Good News in Pew's Latest Survey (by Marcia Ford)
Whenever I hear those three little words -- "the latest poll" -- I generally tune out. Pollsters and survey-takers seldom ask the right questions, I've found, so the responses they get are less than reliable. One exception is the surveys conducted by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, and the organization's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, released Monday, June 23, proves why.
The Pew survey not only asks highly specific and carefully worded questions but also asks participants to provide detailed information about themselves. Demographic breakdowns go well beyond, say, the evangelical/mainline divide to subgroups such as Baptists in the evangelical tradition, the mainline tradition, or the historically black church traditions; mainline Christians who pray daily and regularly attend church services; and Catholics who consider religion to be very important in their lives.
So we know who Pew talked to, and that makes the results of this survey particularly compelling -- and encouraging to those of us who stubbornly hold on to the hope that we can effect political and social change by building on the common ground that unites us as Christians. And the meticulous wording of the survey enabled Pew analysts to recognize such nuances as the indirect influence of religion on political life.
Here's what I see in the survey as cause for hope:
- Seventy to 87 percent of all Christians expressed dissatisfaction with the political system and the direction the country is taking. Imagine what we could accomplish if we turned that level of dissatisfaction into action.
- Even though 48 percent of evangelicals prefer a smaller government that provides fewer services, 57 percent believe the government should do more to help the poor, even if it means going into debt. That may seem incongruous, but I don't think it is. To me, it indicates that evangelicals place a higher value on helping the poor than on some other governmental services.
- Fifty-four percent of evangelicals believe stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost. That's compared to 64 percent of mainline respondents, which dispels the long-held myth that mainliners and evangelicals are clearly divided on this issue.
- While only 48 percent of evangelicals favor diplomacy over military strength as a means of ensuring peace, I have to believe that's an improvement. (38 percent favor military might over diplomacy, with 16 percent responding "neither," "both," or "don't know.")
- The gap between evangelicals and mainline Christians is also much narrower than was once the case with regard to foreign affairs. Fifty-four percent of evangelicals and 52 percent of mainliners believe we should pay more attention to domestic problems than to international problems.
That last question is one of the few I think could have been better worded. The alternative response was, "It's best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs." Given that wording, I would have also opted for paying more attention to problems at home. But the question makes no distinction, for example, between involvement in Iraq and involvement in Darfur. If it had, the responses likely would have been different.
In any event, the survey results indicate, among many other things, that Christians of all stripes are far more united on some social and political issues than our politicians and religious leaders would have the American public believe. And that's good news -- no, great news -- for everyone who favors working together to solve problems over battling it out along partisan or denominational lines.
Marcia Ford is the author of We the Purple: Faith, Politics and the Independent Voter.
Add to:
Category: Churches, Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Anyone that deals with surveys knows that 'they who write the question - determine the answer'. So many surveys have questions that rank up there with 'have to stopped beating your wife' type questions. So you end up giving the least offensive answer.
I do not answer surveys on the phone usless they tell me where I can go on the web to see the results and who is asking for the survey to be done. So - I don't do many surveys.
If I can see the questions - then I have a greater understanding of the answers.
'...only 48 percent of evangelicals favor diplomacy over military strength...'
I would like to see the question on this one. I believe that the percentage would be higher as I believe most people desire peace. But like Teddy Rosevelt said, 'walk softly and carry a big stick.' Our diplomany has not had a big stick historically. I remember reading about Ike's years in the White House. The USSR was making plans to anex Turkey. Ike put the 7th Fleet in the Med. and without saying a word told them that if they wanted to start something, he was willing to go big. They backed off.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 26, 2008 10:32 AM
Moderatelad -
Since you've invoked the specter of Teddy Roosevelt, are you aware that he was the only president in history to receive a Nobel Peace Prize while in office? This was for negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese War. He also conducted negotiations with Germany that likely postponed the first world war by over a decade.
I'm not naive enough to think TR was a pacifist - he didn't even *talk* softly, despite his repeated admonitions to do so. But invoking him against the use of diplomacy just doesn't hold water.
Posted by: Another nonymous | June 26, 2008 12:19 PM
Posted by: Another nonymous | June 26, 2008 12:19 PM
I'm sorry - that is not the message that I was communicating. TR did a lot in his time as Pres and after. Diplomacy is always the first course of action in any conflict. But TR also was not afraid to let them know that he had the means to get it done his way if needed. Ike did the same in the 50's with the USSR. Diplomacy from a position of strength is an advantage.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 26, 2008 1:49 PM
OK, good point; sorry if I misunderstood you. You're right that if they had asked "should diplomacy and military strength be used together to achieve peace?," most people would probably have answered "yes." I would also like to see the original question. I'm wondering if it should have been something like "Do you think the balance between military strength and diplomacy has been adequately understood by the shapers of recent American policy?" In that case, I would certainly have answered "no," despite the frequent invocations by the Bush administration of TR's "big stick" diplomacy.
