First, the silver lining: people of faith are better citizens and better neighbors, and America is “amazingly” religious compared to other countries, says Harvard University professor Robert Putnam.
Now, the cloud: young Americans are “vastly more secular” than their older counterparts, according to Putnam.
“That is a stunning development,” Putnam said. “The youth are the future. Some of them are going to get religious over time, but most of them are not.”
A celebrated political scientist, Putnam has long been concerned with declining participation in American civic life, as described in his best-selling book “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.” When Elks clubs and parent-teacher associations lose members, the ties that bind civil society unravel, Putnam argues.
But religious people may be God’s gift to civic engagement, Putnam and University of Notre Dame scholar David Campbell argue in their book, “American Grace: How Religion is Reshaping our Civic and Political Lives,” which is scheduled to be released next year.
Putnam and Campbell unveiled some of their research at a recent conference in Key West, Fla., hosted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes — including secular ones.
At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just “nicer”: they carry packages for people, don’t mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.
The scholars say the link between religion and civic activism is causal, since they observed that people who hadn’t attended church became more engaged after they did. “These are huge effects,” Putnam said.
The reason for the increased civic engagement may come as a surprise to religious leaders. It has nothing to do with ideas of divine judgment, or with trying to secure a seat in heaven. Rather, it’s the relationships people make in their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples that draw them into community activism.
Putnam calls them “supercharged friends” and the more people have, the more likely they are to participate in civic events, he says. The theory is: if someone from your “moral community” asks you to volunteer for a cause, it’s really hard to say no.
“Being asked to do something by a member of your congregation is different from being asked to do something by a member of your bowling league,” Putnam said.
The effect is so strong, the scholars found, that people who attend religious services regularly but don’t have any friends there look more like secularists than fellow believers when it comes to civic participation.
“It’s not faith that accounts for this,” Putnam said. “It’s faith communities.”
But many of those faith communities are dwindling, according to numerous studies of religious membership in the U.S., and those pews are not being replenished by young Americans, Putnam and Campbell said.
The 1950s was “probably the most religious period in American history,” according to Putnam, when 55 percent of Americans attended religious services regularly. Cultural changes — think: sex, drugs, and rock `n’ roll — led to a massive decline in religious observance in the 1960s, the scholars said.
Religion — particularly evangelicalism — bounced back in the 1970s and the 1980s, but began to drop off again in the 1990s after the political ascendance of the religious right, according to Putnam and Campbell.
“That so-called politicization of religion triggered great hostility toward religion,” leading to a “dramatic growth in secularism and `none’s” — sociologists’ term for people who claim no religious affiliation.
As many as a quarter of young people would be in church — many say they still believe in God — but they’re turned off by how political American religion has become, according to Putnam.
But not everyone thinks that’s a bad thing, or agrees with the proposition that religious people are better citizens.
Ron Millar, acting director of Secular Coalition for America, said that nontheists are just as likely to volunteer for worthy causes as believers. For example, he noted that the Secular Student Alliance went to New Orleans to help build homes with Habitat for Humanity a few years ago.
“We’re out there,” Millar said. “We just don’t say we’re driven by our nonbelief in God to do good work.”
By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service
Copyright 2009 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted May 13, 2009 at 6:23 pm
So it would seem it’s not religious people, it’s church-going people. For scholars it seems they have a really hard time with their basic terminology. Or maybe it’s Ms. Burke.
In any case I find it very encouraging that kids are less religious than their parents. I think it probably shows they think more critically, which is a good thing.
And while rock and roll was new, sex and drugs were not. And rock and roll is only the new jazz. So that comment was silly. The availability of cars for kids and the fact families moved away from the neighborhoods where their relatives lived had a lot more to do with families changing.
But if you are willing to treat America’s being “amazingly religious compared to other countries” as unquestionably good, you sound biased to me.
Anyway America is probably less religious than Saudi Arabia and Iran and Jordan. I wonder if the authors thought about that. And some of the most religious places in America are in the rural south. I notice neither of the authors has followed his love of religion to one of those areas.
posted May 13, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Is it just me or does this article read like an ice cream sundae for church goers. There is a lot of flavor but no substance. If you’re going to make such a claim why not tell us a little about the studies that concluded this. Maybe about the methodology used to collect and interpret the data, the study group, the control group, etc. Show me some concrete numbers. It just looks like a big we’re good people cuz we say we are piece.
I’m one of the disallusioned youth btw. I just see the anger and venom coming from my parent’s church and I know it’s not for me. I believe in God but not their God. Their God doesn’t like people very much. I have gay friends and they are good people, not abominations like the pastor keeps yelling about. If God really does hate so many of his children then why make them? I don’t want to follow a God so bent on prejudice. I expect venom from the opposition but we as God’s people are supposed to be of a higher moral conviction. I have yet to see that in action.
posted May 13, 2009 at 6:54 pm
This is not surprising Ben Franklin and Jefferson reported these same findings and they came to these conclusions from an unbiased point of view.
