Fewer Christians In U.S.
A Pew study shows the number of Christians in the United States is diminishing.
“The United States remains home to more Christians than any other country in the world,” with 70.6 percent of its population, or 173 million adults, identifying as Christian last year, the Pew Research Center said.
But that figure is down from 2007 when 78.4 percent called themselves Christian, Pew said in its 200-page study, titled “America’s Changing Religious Landscape.”
The decline is seen across many segments of American society, including whites, Latinos, women, men and those with or without a college education.
But it is particularly marked among younger American, and concerns Roman Catholics as much as mainstream Protestants.
At the same time, Christians are also a more diverse group, a reflection of the growing Latino population, the study found.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
38 responses to Fewer Christians In U.S.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
William May 12th, 2015 at 09:35
Thanks Obama.
cecilia May 12th, 2015 at 18:21
LOL, genius!
Budda May 12th, 2015 at 10:46
I think of religion as a cultural phenomenon as a desire/sense of belonging; tribal, clannish, fraternal. With transportation and communication being what it is today that need to belong is accomplished in other forms rather than just going to church on Sunday.
dewired4u May 12th, 2015 at 12:52
Children are indoctrinated by adults if they weren’t there wouldn’t be many religious people because it makes no sense and requires an interpreter to understand the instructions.
Dwendt44 May 12th, 2015 at 12:56
True that.
If you were born in Israel, you’d likely be Jewish. Born in Iraq, you’d be Muslim. Born in the US, you were likely programed as a christian.
The programing doesn’t always take, and the more intelligent you are the less religious you tend to be. The more educated you are, the less religious you tend to be. Add the two and you tend to escape religion all together.
Larry Schmitt May 12th, 2015 at 15:41
Sounds like a winning philosophy to me. More education = less religion.
Budda May 12th, 2015 at 13:39
That too.
Fossil1944 May 12th, 2015 at 10:51
Having read the good christian comments for the past 6+ years, and after giving much consideration to the subject of christianity, I wish to exercise the Groucho Marx clause; “I would not be a member of any organization that would have me as a member”. So make that one hundred and seventy some million christians – one.
rational_thinking_one May 12th, 2015 at 12:27
Thank you Jesus!
Dwendt44 May 12th, 2015 at 12:45
I would think most religions would reach their ‘sell by’ date sooner or later. Christianity lasted longer than it should have. The errors and contradictions in the bible, few if any christians actually reading that book, the absurdity of many of it’s positions and claims, the list goes on.
Science, research, archeology and just rational thinking has undermined the whole belief system.
Dwendt44 May 12th, 2015 at 12:52
They still make up over 90% of prison inmates though.
David Ish May 12th, 2015 at 14:11
Mark Twain said if Jesus Christ if back he would not be a Christian
Dwendt44 May 15th, 2015 at 00:29
As it is, Jesus is the only Jew some christians actually like.
j
Robert M. Snyder May 12th, 2015 at 14:15
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
tracey marie May 12th, 2015 at 14:22
good, the less religion the more sanity there is in the world
Robert M. Snyder May 12th, 2015 at 14:59
A religion is a system of beliefs. Liberalism and conservatism are also systems of belief. Many people are dogmatic about religion. Many people are also dogmatic about political beliefs. Dogmatic adherence to any system of beliefs is insanity. Therefore, you are insane.
Budda May 12th, 2015 at 15:06
and so are you (lol)
bpollen May 12th, 2015 at 15:59
Liberalism and conservatism aren’t a set of beliefs like religion. They don’t start out by first postulating an intangible something and imbuing it with ultimate power. And exceptionally human demeanor, at that. It would be much more correct to describe them as mind-sets.
Robert M. Snyder May 12th, 2015 at 16:16
From a practical standpoint, there is very little difference between religious beliefs and political beliefs. Once a person has become dogmatic about his or her beliefs, they suspend reason.
“The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory.” – Thomas Jefferson
Wee Mousie May 13th, 2015 at 00:20
Which is, of course, one of the several great reasons to maintain a thick wall between politics and religion.
Also, to eschew the charisma of a leader in both fields for the logical examination of the candidate’s platform in politics, and adherence to the teachings of Christ in the other.
Since a Christian actually living according to the precepts laid down for him in the New Testament will usually only come into conflict with the Constitution in times or war, I am always amazed at how zealous for war the “Christian wing” of the Republican Party – teabag and neo-con — really is. No doubt the non Republican Christians should more vocally object, but their objections would likely be received as political opposition.
And yet, I do wish they would give it a try.
Robert M. Snyder May 13th, 2015 at 01:06
I picture the wall of separation in this way. Imagine all of our citizens in a single line. To each person’s left is his minister, priest, rabbi, or imam. To each person’s right is his congressman. Each person’s conscience is informed by his religion. When each person votes, he votes his conscience. The political leaders and the religious leaders are separated by a wall consisting of citizens.
I never much liked seeing Billy Graham visiting the White House. And I don’t much care for a pope who wants to takes sides on global warming. To Christians I would say that Jesus didn’t spend his time trying to change laws. He spent his time trying to change hearts. That is the proper role of religion in a democracy.
jasperjava May 13th, 2015 at 08:20
“I don’t much care for a pope who wants to takes sides on global warming.”
Climate change is probably one of the most pressing moral issues of our time.
How can the Pope not take sides? The Pope has a responsibility to speak out against injustice. Do you think he should remain quiet in the face of what human greed is doing to God’s creation? Do you think he should remain silent about a potential catastrophe that will create untold misery for millions?
You may have chosen the side of the polluters and the wilfully ignorant, that doesn’t mean the Pope should.
