Study: Atheists Treat Christians Better Than Vice-Versa

A study printed in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (by Colleen M. Cowgill, Kimberly Rios, and Ain Simpson) shows that atheists treat christians better than christians treat atheists.

This doesn't surprise me. Atheists understand what it's like to betrayed differently (discriminated against). That makes them less likely to treat other people that way. Today, many atheists are bold in declaring their atheism, and may even attack religion in general, but this does not translate into how they treat their fellow humans.

Here is how Michael Stone at Progressive Secular Humanist describes the study:

Science: Atheists behave more fairly towards Christians than Christians behave towards atheists according to a study published by the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

The study, titled: “Generous heathens? Reputational concerns and atheists’ behavior toward Christians in economic games,” found that 

Christians demonstrated an ingroup bias towards other Christians in an economic game but atheists did not have an ingroup bias towards other atheists.

The Independent reports:

Atheists are more generous toward Christians than Christians are toward them, a new study has claimed.

Researchers at Ohio University asked participants to share monetary rewards with partners in a version of the “dictator game”, in which one person had no power to affect the division of the bounty.

When atheists were told of their partner’s religious beliefs, they “behaved impartially toward ingroup and outgroup partners,” the study’s authors wrote in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 

However, “Christians consistently demonstrated an ingroup bias.”

Lead author of the study, Colleen Cowgill, explained to PsyPost the rationale behind her research:

The rise of the so-called ‘New Atheists’ about a decade ago coupled with the ongoing ‘culture wars’ between religious and secular groups in the United States has led atheists as a population to gain an unprecedented level of visibility in this country in recent years, even as their prevalence has only incrementally increased. This has sparked a particular interest in anti-atheist prejudice research in social psychology.

From this previous research, we know that the general population in America tends to stereotype atheists as being immoral and untrustworthy – a reputation that many atheists understandably find distressing. My primary interest was in how atheists themselves respond to these negative stereotypes.

Psychological research has demonstrated repeatedly that individuals facing negative stereotypes are not passive observers of this social landscape, but rather are impacted and react in a dynamic way to negative group-level judgments important to their identities…

The psychological stress of fearing that your performance may confirm a negative stereotype about your group serves to limit the cognitive resources you have available for performing well on the task. Another example of this is people’s response to what is termed ‘identity threat,’ or the threat of being disparaged or discriminated against due to one’s group membership. We often see that negative stereotypes about a group can lead members of that group to behave in compensatory ways that ostensibly seek to disconfirm that stereotype, such as when American immigrants strive to emphasize their American identity when it is threatened.

This was the rationale behind my hypotheses stating that atheists’ behavior toward Christians in economic games might be different from Christians’ behavior toward atheists in economic games. In the same way that many White Americans are often stereotyped as racist and have consequently been shown by research to be particularly motivated to be liked by Black Americans during interracial interactions, I thought that atheists would be uniquely motivated to disconfirm negative stereotypes about their amorality or untrustworthy nature during interactions with Christians.

I chose to operationalize this through an economic game because I thought it would be an ideal paradigm to capture constructs like ‘generosity’ and ‘fairness,’ which can directly relate to ideas of morality and trustworthiness. Indeed, we found in multiple studies that our atheist participants behaved more fairly towards partners they believed were Christians than our Christians participants behaved towards partners they believed were atheists, which are results that appear to support the original hypotheses.

These effects disappeared when the participant’s own religious identity was concealed. Under those conditions, atheists and Christians demonstrated the same typically observed in-group bias, which rules out the possibility that the results could be entirely explained due to discrimination on the part of the Christians.

Bottom line: Research shows that atheists behave more fairly toward Christians than Christians behave toward atheists.

How Many Atheists Are In The United States ?

Some people like to think the United States is a christian country. While it's true that a substantial majority of Americans claim to be christians, no one branch of christianity (evangelicals, catholics, mainstream protestants, etc.) makes up anywhere near a majority -- and each year a larger percentage claim to be not religious.

The chart above comes from a recent Gallup Poll. They asked respondents if there was a god or not, and 12% of the population said there was no god. That is undoubtably an undercount. There are people who do not believe god exists (which is the definition of an atheist), but won't admit it because they live in a religious family, neighborhood, city, or state -- and don't want the harassment they feel would come with the atheist label.

