Via Punkass Marc, there’s an interesting survey that’s been put out by the Barna Group that indicates that younger people are turning away from Christianity, especially evangelical Christianity, in droves. There’s even a chart:
It’s kind of interesting, because it’s clear that the Barna Group is basically in the business of what you might call market-driven religion, and their research is self-interested in that sense—while it’s alarming to most of the ministers and other assorted Bible-thumpers that this research is meant for, Barna actually will profit if there’s a sense that kids are running away from religion. More fear, more pamphlets and Christian rock albums sold to bring the kids back in. That said, the research is still interesting:
Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%) - representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians. The most common favorable perceptions were that Christianity teaches the same basic ideas as other religions (82%), has good values and principles (76%), is friendly (71%), and is a faith they respect (55%).
Even among young Christians, many of the negative images generated significant traction. Half of young churchgoers said they perceive Christianity to be judgmental, hypocritical, and too political. One-third said it was old-fashioned and out of touch with reality.
Interestingly, the study discovered a new image that has steadily grown in prominence over the last decade. Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is “anti-homosexual.” Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a “bigger sin” than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.
In other words, the kids aren’t stupid. They realize that all the singing and clapping is just a cover story for a hateful patriarchy that’s particularly obsessed with bashing gays and lesbians. This is almost assuredly not what the Barna Group’s customers want to hear, and you can tell they know it because they use such parsing language about “perceptions”, a word that gives unfair weight to the untrue concept that the kids who express these views are perceiving anything but the unvarnished reality. It’s also evidence of something the Democrats would do well to realize about the issue of gay rights, which is that it’s quickly becoming a winning issue—the younger generations don’t have the taste for gay-bashing their elders do, so if you want to get them, the pro-gay stance is what to chase.
Of course, there’s another possible explanation—kids are being drawn to the one true faith of Discoballmousetarianism. The Disco Ball is very pro-gay, for one thing. And, unlike the Christian god, the Disco Ball shows itself to the faithful all the time, in some cases rather forcefully. Some might say that this incident was a show of bad judgment and not at all a reasonable recruiting strategy, but it’s not ours to judge the way of the all-knowing, all-glittering Disco Ball.
49 Responses to “Kids abandon dusty old god, pick up shiny new rotating one”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Follow the sandal!
Oh, and as far as Discowhatchamacallitism, the one true faith is The Way of the Snorrior. Snoring is a sacrament. Just ask my wife.
yeah but how many believe in FSM?
Or the Church of Caturday Saints?
Don’t celebrate quite yet: http://visionarydaughters.com/
ack, pooh, oh god, I feel so dirty… I clicked on the feminism video
http://visionarydaughters.com/2007/09/return-of-the-daughters-update-6
and she homeschools
My kids are evangelical pastafarians, except that nasty anti-religious public school won’t let the younger one pastaletize by sharing his noodles.
I like tending my patch of the Great Soul whether it hooks up directly to the mothership or not. It’s a good place to be and there’s always extra space for others.
pardon my link-whoring but why would anyone who follows the news expect any different trend?
how dare anyone question the FSM!
You think that vid is scary, clytemnestra? Mrs. Chancey, as she is known, is also a contributor to this site: Ladies Aginst Feminism! *shudders* That place gives me the willies!!
My eyes, they burn! I should not have clicked the link to Visionary Daughters. Y’know, I never knew that feminism was all about ending marriage and childbearing (through teh evil abortion no less!). I need to bleach my brain.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer religion.
With ya’ history mom. Had to click off the ‘visionary daughters’. Thought I was going to puke.
In other words, the kids aren’t stupid. They realize that all the singing and clapping is just a cover story for a hateful patriarchy that’s particularly obsessed with bashing gays and lesbians.
They also grasp that going to church is, more often than not, goddamn boring, and the constant moralizing puts a serious damper on your fun. The kids who embrace the prudery are usually the ones who are afraid of sex and trying to convince themselves that they’re not getting laid because they’re good people. And I have a special hatred for people who encourage kids’ insecurities instead of letting them work through them.
I think you’re right about the possibility that the Barna group wants to get exactly these results. It helps them generate worry in their customers, and thus sell their products better.