posted May 13, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Nnmns is right the two Harvard scholars are mixing up religious church goers with spiritually living people. This is a mixed-up bias of understanding of what has gone on in the past, the present, and the future. People help people and if they haven’t noticed this they have been looking in the wrong places. I know many church-going people that volunteer 24-7, but think they are superior to the LGBT, because of what they have ingested in their bibles and heard from their Church Doctrines and their Preachers. The young are reacting to this injustice and saying they won’t be a party to it even if their parents are. There is only one God; it’s just some are very off in understanding what He stands for.
posted May 13, 2009 at 9:44 pm
The young have figured out that they don’t need organized religion to “guide” their lives. As to the “church going or religious people” being better citizens, nicer etc.? Haven’t found that true with the friends I know. My children don’t attend church…their friends don’t, my nieces don’t and they are very kind, caring people. What’s with this “study”? I disagree with their “conclusions.”
cknuck,I’m sure you liked the conclusions. Gee, I guess Jefferson and Ben Franklin would have too…But somehow I don’t think all “kind, helpful and good citizens” are restricted to those that attend a religious building regularly. But hey! That’s just my opinion and experience in life.
posted May 13, 2009 at 10:56 pm
H22 you really cannot separate the two unless it serves your agenda to do so, otherwise it is simply judgmental that is you judging others but I guess it’s alright when it’s you doing the judging. To say religious people cannot be spiritual is like saying only atheist are spiritual or only people who don’t go to church are spiritual. It’s a name calling bias.
posted May 14, 2009 at 12:05 am
We can slice this sausage even thinner Contrary to what ck wrote, I have know church going folks, religious folks, and spiritual folks. There is often an overlap, but they are not one in the same, and many people fall mostly within one of these expression of “faith”. I agree with Parker1090, this seems to be nothing more than a sweet treat for pew sitters. I would expect more form Harvard and Notre Dame researchers. Better work has been done on the voting history and preferences, the social activism, and the giving patterns of all these folks. That is material I can use. A book like this will look nice on the shelves of religious book stores. However I doubt it will show up in many bibliographies or footnotes of actual research.
posted May 14, 2009 at 9:44 am
In Sichuan, China, the government is very embarrassed that almost all the volunteers who actually help in the earthquake zone are Christian believers (Chinese not foreign), while the Party officials in the earthquake zone are shown up as embezzling the money given to and by the government for rebuilding and relief work. Christianity does seem to make a difference.
posted May 14, 2009 at 11:20 am
There is a strong bias, reflected in many of the posts here, against religion in general and evangelical Christianity in particular, in our contemporary culture. This anti-Christian bias, I believe, is the result of decades of public school indoctrination against anything of faith, and evangelical Christianity’s error in getting too involved in the political arena. It is also based on the tendency to want to promote one’s own lifestyle or way of thinking rather than submit to the counsel of doctrine.
Of course people who trust in the living God make better citizens. They are motivated by the love of God to love others and serve them. They are not trying to gain points to get into Heaven; that is a silly notion opponents of Christianity have made up and use as a smoke screen. Christianity teaches that heaven is a matter of God’s grace, not man’s works.
Most of the people who post here reflect a gross misunderstanding of what Christianity actually believes and teaches. But then, biased people have never been strong on learning the truth.
posted May 14, 2009 at 11:44 am
“Of course people who trust in the living God make better citizens”. Windsor’s Child
Right, and the moon is made of green cheese! Not “of course”. How many of those have condemned citizens of the USA because they are homosexual’s who want equal rights, tell folks that IF they don’t happen to believe in their god, they are condemned to No Heaven (Heaven forbid!), etc. How many of those who trust in that god have been responsible for wars (long ago), have figured that all hurricanes (Katrina for example), that 9-11, and other disasters were because of homosexuality and non-believers? Sorry, so don’t agree with your “of course people who believe in the living God make better citizens”. That is SOME assumption. I expect there are many not-so great Christian “citizens.” That study actually, IMO, really proves nothing.
posted May 14, 2009 at 12:49 pm
In other words your Christianity involves no motivation to help others. What happened to the Golden Rule? I must admit there seems to be more organized help by churches, and to the extent that isn’t done to directly recruit believers I give them credit for that. Of course that may just be the result of their being more churched people and better PR but I suspect it does work somewhat as the study’s authors suggest. As we get more atheist organizations I hope we get more involvement in aid projects.
That’s really funny for at least two reasons. First most public school teachers are Christians. Why would they indoctrinate their students against their own religion?
Second, why would any thinking person “submit to the counsel of doctrine”? That’s just letting someone from ages past do your thinking for you; someone whose motives you can only guess.
posted May 14, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Thanks ck for not being able to comprehend my opinion, again. Whatever you believe is fine with me.
posted May 14, 2009 at 3:57 pm
In Catholicism the idea of self-sacrifice and offering up your service to others is constantly pushed on adherents. Their motivation isn’t to get into Heaven but nor is it to help others for the sake of helping them. They are just doing what they are told to do and following someone else’s orders makes them feel superior to others. I’ve seen this attidude over and over in my life.
The people who genuinely care about the well-being of others tend to step outside of the box when they realise that some of the theology is hurting members of humanity.
posted May 14, 2009 at 8:45 pm
There are several profound errors concerning Christianity that keep getting repeated over and over in these posts, even though there is no basis for them either in contemporary or historical Christianity.