The following article in Scientific American,  Michael Shermer tries to answer that question. Here is part of that article:

In a paper in the January 2018 issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science entitled “How Many Atheists Are There?”, Will M. Gervais and Maxine B. Najle, both psychologists at the University of Kentucky, contend that there may be far more atheists than pollsters report because “social pressures favoring religiosity, coupled with stigma against religious disbelief..., might cause people who privately disbelieve in God to nonetheless self-present as believers, even in anonymous questionnaires.”

To work around this problem of self-reported data, the psychologists employed what is called an unmatched count technique, which has been previously validated for estimating the size of other underreported cohorts, such as the LGBTQ community. They contracted with YouGov to conduct two surveys of 2,000 American adults each, for a total of 4,000 subjects, asking participants to indicate how many innocuous versus sensitive statements on a list were true for them. The researchers then applied a Bayesian probability estimation to compare their results with similar Gallup and Pew polls of 2,000 American adults each. From this analysis, they estimated, with 93 percent certainty, that somewhere between 17 and 35 percent of Americans are atheists, with a “most credible indirect estimate” of 26 percent.

If true, this means that there are more than 64 million American atheists, a staggering number that no politician can afford to ignore. Moreover, if these trends continue, we should be thinking about the deeper implications for how people will find meaning as the traditional source of it wanes in influence. And we should continue working on grounding our morals and values on viable secular sources such as reason and science.

The Projected Growth Of Religion (2015 To 2060)

I thought the chart above, from the Pew Research Center, was interesting -- and thought it was fitting to post it on this religious weekend. Currently, christians make up about 31% of the world's population, while muslims make up about 24%. But by 2060, with muslims growing at a significantly faster rate. they will make up roughly equal percentages of the world population -- with christians being about 32% and muslims being about 31%.

I think that is probably true, since the estimates are figured on birth and death rates -- and those religions (like all religions) depend mainly on people being born into the religion for their growth.

The one area that I disagree with is the projected growth of the non-religious. They project the percentage of non-religious will fall from 16% to 13%. If you look at only the birth and death rates, that would be true. But the growth of the non-religious has never depended on both and death rates.

The non-religious are those who accept science -- including contraception to plan their families. While the growth of the non-religious has been larger with each generation in the United States (and the world), that is not because they are having more babies than the religious -- in fact, they are probably having less. Their growth is because when children mature into adults they think more deeply about religious beliefs -- and a growing percentage discard those beliefs.

This has been true of a growing percentage in each of the last several generations, and there's no reason to believe the percentage of the non-religious won't continue to grow in future generations.

Americans Are Warmer To All Religious Groups But One

The charts above are from a survey by the Pew Research Center between January 9th and 23rd. They questioned 4,248 adults, and the survey has a margin of error of 2.5 points.

It shows the view of religious groups by the public in the United States. A "warm" feeling (favorable) would be shown by a larger number and be toward the top of the chart, whereas a "cold" (unfavorable) rating would be represented by a lower number and be toward the bottom of the chart.

I found it interesting that every single religious group, except one, had increased in favorability with the public -- and that was true of both Democrats and Republicans. That group was not muslims -- it was evangelical christians. The evangelical christians didn't lose any favorability, but didn't gain any either.

Three years ago, evangelical christians had a 61 rating from the public, and it still does. The rating from Democrats (53) and from Republicans (71) also remained steady.

Groups that are normally considered unpopular in this country did grow in favorability. Among the general population atheists grew from 41 to 50, and muslims grew from 40 to 48 -- both significant growth figures. Among Democrats the atheists grew from 46 to 57, and the muslims grew from 47 to 56. The same was true among Republicans, where atheists grew from 34 to 43 and muslims grew from 33 to 39.

Why did the evangelical christians not grow in favorability? Could it be because they are trying hard to force their religious views on all Americans, while other religious groups simply want to be free to worship (or not worship) as they please? I think so. Their effort to turn their religious views into law is not winning them any new friends.

Presidential Preference Among U.S. Religious Groups

A few days ago, I brought you the results of a religious breakdown among christian groups in this country from the Public Religion Research Institute. Now the Gallup Poll has released a similar survey (done between July 1st and August 28th), and their survey includes other religions.

It shows Trump has an advantage among White protestants (+28), White catholics (+10), and mormons (+17). Clinton has the advantage among Black protestants (+66), Hispanic catholics (+55), jews (+29), muslims (+55), other non-christian religions (+30), and the non-religious (+25).

The "Non-Religious" Are The Fastest Growing Group In The U.S.