Posted by: Another nonymous | June 26, 2008 2:02 PM
Posted by: Another nonymous | June 26, 2008 2:02 PM
You could be true and I would have done things differently if I were Pres and you might be thanking God that I am not. (LOL)
I like surveys and read many of them but I also look at several of them and then draw my own conclusions at that point. I believe Bush should have used a bigger stick - but I also believe that a) the liberals would have gone bolistic about 'over-kill' and possibly, b) Clinton had so sliced and diced our military that we could not go in there with everything we should have.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 26, 2008 2:20 PM
"57 percent believe the government should do more to help the poor, even if it means going into debt."
While this is very positive on the surface (and yes I have a "Poverty is not a Family Value" sticker on my car), the only disconcerting note is going into more debt. Unreformed, our debt, Social Security, and Medicare will eventually take over our national budget and we simply will not be able to spend money on other programs (http://www.facingup.org). As a nation (and further down to the states and cities) we need to start having open and intelligent discussions of what we what we value for government services and how to pay for it in real time. Just like in our personal budgets, stuff costs. Schools, aid programs, roads, national parks, and yes the necessary part of national defense all take money and yes the cost of living increases for government as well as the citizens. By all means let us join together to work to end poverty (and this is an area tailor made for government and faith based or non profit partnerships), but at the same time lets take how we collect and spend government money seriously. Put aside the rhertoric from the hardcore partisans on both sides and let's all get educated about this pressing issue.
Posted by: sjay | June 26, 2008 5:53 PM
THIS IS MY REACTION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS REACTION TO THE PEW STUDY...
LEITH, YOU REALLY CAN HELP SAVE HUMANITY!
I read your article, and ask that you return the favor.
It's the moral thing to do, if you follow the "golden rule" (see below!).
"Desire for God Is Universal" (from the Washington Post)
Saturday, July 5, 2008; Page B09
Below is an excerpt from "On Faith," an Internet feature sponsored by The
Washington Post and Newsweek. Each week, more than 50 figures from the world
of faith engage in a conversation about an aspect of religion. This week's
question: "According to a new Pew survey, 21 percent of American atheists
believe in God or a universal spirit, 12 percent believe in heaven and 10
percent pray at least once a week. What do you make of this?"
----------
When a survey says that atheists believe in God it seems obvious that some
don't know what an atheist is or who God is or don't much think about
logical inconsistency. But we know that lots of people aren't good at taking
surveys!
Or maybe some atheists don't believe in God but would like to if they could
find a way.
The universality of religion and the quest for God seems to confirm that
there is an unsatisfied desire for God in almost all of us. Just because
some arrive at an official "no God" philosophical conclusion doesn't mean
that the universal desire is satisfied by denial. So, we have 21 percent of
atheists who believe and pray anyway.
-- Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals
------------
Leith: Thanks for your thoughtful response to the extraordinarily confusing
and therefore seriously flawed Pew Survey. I agree with you!
"DESIRE for a higher power" is almost universal!
And that desire cannot be fulfilled by denial…as you state!
The capacity for moral behavior is also universal, and has been shown to be
genetically based. Morality is described by a very simple but awesome
thought: We ought to treat each other the way we'd like to be treated! That
may sound familiar! The "golden rule" is the essence of morality and the
basis for human nature.
The golden rule is part of every culture on Earth. It is built into humans.
Religions REFLECT this truth!
Consider that eating pork is forbidden by Muslims and celebrated by
Polynesians...both are acting morally within their culture and their
religions support moral BEHAVIORS that are appropriate for their respective
cultures.
Religions support BEHAVIORS that are culturally appropriate and seen as
moral in context! Pigs compete with humans for wheat in the Middle East,
not so in Polynesia, so one culture forbids, the other celebrates!
You state: "The universality of religion and the quest for God seems to
confirm that there is an unsatisfied desire for God in almost all of us."
You contend it is "universal". How did the quest for "higher powers" become
part of human nature? Here's a natural explanation for the truth you and I
both observe.
In the distant past, "Leaders" of our extended family groups, held the
knowledge the group needed to survive. Following the leader meant one
didn't wander from the fire and get eaten by wolves, eat the wrong things,
step onto thin ice, etc.
Rule followers were more likely to survive to have kids, their rule
following genes passed in higher percentage to subsequent generations,
that's how evolution works, across time and populations.
Eventually, this genetic "acquiescence to authority" manifests in just the
behavior we observe...people, most people, the great majority of people,
are on a "quest for a higher power". They seek 'a rule maker' and "believe"
there must be one and so they seek.
