Religious Diversity May Be Making America Less Religious

[The Thinker]

Interesting....

Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/religious-diversity-may-be-making-america-less-religious/

Americans who report greater religious diversity among their close friends and family are less likely to engage in religious activities. Sixty-three percent of Americans who have religiously diverse social networks say they seldom or never attend religious services, compared with only about one-third (32 percent) of those who count coreligionists as their closest friends and family members. This is true for religious Americans as well. In fact, even when controlling for different demographic attributes, including religious identity, Americans with more religiously diverse social networks demonstrate lower rates of religious participation and are less apt to say religion is important in their lives than other Americans.

Religious diversity could even subvert our initial exposure to religion. Religiously mixed marriages are more common than ever, and Americans raised by parents of different faiths report much lower levels of religious activity in childhood than those raised in religiously unified households. Nearly 6 in 10 (58 percent) Americans raised by parents who shared the same religious background say they attended religious services weekly or more often. Only 40 percent of Americans raised in religiously mixed households report attending services regularly as children. Americans raised in mixed religious households are also less likely to have prayed regularly with their family and to have attended Sunday school.

© Copyright Original Source

cox-religious-diversity-1.jpg

religious.PNG

[shunyadragon]

What is the alternative that you propose?

[Bill the Cat]

How sad...

[shunyadragon]

I believe the fact that people are less religious today is a trend beginning in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment of the progressive increased knowledge of science, philosophy, history and education in the world that continues today. The rise of skeptical philosophers in this period in part gave rise to questioning blind traditional belief in traditional religion. It also parallels the rise of universities. It is no wonder that conservatives consider universities hot beds of liberalism, secularism, immorality, and other negative criticisms of history. The trend over this period that continues today is the more people are educated, the more they are less religious, particularly in the sciences.

I believe the diversity of religious beliefs of the world as a whole actually has not historically changed much accept for the increase in atheist and agnostic beliefs. What has changed is the mixing of this diversity within the western countries. This diversity is resisted strongly in the Arab world and in varying degrees in other cultures.

[demi-conservative]

What is the alternative that you propose?

[shunyadragon]

. . . and fortunately the Pope no longer rules the Christian world, and ah . . . the Inquisitions are passe, except for Home Land Security.

[HumbleThinker]

Interesting....

Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/religious-diversity-may-be-making-america-less-religious/

Americans who report greater religious diversity among their close friends and family are less likely to engage in religious activities. Sixty-three percent of Americans who have religiously diverse social networks say they seldom or never attend religious services, compared with only about one-third (32 percent) of those who count coreligionists as their closest friends and family members. This is true for religious Americans as well. In fact, even when controlling for different demographic attributes, including religious identity, Americans with more religiously diverse social networks demonstrate lower rates of religious participation and are less apt to say religion is important in their lives than other Americans.

Religious diversity could even subvert our initial exposure to religion. Religiously mixed marriages are more common than ever, and Americans raised by parents of different faiths report much lower levels of religious activity in childhood than those raised in religiously unified households. Nearly 6 in 10 (58 percent) Americans raised by parents who shared the same religious background say they attended religious services weekly or more often. Only 40 percent of Americans raised in religiously mixed households report attending services regularly as children. Americans raised in mixed religious households are also less likely to have prayed regularly with their family and to have attended Sunday school.

© Copyright Original Source

[ATTACH=CONFIG]18069[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]18070[/ATTACH]

One factor that may be important is the perceived size and scope of a religious group. In a religiously diverse area, any one particular religious group will likely be smaller and wield less social power or importance than a more homogeneously religious area. This may lead to less social engagement with any religious group. When everyone and their mom in your area is, for instance, a Baptist, you will almost inevitably be more engaged in that social group.

[One Bad Pig]

I'd think that this would be sort of obvious. If religion is very important to you, then you're likely to form social and familial connections with those who think likewise. If religion is less important to you, then you're more likely to form connections based on other things.

[One Bad Pig]

. . . and fortunately the Pope no longer rules the Christian world, and ah . . . the Inquisitions are passe, except for Home Land Security.

Constantine was never a pope, the pope has never ruled the Christian world, and the Inquisitions had zilch to do with Constantine. Further, Constantine is known for the Edict of Milan, which proclaimed religious freedom, not conformity.

Other than that, you're batting .000 as usual.

[One Bad Pig]

Don't you mean

53f9ca9c697cc21b03f54b49003ec878.jpg?

[shunyadragon]

Don't you mean

[ATTACH=CONFIG]18074[/ATTACH]?

I would say both.