This chart shows that religion in the United States is experiencing some difficulties. In the seven years since 2007, all three major christian groups have lost membership -- evangelicals about 0.9%, mainline protestants about 3.4%, and catholics about 3.1%. The only two groups that experienced growth are the non-christian religions by about 1.2 % and the non-religious by a whopping 6.7%.

The growth of the non-religious in the last seven years has been remarkable -- and has boosted them from 4th place among the groups to 2nd place now (vaulting them past the mainline protestants and the catholics). There is no reason to believe these trends won't continue.

The chart was made from information provided by the Pew Research Center.

Percentage Of Christians Is Shrinking In The United States

A new Pew Research Center study shows that the number of christians in the United States continues to shrink. Note in the chart above, made from the results of that study, that all christian sects have lost about 7.8% of their membership just in the last eight years (since 2007). And it is not in just one group -- all of the christian groups have lost membership -- protestants 4.8%, catholics 3.1%, orthodox 0.1%, and mormons 0.1%.

The non-christian religions have seen some tiny growth, but there is only one group that has seen significantly larger growth -- those with no religion at all, which showed a growth of 6.7%. In fact, the non-religious are now the second largest group in this country. The largest group is the evangelicals (62 million), followed by the non-religious (56 million), catholics (51 million), mainline protestants (36 million), and Black protestants (16 million).

If this trend continues, and there is no reason to believe that it won't, in another decade or two the non-religious could be the largest group in this country. The chart below shows the generational change in religion. Note that with each new generation the number of christians shrinks, and the number of the non-religious grows. In the latest generation, the millennials, the number of non-religious people is now about 34-36%.

Don't Say The Pledge

There is a move among some atheist organizations right now to encourage people to refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I support this move, and I haven't said the pledge in many years now. Why? Does it mean I'm not patriotic? Of course not. Patriotism doesn't depend on reciting a few words.

I cannot bring myself to recite the pledge because of the phrase "one nation under god". For me, that would mean I pledge my support for the United States being a religious (and probably christian) nation -- and I cannot do that. This nation was founded as a secular nation and that's what it should remain -- because only a secular nation can guarantee religious freedom (which includes the freedom to not be religious).

The pledge has not always contained the offensive god phrase. It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy. Bellamy was both a Baptist minister and a socialist, but saw no need to include either politics or religion in the pledge. The pledge as he wrote it could be recited by any American -- regardless of their politics or religious views. It was not until 1954 (more than 60 years later) that the god phrase was inserted into the pledge -- turning it into something that millions of attests in America could no longer pledge.

The saddest thing about the current movement to not say the pledge is that many students are being punished by their teachers for refusing to stand and recite the pledge. That is ridiculous -- and it is unconstitutional. No student (or adult) in this country should be punished for exercising their right not to participate in what they consider a religious ritual -- especially in a public (government) school.

I know these teachers (and other christians) don't understand how offensive the word god can be to some people. But they need to ask themselves a question. Could they in good conscience recite the pledge if it contained the phrase "under allah" or "under satan"? I doubt it. I think they would find that far too offensive. They need to understand that the phrase "under god" is just as offensive to many atheists.

Why can't we just go back to the original pledge -- a pledge that anyone can recite without going against their conscience?

How The Different Religious Groups Are Viewed In The U.S.

I thought the charts above were interesting. They were made with information from a recent Pew Research Center survey taken between May 30th and June 30th of a random national sample of 3,217 American adults (with a 2.2 point margin of error). Respondents were asked to rate their feelings for the different groups (with 0 being totally negative and 100 being totally positive). The chart numbers above are the averages of those responses.

There weren't a lot of surprises. Jews, catholics, and evangelicals were rated pretty high by all groups. Democrats rated non-christian groups higher than Republicans did. And younger people rated non-christians higher than older people. Blacks rated muslims higher than Whites or Hispanics. Whites rated jews the highest, Hispanics rated catholics the highest, and Blacks rated evangelicals the highest.

But perhaps the biggest factor in how a group was viewed was whether a person knew anyone in that group. Those knowing someone in the group consistently rated the group higher than those who didn't. In other words, it's harder to demonize a group when you know someone in that group. Even the atheists got up to 50% for those who actually knew one or more of us.

Even Atheists Like This Pope

Pope Francis received a singular honor this last week when he was named as Time Magazine's Person of the Year. Although I am an atheist, I have no problem with that choice -- and evidently I'm not the only atheist who feels that way. A new YouGov Poll (taken between November 28th and December 2nd of 1,170 nationwide adults) shows that atheists have a very positive impression of Pope Francis -- and the percentage of atheists with a positive impression is surprisingly higher than the percentage of catholics or other christians.