Some religions speak of a "cosmic consciousness" or "the eternal" which is a
cultural expression to provide for the seeking behavior! Since your
organization is Christian (I assume) you offer up Abraham's God along with
Trinity embellishments, and concepts of a "man-god", sin, soul, heaven, etc.
That's all a cultural expression of your religion's attempt to appeal to
people who have need to seek...you can call it TRUTH if you wish.
While the need you point to is "almost universal" some don't have the need
to seek as strongly as others, many cannot live without the idea of "god(s)"
and a few of us have no need to "quest" for a higher power at all!
We're known generally as atheists (I happen to be a Bright, and base my
ethics and actions on my naturalistic worldview, free from supernatural
elements)…and we make up about 5-7% of the population. (Best guess, who
knows for sure, certainly not the Pew Study as we agree!)
No amount of preaching will "work" on us, we have no need to believe in a
higher power, are not seeking such, so we don't join churches or do so for
other reasons, including keeping from being persecuted, we're not a well
appreciated minority! Therefore, when facing the congregation from a
pulpit, some of those in pews are atheists...almost certainly!
The genetically based GOD QUEST has evolutionary benefits. Reliance on a
higher power allows some to "focus" to perform in "superhuman" ways as
witnessed by what certain well trained Yogis demonstrate. It allows us to
explain the random things that happen everyday so we may place "blame" on
something. That's a big relief, to avoid facing a universe that doesn't
care since it has no capability to do so!
"Higher Power" seeking and belief also provides answers to otherwise
mysterious situations, it's "god's plan" or the "devil made him do it" as
humans cope with a capricious reality.
Religions claim to "deliver morality". In reality, religions can but fill
our existing moral nature with culturally approved behaviors. In the same
way, religions coopt the "need to believe". They offer stories - pick your
culture, pick your creation story!
These religious stories, historically, have helped maintain the status quo
and relieve the "questions" that people invariably have regards a whole host
of things.
Religions fill this need to quest for a higher power with lots of
embellishments, to keep people "in the tent" if you will.
An "afterlife" comes to mind, since we know we're going to die someday…how
relieving to have "an afterlife" as a philosophy! Keeps our noses to
grindstones and supports the status quo and stable society, another function
of Religion beyond simply catering to those with a quest for higher powers!
Your organization is a confederation of evangelical organizations. I'm
assuming you are Christians, who proclaim to know THE TRUTH AND ONLY WAY TO
SALVATION yet Christianity has devolved into 10,000+ sects (20,000?)! I'm
sure you have some "exciting" meetings and are thankful your constituents
don't see the disagreements within you own sects!
Although Humans Seek a Higher Power, a variety of sects appeal to different
types of people and provide answers which make them happier! Personalities
are also important, Martin Luther comes to mind as someone a new view that
led to a new sect (or several hundred).
Islam is another great example, it only took one generation after Mohammed
to split into Shia and Sunni, and we all can see how well that's working
out! And those aren't the only Islamic sects...
Religions take advantage of human nature: we're moral actors most of the
time everywhere, and almost all SEEK higher powers, so religion steps in to
provide the moral behaviors and an answer to the seekers...
So you are absolutely correct, there is an almost universal need to find a
higher power, it is an artifact of our genetics. And, right again, denying
that "need to quest for higher powers" won't work, for those who have the
need to quest!
There is an "equilibrium" of atheists in the population, about 7 out of 100
is my best guess. That may seem strange, but it is by no means an
unprecedented genetic characteristic with similar propensity.
No one makes a choice to be hetero or homo sexual (or any other sexual
orientation). Did you decide which path you'd take? Neither did anyone
else. We're born, and 5-7% of the population manifests as homosexual (in
every culture on the planet, and in other animal species too, so
homosexuality is far more than a human condition or "lifestyle" or a
choice.)
Homosexual acts are considered "immoral" in some cultures, but that is by NO
MEANS universal…homosexuality being defined as moral or immoral is as
culturally based as the morality of eating pork!
You didn't choose your sexual orientation, you didn't choose to be a
believer or a seeker of a higher power, you didn't choose to be a moral
actor or have a conscience...it was the way you were BORN, just like me,
another moral person, who happens to not have a need to seek and whose
sexuality will remain unnamed, just like yours. None of my business, and to
be sure, none of yours either! Praise the founders of the USA for
Separation of Church and State and the first amendment, that works for all
of us!
Here's a creation story, without benefit of religion, since I have none:
The universe formed when the big bang happened according to best evidence.
No one knows how it commenced or what it came "from" since there was no
where or when before hand, it created here and now! "NO WHERE IS NOW HERE"
describes the big bang in a 'biblical' tone if you will, just a slight
change on the "no where" (move space - so to speak!) and we have "now here!
