oh my gosh, good luck!

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. Polling companies have no way in law to force people to answer their surveys

Jeez, even the government can't do that, apart from the census. So all you're saying is "all polls are useless, because people aren't coerced into answering them".

The "selection" here was "will you answer the National Public Opinion Reference Survey"?

[Sympthsical]

74. The Census does a lot more than that

It looks at multiple forms of extensive data. The surveys are just part of it.

That said, self-selective response is unreliable. What happens is you end up with people who are motivated to respond. The strongest feelings are likelier to respond. It's Statistics 101. That's why online polls aren't taken as indicative. The only people who are going to bother with them are the people who care about the things.

Look at the methodology of this poll. They physically mailed the survey. Right there, you're losing people who don't open things they're unfamiliar with. They put $2 in there. There's actually a reason for this. People who are given a dollar feel more obligated to give something back. That's why religious hucksters looking for money with "prosperity gospel" will often send dollar bills with their requests. It's a psychological tactic.

So, you have this survey from a stranger. You then have to go online and enter a password to take the survey. Let's be honest, are you doing that? I sure as hell am not. Only so many hours in the day. I'm an apathetic agnostic without strong feelings about religion. I'd take the $2 and throw the rest right in the trash. Which is precisely what the overwhelming majority of people who got the survey did.

Who's going to the computer and filling all this out? Do you think those responses are going to look the same as those of people who don't care enough to bother?

There's a reason these kinds of polls are done for social commentary and media purposes. Scientists would never use them, because the drawbacks are significant and well-known.

But they make interesting headlines sometimes.

Edit: Quick edit. A lot of marketing research actually compensates people. Maybe you don't have a strong opinion about yogurt. You like some kinds but not others. If someone sent you a survey in the mail, you probably wouldn't return it. We are not all Terry Crewes. But what if someone pays you $50 to have an opinion about yogurt? The motivation isn't about how strongly you feel about yogurt, it's about the $50 you're getting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. Again, all you're saying is "only the census is meaningful"

This is nothing like "an online poll" - which most people use to mean "do you want to answer a poll about X"?. I know you know that, because you've got an exam in Research Statistics in 2 hours. This is a general poll. Yes, you describe the attitude of someone who say "I will never take any poll" well. But, since there is no coercion involved, no-one, apart from the government census, can get answers out of people like that.

When you say "these kind of polls", you mean "polls". If, in your career in research statistics, you are going to reject all surveys and polls, then good luck.

[Sympthsical]

76. You didn't really address any part of what was said

Self-selected response polls are unreliable. It's as simple as that. They sent out over 13,000 surveys in the mail and got under 4,000 responses. It's there in the methodology.

Mix in a lot of confounding factors introduced by the methodology, and there's no reason to take the poll as significant in any way.

I can't even tell what your argument is other than people do self-selecting polls all the time.

Which is true. But just because there are a lot of shitty polls out there doesn't mean we should be taking shitty polls as indicative.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. Can you describe a poll, other than the census, that is not "self-selecting" under your definition?

You haven't tried to so far; all you've done is say "people had to agree to take the poll, therefore it's unreliable".

[Sympthsical]

78. It's literally Chapter 1 in any elementary statistics text

"Voluntary response samples are often non-representative of the population."

You are going to find either that exact sentence or something very close to it in the very first chapter of beginner statistics books.

Now, when you're doing something like political polling, you have to account for these things. For example, for years people discussed the use of landlines vs. cell phones. Most credible outfits have changed around their methodologies to account for that. They'll introduce all kinds of controls and strategies so that the sample they get can be thought of as representative of the population. And even then, they run into all kinds of things like social desirability bias, where people will lie in response because they feel social pressure to hide or obscure how they really feel. Quite a few Trump voters in that one.

In this poll, they relied purely on voluntary response. You'll get a result - you get that from any sample. But will it be representative of the population? Probably not. Why not? The voluntary response leading to stronger feelings likelier to result in a response. Some political populations are more suspicious than others about being asked personal questions. Also, computer literacy and access to the internet. Younger respondents and those with higher education are more likely to take the time to hop on the internet to answer.

I don't really care about this poll. I'm not religious in any way, and I think the population is getting less religious over time. It just piqued my interest because the poster asked about the methodology, so I took a peek since I'm sitting here with my statistics notes open and looking for a distraction.

Ironically, my final in 2.5 hours isn't even about any of this. It's all about hypothesis testing and getting good results during clinical research with P-values and things. It's interesting enough.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. So, all polls outside the census are self-selecting, according to you

Obviously, your approach means there is no way of "accounting for these things". You are saying that it's impossible to do so when people only answer voluntarily. It hasn't reached the level of landline v. cell phone - you are demanding answers forced from some people against their will, whether face to face, by mail, by phone or online.

You're unwilling to describe how you would force these answers. I presume you realise it's unfeasible, and therefore you are just saying "pay no attention to any poll".

[Dial H For Hero]

59. I'm a theological noncognitivist, myself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

[msfiddlestix]

61. None, as in Non Believer and Anti-Religious Organizations Across the Spectrum

They're all cults of one sort or another, in my view.

[Emile]

62. When asked, I say just like our founding fathers Deism!

Most people are too stupid to know that our founding fathers were on the most part Deists!

[Sympthsical]

68. Self-selected response with a 30% response rate. Doesn't mean anything

Also a problem in the methodology. Mailed questionnaire with online response has some confounding factors.

This poll literally means nothing.

[Xolodno]

79. Various religions at one point used their funds to...

build hospitals, parks, orphanages, donate to schools, build community centers, help the less fortunate, etc. regardless of religion. This is what put butts in the pews. People knew their donations went to helping the immediate community.

Now you got religious retreats that look like universities. Churches with state of the art auditoriums that make city version look cheap. And how do they keep getting people to "join", "confrontational evangelism", that is, using scare tactics to get you to convert.

Problem is, it doesn't keep people in the church. Churches that push politics, do little for the community, frequent condemnation sermons, etc. Often leaves people disillusioned, and so they leave. Where in the past, you saw the good it did for others vs. the pastor having a nicer car than you today.

They only have themselves to blame as their congregations shrink.