Also, a couple things about the poll look kind of dodgy to me. Most poll analysis doesn’t segue into a ‘buy this book’ message at the end, as theirs does. I also can’t find sample size /MoE information or any internals beyond the age information.
Which isn’t to say that I dislike these guys. Their results open the door for a neat kind of concern trolling against the right, which I’m happy enough to see.
This just in:
People have no problem with Christianity, just Christians.
Is Ric Romero starting a blog?
The demise of Christianity has been predicted as far back as the 1700s. Voltaire and Thomas Paine believed it would go away in a century or so. Obviously, that didn’t happen, and neither will this. What will happen is that the most objectionable features of modern fundamentalism - many of which have little or no scriptural justification to begin with - will be jettisoned. The result, in the end, will be a stronger and better faith - one more focused on the core teachings of Jesus and less obsessed with, say, random Levitical laws.
“The result, in the end, will be a stronger and better faith - one more focused on the core teachings of Jesus and less obsessed with, say, random Levitical laws.”
You better not be wearing polyester.
I like that the single most favorable perception of Christianity is that it “teaches the same basic ideas as other religions”.
So Christianity is at its best where it is indistinguishable from any other religion? Now there’s an endorsement.
If you enjoyed reading about this trend and want to gain the perspective of one particular kind of dropout from the blinded world of the religious, read this post by Shelly at the Seed mag. science blogs. She seems to be a case in point. Whether or not her story is a matter of a person being a little too intelligent and inquisitive to stay in the narrow groove of churchy life is the question I was left with. The comment thread there is relatively high quality for such an inflammable topic.
I was leafing through their book, unChristian in the bookstore and I can’t say I’m impressed with them. They do a service by providing actual research that appears both in depth and legitimate, but the central premise of their conclusion is that people perceive Christians negatively because they perceive them to be acting in unChristian ways.
This is a cheap sort of “no true Scotsman” move wherein all objectionable behavior is definitionally excluded from the good and pure Christianity despite the fact that the most objectionable behavior is directly attributable to mainstream Christian dogma.
For example, the section on homosexuality acknowledges that Christians don’t have a good record with the queer community but that there is also much misunderstanding that Christians “really” believe homosexuality is just one sin among many and that it is sin, not sinner, that they despise. That they continue to be under the impression that this itself is grossly insulting shows the continuing influence of bigotry and the doomed efforts to whitewash it. Eventually, they’ll have to choose between dogma and equality. The authors of unChristian aren’t ready to come into the light yet.
Neil, I’ve followed Barna press releases for a few years and I’ve found that in general their results coincide with secular pollsters’ results, when secular pollsters have done comparable studies. That’s just my anecdote, but for what it’s worth, I’ve found them reliable.
Thom, you’re correct, but this behavior is not unique to Barna, and it’s to be expected among all brands of cock-sure ideologues. They are right, always and forever, and all good things derive directly or indirectly from their belief system. Therefore if anyone is doing or saying anything that makes Christianity look bad, it’s because they’re bad Christians, not because something is wrong with Christianity. I don’t know if, in practice, there is any real way for the sufferer to escape this fallacy.
Petey Wheatstraw, that’s a common saying, but I don’t think it’s true. I don’t have any nice things to say about Christianity. I like Christians just fine, though. It’s not their fault they were raised with a poisonous superstition.
Josh G., since these days there’s serious questions about whether there was such a person as this Jesus fellow, I’m not sure that Christianity is perpetually going to be a viable ideology, especially in the West. Some Scandinavian countries are now more agnostic than Christian, and I don’t see that trend reversing. I can’t think of any reason why the same shouldn’t be expected to take hold in America eventually. I won’t say that Christianity is going to disappear in the next century. If by “a stronger and better faith” you mean “fewer and less annoying Christians overall,” I’ll grant that’s likely. However, in the very long haul, Jesus is never coming back, and people are getting tired of waiting. Superstition might never disappear, and it troubles me to say that. Christianity specificially, though, should not be presumed to be perpetually viable, any more than the cults of Jupiter.
What will happen is that the most objectionable features of modern fundamentalism - many of which have little or no scriptural justification to begin with - will be jettisoned.