Christians display hatred when they state their belief that homosexuality is a sin. This is simply not true. Hatred is not the motivation for this belief. What the Bible teaches is the motivation. My belief that homosexuality is a perversion of the natural desire between men and women does not motivate me to hate anyone. Loving people does not demand that I endorse all the things they do.
Christianity teaches that heaven is gained by the good works you do. This is simply not true. Christianity teaches that heaven is gained only through a personal faith relationship with Jesus Christ. The motivation for doing good works is a desire to please God and to follow the example of Jesus, not a means of gaining points for heaven.
Everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. This is simply not true. According to the Scriptures, the only way to become a Christian is to establish a faith relationship with Jesus Christ. Anyone can claim to be a Christian. But people are not born Christians. Having Christian parents, or growing up attending church regularly, or knowing the Bible stories does not make anyone a Christian.
Christianity takes away one’s ability to think for himself or herself. This is simply not true. Everyone has to have a world view which is based on presuppositions. The Christian has chosen to build his or her world view on the claims of Jesus Christ. Others might claim the presuppositions of Mohammed, or Darwin, or Freud. All world views are built on a set of presuppositions. Mine are different than those of many who post here. We have all accepted our world view based on our faith in the reliability of someone else’s presuppositions.
Finally, Catholicism is the primary manifestation of Christianity. This is simply not true. Catholicism is an aberration in the history of Christianity, an aberration I and many others totally reject. Catholicism does not ever reflect my beliefs or my practices. I have no allegiance to the pope, to the Catholic church or to Catholic dogma.
Again, I see raw prejudice in so many of the posts I read here. Few seem willing even to try to understand what Christianity is really all about. It is one thing to find out what Christianity is all about and then reject it. It is another thing to accept vague notions and statements made by radical opponents of Christianity as true and reject the faith on that basis. That is a real example of not thinking for yourself.
posted May 14, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Windsors Child: “This anti-Christian bias, I believe, is the result of decades of public school indoctrination against anything of faith, and evangelical Christianity’s error in getting too involved in the political arena.”
Most of the anti-Christian bias in American culture is probably the result of Christians trying to enforce their beliefs for the whole society, and therefore mostly deserved.
“It is also based on the tendency to want to promote one’s own lifestyle or way of thinking rather than submit to the counsel of doctrine.”
If by “promote one’s own lifestyle or way of thinking” you mean “live one’s own life”, then I’d say you’re close to correct.
posted May 14, 2009 at 9:36 pm
I’ve not doubt you are right about some Christians and wrong about some. You make it clear you cannot speak for all Christians.
Well I’m no expert on Christianity but it seems to me some versions do think good works have redemptive value. Perhaps someone more familiar with all the versions of Christianity will comment.
I dare say a lot of Christians agree with you, some of whom no doubt doubt your Christianity
I think I can speak for many in the group you believe presuppose Darwin is right. I/we think there’s very strong evidence Darwin was right in general about evolution. There are details he was wrong about and I don’t look to Darwin at all for my morals or my politics. But here’s the most important part. If strong evidence proved Darwin wrong about evolution I’d change my mind.It would require very convincing evidence but I am open to it. Are you open to evidence Jesus was no one special? I doubt it and I think that’s a way in which those of us who value reason over blind faith, any blind faith, have a truly better philosophy.
posted May 15, 2009 at 1:20 am
The article boils down to you hang around nice people and you will become a nice person. Just as if you hang around with inner city gangs you will join them and be as bad as they are.
This is well documented and would be the same if you looked into any service organization and their memberships.
Are you open to evidence Jesus was no one special?
If you got evidence, I will look at it.
“I doubt it and I think that’s a way in which those of us who value reason over blind faith, any blind faith, have a truly better philosophy.”
To a greater or lesser extent we all have blind faith. The question is in what.
posted May 15, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Mordred, there are also some errors in your post.
As for my post, I’m pretty sure I did not accuse you of hatred. I did not state that Christians do good works to get into Heaven. The term Christian in this article isn’t referring to the “real” Christians you described, but to Christians who simply claim to be so. We are referring to the article’s definitian of Christian, not yours.
As far as thinking that Christians are not able to think for themselved. They certainly can, but in the end, their thoughts do not trump the bible, so in essence, thinking for themselves doesn’t do any good.
And no one, certainly not me, claimed that Catholicism was was the supreme manifestation of Christianity. I spoke of Catholicism because it is the form of Christianity that I am most familiar with.
You see prejudice? You must be looking in the mirror.
posted May 15, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I looked through the article and didn’t find a definition of “Christian”. What am I missing?
Wow. I’m seeing amazing things here today. Doesn’t it occur to you that people pick what parts of the Bible to observe based on their own thinking? And they might even decide to not be subservient to your outdated religion. Thinking for oneself is apparently highly underrated by some folks.
posted May 17, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Wow what was the story of the lawyer who argued against the devil? Fortunately we don’t have to depend on you nnmns for the definition of Christian so your attempt to qualify who is what kind of Christian is rather humorous in a dangerous sort of way. I can’t decide what kind of laugh to use.