Now don't get me wrong. These atheists, including myself, do not have a high opinion of the Pope because of his religion, or because he is a religious person. We would probably like him even more if he wasn't. He is liked because he has parted from past Popes in what he has chosen to use influence for.

While other Popes chose to use their power to protect pedophile priests and to protect the vast wealth of the church, this Pope has chosen to use his influence to highlight the plight of the poor -- and to take capitalist countries to task for making corporate greed a higher priority than taking care of the poor. And that is a stance that anyone with an ounce of common decency, even non-religious people, can appreciate and support.

Future Looks Bright For Progressives

The charts above were made from information contained in the recent Public Religion Research Institute survey (Taken between May 30th and June 16th of a nationwide sample of 2,002 adults -- with a margin of error of 2.6 points).

This survey was not so much about religion as it was about the politics of religious people. And the survey's results should give progressives reason to cheer, because it shows that the nation is moving toward a more progressive point of view. The group with the largest number of religious conservatives (48%) is the "Silent Generation" -- Americans between the ages of 66 and 88. When all age groups are considered, the number of religious conservatives drops to about 28%. And when only "Millennials) are considered, those between 18 and 33, the number of religious conservatives drops even further -- down to only 17%.

And the opposite is true of religious progressives -- going from 12% in the Silent Generation, to 19% in the General Public, and 23% among Millennials. The non-religious (a group identified by a Pew Research survey as voting mostly for progressives) are also growing -- going from 10% among the Silent Generation, to 15% among the General Public, and to 22% among the Millennials. Clearly, this country has moved away from conservatives and toward progressives -- and will do so even more as members of the Silent Generation die off and are replaced by more progressive younger voters. Here is how Dr. Robert P. Jones, cep of the Public Religion Research Institute, sums up his survey:

“Our new research shows a complex religious landscape, with religious conservatives holding an advantage over religious progressives in terms of size and homogeneity. However, the percentage of religious conservatives shrinks in each successive generation, with religious progressives outnumbering religious conservatives in the Millennial generation.”

Now some may think that as the Millennials grow older, they will become more conservative in their political views (a popular belief among conservatives). I think it is much more likely, a studies have shown, that these young Millennials are developing voting habits that will stay with them as they grow older (much like the voting habits many older Americans developed years ago in a much more conservative America).

The fact is that many young Americans are being turned off by the accusatory and exclusionary attitudes of conservative (fundamentalist) religious people (who would condemn anyone with a different point of view). Some of these young people are finding a home in a progressive religious community, and others are abandoning religion. But whatever their choice about religion, they are voting in a much more progressive fashion than their elders.

And when you look at some of the individual questions asked by the survey, there is even more good news for progressives. Although the General Public (composed of all ages and religious views) currently has more conservatives (28%) than progressives (19%), the attitudes they expressed clearly show the move toward a more progressive way of thinking. Consider the following answers to survey questions:

GAY & LESBIAN COUPLES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY MARRY.
Favor...............52%
Oppose...............41%
Unsure...............7%

TAX RATE SHOULD BE INCREASED ON THOSE EARNING MORE THAN $250,000 A YEAR.
Favor...............63%
Oppose...............34%
Unsure...............3%

MINIMUM WAGE SHOULD BE RAISED FROM $7.25 AN HOUR TO $10.00 AN HOUR.
Favor...............73%
Oppose...............25%
Unsure...............2%

SHOULD ABORTION BE LEGAL?
Legal in all/most cases...............54%
Illegal in all/most cases...............42%
Unsure...............4%

IN PAST 10 YEARS HAS THE GAP BETWEEN RICH & POOR GOTTEN LARGER?
Gotten larger...............70%
Gotten smaller...............5%
Stayed the same...............21%
Unsure...............5%

THE GOVERMENT SHOULD DO MORE TO REDUCE THE GAP BETWEEN RICH & POOR.
Agree...............63%
Disagree...............35%
Unsure...............1%

IS YOUR GENERATION BETTER OFF THAN YOUR PARENTS' GENERATION?
Better off...............36%
Worse off...............47%
About the same...............16%
Unsure...............1%

IT IS GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE WHO CAN'T TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES.
Agree...............62%
Disagree...............36%
Unsure...............1%