Hasn’t happened yet, and in fact, in the US, more people now, as a percentage of the population, belong to fundamentalist or evangelical churches than did at the founding of the republic, despite the fact that they openly espouse beliefs that not only fly in the face of science, but of common sense as well. You’ve a far greater faith in humans than I do.
*Ahem*–as a card-carrying pagan, I’d say watch out what you say about the big Sky-Father (Diu-pater==Jupiter.) He throws a mean thunderbolt when he’s pissed.
Grammar RWA: “Josh G., since these days there’s serious questions about whether there was such a person as this Jesus fellow, I’m not sure that Christianity is perpetually going to be a viable ideology, especially in the West.”
Actually, whether they are Christians or not, most historians believe that there was an actual historical Jesus. See this site for some details on the mythology hypothesis. You should note that this is nothing new - a relatively small handful of skeptics have denied the existence of Jesus for over a century. However, such claims have largely been rejected.
Grammar RWA: “However, in the very long haul, Jesus is never coming back, and people are getting tired of waiting.”
That may be true of the Rapturist fringe, but mainstream Christian denominations long ago reconciled themselves to a Second Coming in the distant future. Whether or not Jesus returns to earth in our lifetimes, we can still feed the poor, clothe the naked, heal the sick (*with a little help from modern medical technology, of course), and love our neighbors as ourselves. Or we can at least strive to do these things, knowing that as imperfect humans we will inevitably fall short. Christianity is not just about “pie in the sky when you die.” It is a philosophy that imposes definite obligations towards one’s fellow man.
I don’t have any nice things to say about Christianity. I like Christians just fine, though.
That’s exactly how I feel. It’s ideas that are harmful, not people.
That’s exactly how I feel. It’s ideas that are harmful, not people.
People make religion what it is – not the other way around. If they couldn’t blame their odious activities on Christianity, the assholes of the world would find some other artificial structure by which to assert unearned authority.
Every Christian I talk to says this, but I’ve never seen any accounting for the “most” assertion. High profile Christian historians like Robert M. Price think the myth hypothesis is well supported, so I’m not sure what the Appeal to Authority is supposed to accomplish, anyway. It runs both ways. At this point the individual must approach the question for herself; there’s no packaged answer that anyone can rely on.
I’ve read Christopher Price’s essay that you linked to, and I’ve read Earl Doherty’s response that C. Price honorably links to. I have to say that I find Doherty’s analysis far more convincing.
C. Price assumes not only the existence but the divinity of Jesus, and he dismisses out of hand the “dying and rising god” trope, which, even if Jesus was a real Dude, was obviously tacked on to the Dude’s biography. This makes C. Price laughably credulous in my eyes.
More appeal to authority, but let’s not overlook this: previous incarnations of the myth hypothesis largely centered on only the lack of extrabiblical evidence. Doherty goes further, explaining why Paul writes the way he does (in apparent ignorance of any biographical accounts of the Dude). In doing so he explains facts that the historicity hypothesis has trouble accounting for. That’s a point in mythology’s favor, rather than just a mark against historicity. This is what’s new and interesting to me. I was aware of mythological accounts for years before reading Doherty; I was only recently persuaded.
Telling me what’s specifically wrong with Doherty’s analysis would be great. But not much is accomplished by telling me that lots of folks believe what was already universally assumed true by default.
Are mainstream Christians willing to wait literally forever? Could this be one of the factors in dwindling mainstream affiliation?
Yes, that’s wonderful, and I don’t dismiss the fact that many of you are quite good about this. I wonder if it even begins to make up for the tremendous damage Catholicism (mainstream enough?) does in Africa by telling people that condoms are ineffective at preventing AIDS and family planning is a sin.
I also wonder why you’d want to do all that good work in the name of some Dude who, if he was real, couldn’t be bothered to denounce slavery even though he lived in the middle of a slave-owning society, couldn’t be bothered to speak up for women’s rights even though he had the opportunity to support woman-led religious communities, and was apparently trying to start an isolationist cult.
That’s your choice, and you’re welcome to it. I just don’t understand the appeal at all. The vile book and its glorified blood cult makes me sick. Different strokes.
“Whether or not Jesus returns to earth in our lifetimes, we can still feed the poor, clothe the naked, heal the sick (*with a little help from modern medical technology, of course), and love our neighbors as ourselves.”