[shunyadragon]

Constantine was never a pope, the pope has never ruled the Christian world, and the Inquisitions had zilch to do with Constantine. Further, Constantine is known for the Edict of Milan, which proclaimed religious freedom, not conformity.

Other than that, you're batting .000 as usual.

You not telling the whole story about Constantine. first he was definitely the first leader of the Christian world. My reference to Popes was the history of Christianity when indeed the Pope ruled by religious mandate the Christian world, until the break up of Roman Christianity. The claim stands, but the fact faded with history.

Source: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/claims.htm

Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility.
(Quoadea quoeconcernunt papae dignitatem, auctoritatem, seu potestatem, et infallibilitatem.)

#1. "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God."
(#1. "Papa tantae est dignitatis et cesitudinis, ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus, et Dei vicarius.")

#13. "Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions."
(#13. Hinc Papa triplici corona coronatur tanquam rex coeli, terre et infernoram.")

#18. "As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth, Sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plentitude of unbroken power, entrusted by the omnipotent God to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms."

(#18. "Deveniendo ad Papae auctoritatem, Papa est quasi Deus in terra unicaus Christifidelium princeps, regum omnium rex maximus, plenitudinem potestatis continens, cui terreni simul, ac coelestis imperii gubernacula ab omnipotenti Deo credita sunt.")

#30. "The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws."
(#30. "Papa tantae est auctoritatis et potestatis, ut possit quoque leges divinas modificare, declarare, vel interpretari, ad num.")

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

You not telling the whole story about Constantine.

Of course not. I'm merely correcting errors.

first he was definitely the first leader of the Christian world.

No. He was the first openly Christian emperor. Further, his leadership was temporal, not spiritual; you're making a category error.

My reference to Popes was the history of Christianity when indeed the Pope ruled by religious mandate the Christian world, until the break up of Roman Christianity. The claim stands, but the fact faded with history.

The Pope was the spiritual leader of Western Christianity from maybe the 4th to early 16th century. He was never the temporal ruler of more than a small segment of Italy.

Source: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/claims.htm

Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility.
(Quoadea quoeconcernunt papae dignitatem, auctoritatem, seu potestatem, et infallibilitatem.)

#1. "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God."
(#1. "Papa tantae est dignitatis et cesitudinis, ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus, et Dei vicarius.")

#13. "Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions."
(#13. Hinc Papa triplici corona coronatur tanquam rex coeli, terre et infernoram.")

#18. "As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth, Sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plentitude of unbroken power, entrusted by the omnipotent God to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms."

(#18. "Deveniendo ad Papae auctoritatem, Papa est quasi Deus in terra unicaus Christifidelium princeps, regum omnium rex maximus, plenitudinem potestatis continens, cui terreni simul, ac coelestis imperii gubernacula ab omnipotenti Deo credita sunt.")

#30. "The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws."
(#30. "Papa tantae est auctoritatis et potestatis, ut possit quoque leges divinas modificare, declarare, vel interpretari, ad num.")

© Copyright Original Source

...and the Google scholar strikes again. This is wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand, and is further an anti-Catholic site with a bunch of stuff presented sans context. Most people back down when proven wholly wrong. You double down instead.

[shunyadragon]

Of course not. I'm merely correcting errors.

No. He was the first openly Christian emperor. Further, his leadership was temporal, not spiritual; you're making a category error.

I do not believe this is correct. Constantine at the time claimed both.

The Pope was the spiritual leader of Western Christianity from maybe the 4th to early 16th century. He was never the temporal ruler of more than a small segment of Italy.

The temporal leadership was not what I referred to, but the Pope believed he ruled over the Kings in the Christian Western Europe a the time, and they acknowledged that up until the break up of the Protestant reformation. Since yes indeed the Papal claim is specifically the only true spiritual leader of the Christian world as specifically cited from the documents of the Roman Church.

...and the Google scholar strikes again. This is wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand, and is further an anti-Catholic site with a bunch of stuff presented sans context. Most people back down when proven wholly wrong. You double down instead.

Google cites legitimate sources. This is a legitimate source in this case, the Roman Church itself, and very relevant concerning the claim of the Roman Church and the Popes concerning their spiritual sovereignty over the Christian World. Attacking Google does not address the issue

[One Bad Pig]

Google cites legitimate sources. This is a legitimate source in this case, the Roman Church itself, and very relevant concerning the claim of the Roman Church and the Popes concerning their spiritual sovereignty over the Christian World. Attacking Google does not address the issue

Derp. I wasn't even attacking Google. You can believe what you want; I'm done trying to correct you.