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD GUARANTEE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL CITIZENS, EVEN IF IT MEANS RAISING TAXES.
Agree...............56%
Disagree...............44%
Unsure...............1%

TODAY, CHILDREN FROM ALL INCOME GROUPS HAVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES TO BECOME SUCCESSFUL.
Agree...............47%
Disagree...............53%
Unsure...............1%

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC GROWTH?
41% -- Lower taxes on individuals and businesses and pay for it by cutting government programs.
54% -- spend more on education and infrastructure and pay for it by raising taxes on wealthy individuals and businesses.
3% -- Both/neither
2% -- Unsure

That sounds to me like a fairly progressive general public, and it will just get more progressive in the years to come. It looks like the future is bright for progressives in this country. But we must continue to fight hard for that future. The right-wing fundamentalists are not going to just lay down or go away without a fight -- and progressives must remain ready and willing to engage in that political battle.

# Of Atheists In Prison Is Worthless Statistic

Another blogger, a fellow atheist, has asked for and received some new statistics on the number of people in prison who claim to be atheists. And he found that the number of atheists in prison was incredibly low -- only about 0.07% of prisoners. Some atheist bloggers have jumped on that number and are using it to claim that atheists are somehow less prone to criminal behavior than religious people.

As an atheist, I would like to believe that -- but I don't. I don't believe it because I think the statistics are worthless. They are worthless because those prisoners have too strong an incentive to lie. And when respondents to any poll or survey have a strong incentive to lie, then that poll or survey cannot be trusted.

I worked in the criminal justice system for over 25 years, both inside a correctional facility (as a corrections officer) and outside (as a parole officer). I wish I had a dollar for every prisoner who claimed to have been converted to religion, or showed up to the parole office for his/her first visit with a religious text in hand. I would be a rich man.

Most prisoners (and parolees) are smart enough to know that you do not appear before a parole board composed of religious people and claim to be atheist, if you really want to get out of prison -- and you do not impress a parole officer who is probably religious by claiming to be an atheist, if you want to stay out of prison. They know that most people in this country are religious, and that the perception of many in this country is that religious people are more moral than non-religious people. That perception is not true, but it is real, and prisoners and parolees are smart enough to take advantage of it -- so many of them lie, and say they have found religion.

We can understand why they claim, many times falsely, to be a religious person. They want out of the very bad situation they have put themselves in -- and the easiest way to do that is to use religion.

The truth is that there are many religious people and many atheists who are moral, and many who are not. Neither religion nor denial of religion is an indicator of good (or bad) moral character. But as long as the false perception exists among Americans that religion and morality are somehow tied together, the incentive for prisoners to lie about religion will exist.

And where a strong incentive to lie is evident, statistics cannot be believed. That means the new statistics on the amount of atheists in prison is worthless.

First Permanent Atheist Monument On Government Property

Last year, a christian group installed a 6-ton granite monument featuring the 10 Commandments on county property in front of the courthouse in Bradford County, Florida. The group, American Atheists, immediately filed suit. They did so because allowing that monument on government property amounted to an establishment of religion by the county government (or at the very least a government preference for a certain religious tradition). That is not only unconstitutional, but was a slap in the face to county residents who are not christian or jewish.

That left the county government with a dilemma. They could waste a lot of count money trying to defend that monument, and considering recent court decisions, still wind up losing -- or they could negotiate a settlement with the atheist group. They chose the latter. The result of that settlement will allow the atheist group to put up a monument of their own on county property (and presumably, so could other religious groups -- muslims, sikhs, buddhists, hindus, etc.).

The picture above is of the monument the atheists have built (it's under the tarp). The 1,500 pound monument will be officially unveiled on June 29th -- when it will become the first permanent atheist monument on government property in the United States. It is a granite bench engraved with atheist quotations.

I approve of the county's decision to allow the monument, and the American Atheist decision to pay for its building and placement. My only worry is -- how long will it be before some "christians" deface or destroy it (as they have many atheist billboards across the country). Christians like to brag about how powerful their god is, but their actions tend to show they really don't believe that (since they can't allow any competing materials to exist). I expect the monument will be defaced or destroyed by the end of this summer.

Is The Pope Now Fallible ?

The catholic church has created a rather interesting dilemma for itself. One of two basic doctrines of the church has to be wrong. The church has taught for more than a thousand years that a person cannot go to heaven unless they are a member of the "true" church (the catholic church), and it has also taught that the pope is infallible (since his words are deemed to have come straight from god) and cannot be wrong. This dilemma was created by words uttered by the pope on May 22nd as he spoke at a catholic mass.