Any normal person can do the same things without religion telling them to do so. It’s called human nature. In fact, it’s kind of insulting that you NEED religion to tell you how to act toward others.
As for the “historical” record on Jesus, it’s been proven time and time again that he is based on previous Pagan and Egyptian myths.
No doubt, and they already do. Christianity and other religions just have the added bonus that it’s socially taboo to criticize them, and “oh but I have faith” gets to be presented as a legitimate argument.
Such religions also crystallize forms of institutionalized assholery that gets passed pretty much intact from generation to generation. This is what I mean; people are raised and indoctrinated into these ideas while they are young and credulous, and it hurts them. I don’t think it’s particularly controversial to say that religion makes into assholes people who might not otherwise be assholes. Along with capitalism and a dozen other institutions, it it not unique in this regard.
If they couldn’t blame their odious activities on Christianity, the assholes of the world would find some other artificial structure by which to assert unearned authority.
Some would and some wouldn’t. Meanwhile, there are a lot of otherwise sane people blinded by religion, and most of them are good, decent people who deserve better.
Actually that’s false. I don’t think Christians are any worse, as a group, as any other group selected by religious or other broad identity categories, as people. Nor am I an atheist, convinced that religion or spirituality as such is evidence of brain damage. But having been raised a Christian (the same denomination as yours, Petey, if I remember your self-identifications correctly) I always had qualms and issues with the doctrines themselves. The way I’d characterize it now is, that Christianity was founded as a patriarchial religion and so perpetuates all manner of unnecessary heebie-jeebies, connected with sexuality for the most part.
I could get more nuanced than that, and argue that within the patriarchial, dominator, paradigms, Christianity has some subversive messages and implications. But my personal experience has been, that this subversion resulted in my questioning the very foundations of the religion and leaving it completely. I know plenty of cool, unpatriarchial Christians. But I don’t know how they do it; I guess if I did I’d be one of them. For me, there is no keeping the Baby Jesus while throwing out the filthy dominator bathwater.
It has nothing to do with the observation that lots of loud-mouthed holy rollers are hypocritical scum of the first water. Jesus himself warned us against such “Scribes and Pharisees.” The thing is that even with that warning and lots of others embedded in the standard scriptures–not even hidden away among the more obscure textual luggage, but in the standard cycle of readings favored by, for instance, the standard Catholic liturgy–the very thing they warn against not only occurs, but dominates, through history and in the present day. You can chant “Christianity would be a fine thing if only someone tried it” all you like, but after 2000 years I think it’s had a fair trial period, don’t you?
I’m not sure that the chart supports the premise. Turn it around and it shows that as people get older they get more religious. Woo, what a surprise! At best this chart shows that teenagers like to dis their elders. That’s only been going on for about 2,000 years. Tell me something new. How about a chart showing how the attitudes of teenagers toward religion have changed over the last 40 years?
the problem is, too many of these young people are turning to other bullshit belief systems, like buddhism and paganism - instead of simply relying on science and reason, and giving up on infantile supposition that there is anything beyond this life.
the problem is, too many of these young people are turning to other bullshit belief systems, like buddhism and paganism - instead of simply relying on science and reason, and giving up on infantile supposition that there is anything beyond this life.
You’re not merely an atheist, who lacks belief in a god or the afterlife; but (for want of a better term) an anti-theist as well - and I would suggest that your aggressive position as such makes you just as dogmatic and annoying as the fundies.
name one good thing that has come from any theism - that couldn’t just as easily have come from an atheistic position, and I’ll eat my hat.
“Anti-theist”? How about anti- “misogynistic, patriarchal, keep-the-masses-afraid-of-death”
I would suggest that you don’t understand the definition of the word “dogma”.
“Annoying” is a subjective judgment, and there’s not much we can do about your reactions. But if you want people to stop saying that Buddhism and neopaganism are bullshit, well, I’d rather speak the facts without censoring myself for your sensitivities.
I think the Disco Ball at least lets its subjects know it exists.
Of course, modern young people may be lured by reading the LOLcatbible.
What I see in Jennie Chancie’s eyes is pop-eyed fear. Like she might have to join the human race, which contains non-whites, Muslims and Athiests. And Women Against Feminism is the Worst Blog in the World.