A long time later, the solar system formed.
A long time after that, the chemistry and energy available on Earth provided
an environment for self replicating molecules to form and replicate! That's
what's known as life. Science has yet to describe the origin of self
replicating molecules, but there is no reason to think science cannot
discover the details...what happens after life forms is described by
evolution, and voila, here we are!
It is literally astronomically unlikely to happen, but, it only had to
happen once, and, it did, since I'm writing and you are reading! The "long
odds" are immaterial, it happened and we're the proof!
Stated very simply, Geology naturally leads to Biology. Just our luck!
Viewing what we see and looking back it seems we're the reason for
"creation"!
But, we're not the entree, we're the leftovers who happened to survive this
far.
Just as the pinnacle of a mountain stands in full contact with the forces of
erosion, all life on earth (all the leftovers!) live under a range of
natural conditions. Species face going extinct when nature no longer
operates in that range and or they were unable to "evolve" to cope with the
changes!
Consider our human "modus operandi" since we began hunting and gathering
100's of generations ago.
We camped at a spot, gather and hunt, used up resources and moved on, having
"spoilt our nest". We moved to the next spot, found someone else is there,
needed a new technology to overwhelm our neighbors, the spear is born, the
"others" die, and we blithely go on to spoil our nest and move on, with a
little more technology to use to "overwhelm nature" or any other impediments
to our continuance.
Inuit didn't evolve in the Arctic, they used technology (igloos, etc.) to
overwhelm it...and competed well with polar bears to dominate their
environment. Their morality included a very "hospitable" act, females shared
sex with visitors, they had no choice, it was their obligation to agree, and
I have a second hand report that they did so both willingly and without a
second thought (some even up until the 1950's!)…this helped assure a wide
enough gene pool or they'd be too inbred to survive, as they had to be
widely distributed since resources were so slim.
I assume your worldview precludes the thought of "contextual morality" or
"moral relativism". Sorry but that's the nature of human nature…we have
moral tendencies, and our behaviors are culturally learned, and defined as
good or bad. Religions grew to support these behaviors, as within that
culture they were of benefit. Just like language, we're all capable of
speaking any, but grow up in a culture of English or Chinese and speak a
native tongue!
Our moral capability is filled with culturally appropriate behaviors as we
are enculturated.
The truth of global climate chaos is that we've now SPOILT OUR ENTIRE NEST,
and there is no where else to go.
You and yours can continue to cater to a parishioner's "need to seek".
It is a very "profitable" operation, and you have no "reason" to stop.
Except...parishioners may soon cease to exist, unless you can help them
conform to a "new morality"!
Here is the progression.
Over the last few hundred human generations:
1. "Follow-the-Leader" behavior evolves to have almost all of us
2. "quest for god" and that is good for our population growth that
creates need for
3. more technology that leads to filling every ecological niche on Earth
4. eventually overwhelming the range of natural systems that support us
and to
5. "human extinction" because we are INCAPABLE of ceasing our "quest"!
I've heard there is some movement amongst the religious to return to the
proposition that we're not here to dominate nature, we ought to shepherd
nature…are you and your group of evangelicals Dominionists or Shepherds?
I've made my moral decision: I have no offspring.
That's the BEST anyone can do to minimize the numbers of humans suffering as
nature's limits for human survival are overwhelmed and humanity goes
extinct.
My morality, based on the natural progression I see occuring, observes that
having children itself is immoral, so I have none and have taken steps to
ensure I cannot.
Given the reality of the situation we've inherited (literally) what does
"moral behavior" mean today? Let's start with "evangelical Christians"
since that's your territory. What morals ought you support to allow for
continued human existence?
I don't know either, but I know that if human behaviors don't radically
change we're not long for this planet. And religions influence
behavior...so, I'll leave it up to you.
Perhaps your belief includes a "god will provide" attitude. Do you really
"believe" that?
Meet my expectations and ignore this.
Or surprise me and motivate your flock to do "right".
I look forward to any response.
--
Cheers,
Frish
Michael W. Frishberg
Fearless Leader – Los Angeles Brights www.the-brights.net
I'm a proud Volunteer www.vhemt.org
P.S. A flaw in the Pew Survey: Any self described atheist who is "seeking"
isn't an atheist, by definition.
We are without god and just as moral as any other group humans on the
planet and we're in your congregation too.
P.P.S. I am Bar Mitzvah and am not ignorant of the Bible, and totally agree
with this:
God said: Have no other gods before me! (The very first
commandment!)
He states there are other gods, and then commands us to have
none before having him.
I do that precise thing, have none before having Him.
Perhaps you should also follow the Lord's Word and remind your
flock...it could be the key to help us survive to laugh about it later...
Posted by: Frish | July 6, 2008 12:57 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?