The pope was trying to make a statement about good works -- and he said that it is good works that gets a person to heaven, even if they are not a member of the catholic church. Here are those words:

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!

We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.

That's a pretty clear statement. Even an atheist can get to heaven -- not by changing his/her views and joining the church, but by doing good in the world. Now this statement didn't mean much to atheists beyond being a bit amused by it. Atheists do good because it is the right and moral thing to do -- not because it might get them to a place after they die that they don't even believe exists. But it certainly upset a lot of catholics, especially high-ranking catholics whose existence depends on telling people they cannot go to heaven without paying the proper respect for the church (and its officials).

Now one of those two church beliefs is wrong. Either the pope is not fallible anymore (since he was wrong when he said atheists could get to heaven), or the church teaching that only members of the church can get to heaven is wrong. Both cannot be true now.

And it looks like the high officials in the Vatican have made their choice. Vatican spokesman Thomas Rosica the next day (May 23rd) "clarified" the issue. He said that anyone who knows of the catholic church "cannot be saved" if they "refuse to enter her or remain in her". In plain English, that means the pope was wrong and atheists cannot go to heaven. The pope, according to other high catholic officials, is no longer infallible.

Even though I'm an atheist, I find that very interesting. I'm just a bit amused that it took them over a thousand years to figure that out.

One-Fifth Of Americans Have No Religion

A few weeks ago I posted about a Pew Research Center survey that concluded about 20% of Americans have no religion. They are not affiliated with any organized religion, and have no desire to be affiliated with any. Not all of these people are die-hard atheists. They are a mixed lot -- atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and people who simply don't care about religion.

Now there is another study that verifies the Pew Center's survey. It was done by the Institute for the Study of Societal Issues at the University of California at Berkeley. They have been doing their General Social Survey (GSS) since 1972. Back in 1972, the amount of Americans with no religious affiliation was only about 5%. By 1990 that figure had grown slightly to about 8%. But since 1990, the figure has grown rather rapidly (about 12% in 22 years), and in 2012 the percentage of Americans stood at about 20% (actually 19.7%).

Some in the past have said that these people without religion are mainly young people -- who will become religious as they grow older. But while about 32% of 18 to 24 year-olds are in the no religion group, there is no real reason to think they will become religious as they grow older. In fact, this survey shows that ALL demographic groups showed a significant increase in the number of people without religion. And this survey expects the trend toward no religion to continue -- at least for the foreseeable future.

Here is the demographic breakdown. The first percentage shown is the current number of non-religious people, while the number in parentheses shows the number of non-religious people back in 1990:

General public...............19.7% (7.7%)

Women...............16.4% (6.0%)
Men...............23.6% (9.9%)

Whites...............20.7% (8.3%)
African-Americans...............16.8% (3.1%)
Mexican-Americans...............14.1% (4.4%)

18 to 24...............32.0% (9.7%)
25 to 34...............28.6% (10.1%)
35 to 44...............18.8% (8.0%)
45 to 54...............16.0% (5.9%)
55 to 64...............14.7% (7.1%)
65 to 74...............11.9% (5.2%)
75 & over...............7.1% (3.8%)

Less than high school...............16.0% (9.0%)
High school diploma...............16.7% (5.5%)
Some college...............21.0% (7.1%)
College degree...............22.9% (12.5%)
Advanced degree...............24.2% (8.2%)

Northeastern states...............23.9% (7.4%)
Midwestern states...............18.7% (6.3%)
Southern states...............14.6% (5.6%)
Mountain states...............27.8% (4.3%)
Pacific states...............24.9% (14.6%)

Liberals...............39.6% (14.6%)
Moderates...............17.9% (6.1%)
Conservatives...............9.1% (5.0%)

This trend should be worrisome to the so-called social conservatives (those who want to impose their own religious beliefs on other Americans through laws). That's because I believe their actions are one of the main reasons for Americans fleeing from religion in ever larger numbers. Note that the sharp climb in the number of non-religious Americans began about 1990 -- shortly after these social conservatives began to increase their visibility in American politics. It looks to me like they are shooting themselves in the foot -- repeatedly.

Refreshing Change

The picture above shows new Representative Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) being sworn in by Speaker Boehner on the first day of the 113th Congress. What may not be evident in the picture, but is certainly important, is that Rep. Sinema does not have her hand on a Bible (or any other religious book). That's because she is the only openly atheist member of the current Congress (although she has started referring to herself as "non-religious" rather than atheist). She is taking the oath of office with her hand on a copy of the United States Constitution -- which makes sense because that is the document she is swearing to uphold.