Robert M. Snyder May 13th, 2015 at 09:56
I worked in research lab for five years. I learned a few things about how science works. There are too many researchers pursuing too few research dollars. It is highly competitive, and highly political. Researchers who want to obtain research dollars cannot risk offending the people who award the grants. They are in the same predicament as politicians who need to say (or not say) certain things in order to appeal to their base of support.
I am sure that your belief in scientific consensus is sincere. But it is the modern equivalent of papal infallibility.
Scientific consensus has often been wrong in the past. The scientific method is far better than religious superstition, but science is not infallible. If the pope calls for people to be more mindful of their environmental impacts, then I am all for it. But if he begins to assert that scientific consensus is infallible, then we will have the ironic situation of a fallible pope supporting an illusion of scientific infallibility.
jasperjava May 13th, 2015 at 12:31
Your cynical view of science is upside-down. It’s not the research into the effects of global warming that is rife with corruption. It’s the handful of unethical “scientists” who are accepting grants from BP, Shell, etc. to trumpet their line. That’s where the money is.
If you were a scientist who was only looking to line your pockets, you’d be feeding at the deep pockets of the oil companies, not scrounging for meagre government grants.
It’s too bad that some scientists are willing to sacrifice their integrity in order to provide cover for those who profit from climate change denial.
Robert M. Snyder May 13th, 2015 at 13:13
Few would dispute the fact that climate is changing and that mankind has an impact. The difficult part is figuring out how significant those impacts are, and in what ways it makes sense to change our behavior.
Consider the case of Angelina Jolie, who opted to have a mastectomy because she didn’t like her odds of getting cancer. Other women facing the same odds have opted for less invasive approaches, such as changes in diet and exercise. If science could provide women with certainty, then only those who were certain to get breast cancer would undergo prophylactic mastectomies. But science is not able to provide that level of certainty, so women have to weigh the potential costs and benefits of various approaches.
It’s the same with climate science. There is a broad range of things that we can do to alleviate problems. Figuring out which things to do involves weighing the potential costs and benefits. And while the costs are usually easy to predict, the benefits are more difficult to predict, because the science is uncertain. The politicians who need to vote on these matters also provide funding for research. The politicians put a lot of pressure on the scientific community to provide greater certainty. If you’re testifying before Congress, and you answer a question with “I can’t say with certainty.”, you might be putting your future funding at risk.
The National Research Council, in its 2010 report entitled “Precise Geodetic Infrastructure – National Requirements for a Shared Resource” – stated that “Modern geodesy delivers precision to one part per billion, and precision to one part per trillion can be envisioned in the foreseeable future.”. Claims like that stretch credulity and undermine my confidence in the integrity of the scientists who perform this type of research.
Note: An accuracy of one part per billion is equivalent to an error of less than 1/4″ when measuring the distance between two flag poles located in LA and NYC, separated by 2475 miles.
Dwendt44 May 13th, 2015 at 12:26
Global warming affeots the whole planet. So the Pope comments.
American politics is OUR leaders and our problems.
Dwendt44 May 14th, 2015 at 19:44
Of course, political leanings change with conditions and personal interests. Religious beliefs are hard wired and won’t change without some effort and strong reasons, and even then they can’t be changed unless the believer makes a serious effort.
tracey marie May 12th, 2015 at 17:02
bwahahahaha
Wee Mousie May 12th, 2015 at 14:23
Of the 70.6 percent of America’s population which calls itself Christian, what percentage actually behave in a Christ-like manner, or even emulate the manners of Doubting Thomas?.
tracey marie May 12th, 2015 at 14:24
.0001%
Robert M. Snyder May 12th, 2015 at 14:51
During the Baltimore riots, when a small number of blacks were looting, burning, and throwing rocks, the vast majority were sitting in their homes, watching TV, and saying “Crap. We’re all going to be blamed for this.”.
It’s the same thing with religion. When a small number of Muslims or Christians behave badly, all Muslims and all Christians get blamed.
It’s called prejudice. Look it up.
Wee Mousie May 12th, 2015 at 15:21
So, why does the vast majority of Christians who do not feel similarly fail to publicly object to the unchristian statements made by that “small number” of so-called Christians giving the religion in which they believe a black eye, or even question the theology behind those pronouncements?
The Holy Ghost got their tongue!
Robert M. Snyder May 12th, 2015 at 15:46
Substitute Muslim for Christian and you’ll see the same pattern. Why have the vast majority of blacks living in Baltimore not spoken out publically about their objections to looting, burning, and violence? I suspect that most people are preoccupied with earning a living, taking care of children or elderly relatives, and basically just living their lives, peacefully.
Wee Mousie May 12th, 2015 at 23:00
Christians make up 70% of the population, so why should any majority worry about admitting the shortcomings of some of their members. It has never been dangerous to be a Christian, here. Quite the reverse! Especially since those same vocal Christians certainly don’t take a back seat when it comes to pointing out the faults in everything and everybody else. Why then are Christians so shy about confessing their own failings?
But continue with your straw men and your canting. Perhaps you will convert some weak-minded individual.
As this is Wonkette, however, I doubt it.
Robert M. Snyder May 12th, 2015 at 23:22
Let’s get specific. Like most Christians, I am a private citizen. I have never been on TV. I have never been published in a newspaper. What, exactly, would you like to see people like me do?
Wee Mousie May 13th, 2015 at 00:17
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet”. – Matt. 10:14
“But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly”. – Matt. 6:6
allison1050 May 13th, 2015 at 13:36
Now that’s the real question Wee.
Obewon May 12th, 2015 at 20:53
Thank God! First Earth and now America is delivered from our ignorance. Hallelujah!