Those home schoolers don’t get around much. They are trying to make money by blogging about their putrid little experiences, because they won’t leave their spawn and go get a job like normal women do.
I truly have never seen anyone so full of shit as Chancie, with the possible exception of Ann Althouse.
I thought this was a strange statement. I’m an atheist, and I don’t think belief in a god is evidence of brain damage, any more than I think trust in capitalism is such. These people are just wrong, They aren’t, for the most part, mentally ill. Everybody is wrong about something.
HATE in ALL it’s forms does not your point MAKE.
Bigotry is bigotry, recognize yours.
Nothing gives you the right to judge and jury those women. They are women remember? They can be taught wrong. Them teaching theirs their belief is their business. When it comes to misogynistic bullshit, you’re right up there with them.
Besides that fact, maybe because of them being MOTHERS, they couldn’t otherwise get a job. I know I can’t. I am labeled “stupid”….. By people like you with this sort of attitude, or belief.
I don’t care if you insult their religion, their way of teaching or even living their lives. BUT DON’T bring in their GENDER. It’s perpetuating everything feminists are fighting for!
and it’s certainly NOT feminist to do it.
I disagree. No one has the right to victimize children. Indoctrination with damaging, demonstrable lies should be called child abuse.
Call me a bigot if it makes you feel better.
All better now?
GRAMMAR:
From ye olde American Heritage dictionary:
Hunter’s comment – essentially, that religious beliefs are infantile regardless of why people hold them – fits that definition very well.
HUNTER:
There’s nothing good that comes out of theism that can’t just as easily come from an ethical philosophy that doesn’t require belief a god. You won’t get any argument from me there.
Armchair evo-psych-spewing bullshit artists – those who argue that women are under-represented in management jobs because they have some mommy instinct or just aren’t hard-wired for command, etc. – are no less misogynistic than religious nuts.
Believers in ‘race-based’ intelligence, who argue that third-world countries shouldn’t get financial aid because blacks are too innately stupid to use that aid wisely, also claim scientific proof for their theories.
Proponents of eugenics believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that evolution has a natural direction (from less complex to more etc.); and that our unwillingness to improve the stock through selective breeding is somehow an objective evil.
You and I agree that theism doesn’t produce any social benefits that cannot be attained through adherence to other philosophies, but you seem to think religion is a special kind of evil – a thing that creates social ills that wouldn’t otherwise exist.
I don’t think so. The sorts of people who would use fear and inequality as weapons of oppression would merely move on to some other philosophy if they didn’t have religion to kick around.
Exactly. There is not much of a difference between a crusade, a jihad, and a Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
Christianity is a large and diverse religion. What is far more interesting than whether or not one is a Christian is the type of Christianity they choose to follow. Some types of Christianity are full of fear and anger. Their God is wrathful and vengeful. Other types of Christianity are loving, accepting, and tolerant.
People choose to follow the version that makes them most comfortable. Read a few right wing commentators, if you can do so without getting nauseous. These people are genuinely angry that their mainline denomination doesn’t hate as much as they do. Mike Adams joined a Southern Baptist Church because they really don’t like gays. (Methinks the lady doth protest too much.) Hugh Hewitt chose the mostly undiluted Calvinism of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) because the Catholic Church “issued reams of nonsense and met and met and met even as the liturgy collapsed into incoherence and the preaching dissolved into eight-minute homilies on the need for love.” (Emphasis mine) Ted Byfield believes that Americans go to church more than Canadians because Americans need God because American fight wars and Canadians don’t. The implied point of his article is that war is good for the faith, which creates a frightening military-industrial-theological complex.
As right-wing money makes this the public face of Christianity, no one should be surprised when people who reject this right-wing hate are rejecting Christianity.
The Devil’s Advocate,
Your arguments are fallacious and your pets are ugly.
GRAMMAR:
You have the gall to call my argument fallacious even while tarring me - “a Wesboro Apologist,” you said - for hosting an entirely unrelated website? You should crack the dictionary and look up the word ‘hypocrite.’
I must assume you are referring to ad hominem. But merely tarring you does not constitute the ad hominem fallacy.
The fallacy is of a specific form: “you are wrong because you are a Westboro apologist”.
“You are wrong and you are a Westboro apologist” is not a fallacy. It’s just mean.