Unconstitutional State Constitutions

All laws in the United States are supposed to be in accordance with the United States Constitution, and any laws, rules, or state constitutional provisions that violate any part of the U.S. Constitution is null and void -- not legal. It says this in Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Note that Article VI also contains a provision that says no religious test shall be required to hold public office. That means no persons can be required to be a member of any religion in order to hold public office (whether it is an elected or appointed position), or to even be religious at all. That makes we wonder how the following six states can still have these provisions in their own state constitutions:

ARKANSAS (Article 19, Section 1)
 "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

MISSISSIPPI (Article 14, Section 265)
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

NORTH CAROLINA (Article 6, Section 8)
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

SOUTH CAROLINA (Article 17, Section 4)
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution. 

TENNESSEE (Article 9, Section 2)

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of re- wards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

TEXAS (Article 1, Section 4)
 No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

These state constitutional provisions all violate the United States Constitution by making it illegal for atheists to hold public office. They try to limit Article VI by interpreting it to just mean belief in no "particular" religion is required, as long as there is a belief in god. But Article VI does not limit itself in that way. It simply says there will be no religious test, and requiring a belief in god to hold public office is certainly a religious test.

It is time for these archaic and unconstitutional provisions in these six state constitutions to be changed.

Decline Of Religion In The U.S.

The above figures are derived from a massive Gallup Poll conducted between January 2nd and November 30th of this year of 326,721 adults (18 and older) chosen randomly from across the nation. The huge number of respondents gives the poll a very high degree of accuracy, with a margin of error of only 1 point.

While the poll shows that 69% of the American population is either moderately or very religious, the really shocking statistic is the third one -- that 31% of the population is not religious at all. That is a very high number -- even higher than the results from a recent Pew Research Center Poll, which found the number of the nonreligious to be about 20% (although growing faster than any other religious group). That means at least 3 out of every 10 people in the U.S. is either an atheist, agnostic, or otherwise has no religion.

Now the only thing this proves is that the United States is becoming less and less religious as time passes. But amazingly, the author of a new book (God Is Alive And Well: The Future Of Religion In America) takes these figures (and others dating back to polls as old as 2008) to reach the conclusion that religion is on the verge of making a big comeback in this country.

The author bases this conclusion on the ideas that the most religious age group is the one composed of people over 65 years old, and that people get more religious as they age -- and since the large group of "baby boomers" are starting to enter that age group that means the percentage of the religious will increase. The first premise is true. The current crop of elderly people are the most religious age group. The Pew Research Center found the following percentages of nonreligious people by age group:

Born 1913 to 1927...............5%
Born 1928 to 1945...............9%
Born 1946 to 1964...............15%
Born 1965 to 1980...............21%
Born 1981 to 1989...............30%
Born 1990 to 1994...............34%

But while the oldest couple of groups do have the lowest percentage of the nonreligious, we must take into account that they were born into (and grew up in) a much different America -- a much more religious America. This group didn't necessarily become more religious as they aged -- they were always more religious than the age groups that came after them.

The author seems to be basing his belief on people growing more religious as they start to face death, but there is no proof that happens in any significant numbers. It's much like the old christian idea that "there are no atheists in foxholes" (that people run toward a belief in god if faced with possible death). But as we know, there are plenty of atheists in foxholes -- and the danger they face does not make them accept a god they discarded after much lengthy thought.

The fact is that most atheists and agnostics gave up the myth of a god after a lengthy and painful period of soul-searching -- and there is no reason (other than religious wishful thinking) to believe they will abandon their non-belief just because they are getting older. Of course there is always some movement between non-belief and belief (people changing their minds), but there is no reason to believe this will favor religious belief in a significant way. In fact, both the Gallup and Pew polls seem to show just the opposite -- that the larger numbers of people are moving away from a belief in god and organized religion.

Another reason that could inhibit the movement of people back toward religion was released in another recent Gallup Poll. This poll surveyed the publics attitudes on which professions were considered to be honest and ethical by most people. Somewhat surprisingly, the clergy did not do real well in that -- with only 53% of Americans considering the clergy (whether protestant, catholic, or other) to be honest and ethical. That's an even lower number than the percentage of people who consider themselves religious -- meaning that even many religious people have serious doubts about the honesty of the clergy.

The baby boomers are already reaching the age of 65, and we will soon know if that makes them more religious. I don't believe it will.

"War On Xmas" Or Upholding Constitution ?

The picture above shows a citizen walking past a nativity scene in Palisades Park in Santa Monica (California) back in 2010. That won't be happening this year. For the first time since 1953, there won't be a nativity scene (or any other kind of display) in the park for the holiday season -- and some christian groups don't like that at all. They think they have a right to erect a religious display on government property, and they took the city of Santa Monica to court, claiming the city had violated their religious freedom by not allowing them to erect a religious display on city property.

How did this happen? Well, back in 2010 an atheist asked to erect his own display in the park, since the christians had a display up. Knowing they couldn't win a constitutional battle if they prevented it, the city allowed the display. For 2011, the city decided to avoid controversy by dividing display space into 21 separate areas, and they would draw lots from those applying for space to determine who got the space (giving everyone an equal and constitutional chance to win a space).

I think they probably expected christian groups to win most of those spaces, but it didn't work out that way. When the drawing took place, atheist groups won 18 spaces, christian groups won 2 spaces, and a jewish group won one space. While the system was fair, it didn't satisfy the christian groups (who still think they should have a monopoly on government property during the holiday season).

This year the city decided just to avoid all of the controversy and ban all displays in the park, regardless of who wanted to put them up. That's when the christian groups went to court. But that didn't work out too well either. U.S. District Jude Audrey B Collins ruled that the city could not be forced to allow a display in the park. She also ruled that the group's religious freedom had not been violated, since all groups were banned from erecting displays and the group had not been singled out. She said:

To demonstrate a violation, Plaintiff must show that it was intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.


The attorney for the group wanting to erect a nativity scene said the city was wrong because they are supposed to protect citizen's rights, and they didn't do that. He is wrong. What the city did was to act to protect the constitutional rights of ALL the citizens, rather than elevating the rights of one religious group above all others.

Fox News and others are calling this another volley in the war on christmas. It's not. Any citizen of that city can celebrate christmas as they wish, and they can even put up a nativity scene -- as long as they do it on their own property. The Bible does not trump the Constitution, and the day it does will mean the end of freedom in this country. What this really was is a victory for the Constitution -- and for religious freedom (believe it or not).

Religious Coalitions In 2012 Election

This is another, and slightly different, view of the coalitions put together by each of the presidential candidates. Note that Willard Mitt Romney's coalition depended mainly on white christians (75%). This broke down to 37% white evangelical protestant, 19% white mainline protestant, and 19% white catholic. Only 16% came from African-American and Hispanic christians and people from other religions, while 8% came from non-religious people. The chart shows that Romney's coalition was most similar to the over 65 age group. Actually it was the picture of an even older America -- America like it was three generations ago.

But the Obama coalition was much broader based. It was composed of 38% white christian, 26% African-American and Hispanic christians, 13% other christians and other religions, and 23% non-religious people. Note that his coalition fits neatly between the 18-29 and 30-49 age groups. In other words it is more representative of the America that exists today. It is also more representative of the America of the future, where non-religious voters and minority christian voters and voters from other religions will play an ever-growing part in our elections.

Much has been made of the fact that the Romney campaign (and Republicans in general) did not appeal to minority voters (losing 95% of African-Americans, 71% of Hispanics, and 73% of Asians). But there is another group that Republicans did very poorly with, and it's a rapidly growing group. It is the non-religious sector of the American population. And like minorities, this segment of voters is growing large enough that it can no longer be ignored.

America is changing, and the change will grow larger with each election. The day a national candidate can win by appealing only to white christians is fast disappearing. It may work in House Districts (because many of them are still dominated by white christians), but it is a losing proposition for a national candidacy, and will soon be a losing proposition in most statewide contests.

The Republicans face a choice. Do they want to continue campaigning only to white theocrats, and remain a party that can only win diminishing seats in the House? Or do they want to alter some of their policies (the ones that are abhorrent to minorities, young people, and non-religious people) and once again become a competitive national party?

I don't think they are ready yet to make that decision. Too many in their teabagger base still think they just didn't have a conservative enough candidate this time, or just didn't sell their hateful views hard enough. It will be interesting to watch the Wall Street Republicans fight the teabagger Republicans for control of the party. I still think the teabaggers will rule the day for a while longer (numbers over money), but someday soon the Republicans will have to face the truth -- or join the Whigs in the dustbin of history.