Could you talk to someone not like you?

Apparently, not if you are Evangelical.  From the Barna Group, a study to assess how comfortable different groups would be, having a conversation with someone not like them.

Evangelicals seem to have a particularly difficult time talking to those outside their group. They report higher tensions than any other group when it comes to having conversations with those who are different from them. For instance, almost nine in 10 evangelicals (87%) believe it would be difficult to have a natural and normal conversation with a member of the L[GB]T community, but only six in 10 in the LGBT community (58%) say it would be difficult to have a natural and normal conversation with an evangelical. 

This is consistent across the board. Evangelicals consistently report higher levels of difficulty toward other groups than those groups report toward them.

So, it's a La la la I can't hear you!

Polls show most Christians support equality

Several polls out recently from Pew and PRRI show the expected:  nearly 60% of Americans favor marriage equality, with similar numbers opposing RFRA acts (religious freedom exemptions) and supporting anti-discrimination laws.

From the PRRI news release

“As national opinion has shifted toward support for LGBT rights, including among religious Americans, white evangelical Protestants are increasingly becoming an island of opposition amidst a sea of acceptance,” said Dr. Robert P. Jones, CEO of Public Religion Research Institute. “Today, white evangelical support remains below the level of support from a decade ago in the general public, and they are also less likely than other religious groups to acknowledge that LGBT Americans face discrimination.”

The issue of same-sex marriage continues to divide religious Americans. Majorities of religiously unaffiliated Americans (79 percent), white mainline Protestants (60 percent) and Catholics (58 percent) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally. Conversely, only 29 percent of white evangelical Protestants and 35 percent of non-white Protestants support making same-sex marriage legal; majorities of white evangelical Protestants (62 percent) and non-white Protestants (54 percent) oppose it.

So, it is no longer a "Christian" value to oppose marriage equality.  Mainstream Media, take note.

Thinkprogress digs in a bit:

The curious outlier of white evangelicals appears rooted in their comparative unwillingness to acknowledge that LGBT people already face discrimination. Only 44 percent of white evangelicals told PRRI that gay and lesbian people endure “a lot” of discrimination, compared to 54 percent of non-white Protestants, 59 percent of white mainline Protestant, and 70 percent of Catholics who said the same. White evangelicals were slightly more willing to say that transgender people face systemic prejudice (49 percent), but still lagged behind the American populace as a whole (62 percent).

The findings reflect a trend that has become more and more evident over that past few years: that religious people actually generally champion LGBT rights, with only a few holdout groups (e.g., white evangelical Protestants) remaining staunchly opposed. Some of this support comes in direct defiance of established religious hierarchies such as U.S. Catholic bishops, who consistently oppose same-sex marriage and LGBT rights even as lay Catholics have become more supportive of marriage equality than any other American Christian group. This spiritual disagreement over LGBT acceptance has pushed many young Americans to abandon organized religion, but it has also inspired an whole new generation of progressive people of faith, many of whom are speaking out against anti-LGBT theology and citing holy scripture as their motivation for accepting people for who they are.

Fewer Christians in the US

The news today is a new poll from Pew Research identifying a significant decline in the number of Americans who call themselves "Christian".  Strikingly, the rate of decline is just as high for the catholics as for the Mainline.  The Evangelicals are more or less holding their own, but the "unaffiliated" which includes atheists, agnostics, spiritual-but-not-religious, and whatevers, is now nearly 23%.  The younger and better educated you are, the more likely you are a "none". 

The New York Times comments,

The decline has been propelled in part by generational change, as relatively non-Christian millennials reach adulthood and gradually replace the oldest and most Christian adults. But it is also because many former Christians, of all ages, have joined the rapidly growing ranks of the religiously unaffiliated or “nones”: a broad category including atheists, agnostics and those who adhere to “nothing in particular.”

What explains this?  One possibility:

The report does not offer an explanation for the decline of the Christian population, but the low levels of Christian affiliation among the young, well educated and affluent are consistent with prevailing theories for the rise of the unaffiliated, like the politicization of religion by American conservatives, a broader disengagement from all traditional institutions and labels, the combination of delayed and interreligious marriage, and economic development. 

The article continues,

Nearly a quarter of people who were raised as Christian have left the group, and ex-Christians now represent 19 percent of adults.

Attrition was most substantial among mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics, who have declined in absolute numbers and as a share of the population since 2007. The acute decline in the Catholic population, which fell by roughly 3 million, is potentially a new development. Most surveys have found that the Catholic share of the population has been fairly stable over the last few decades, in no small part because it has been reinforced by migration from Latin America.

There's a wealth of information here and you can break it out by denomination.  For example, check out the demographics of the Episcopal/Anglican group here. 

On leaving religion

It's common in certain places to claim that the decline in membership in organized church is due to liberalism.  This is false.  Every faith group is losing its members, from Roman Catholics to Southern Baptists.

 And the recent "gold standard" survey , the General Social Survey (GSS) funded by the National Science Foundation, makes the point.

From Religion News Service:

...we see between a one and three point rise in secularity since 2012, with 7.5 million more people never entering a church or other worship service than just two years earlier....The number of Americans who never darken a church door is also at a new high. Over a third of Americans (34 percent) never attend a worship service (other than weddings and other ceremonies). This is a 3.4 point increase from just a few years earlier. Put differently, the group of Americans who don’t attend church grew by a rate of over ten percent in two years.  

A new snapshot of religion in America

The American Values Atlas from the Public Religion Research Institute has some fascinating findings.

1. For the first time ever, America is not a majority Protestant nation. Only 47 percent of America identified as Protestant in 2014. ...

2. White Christians are the minority in 19 states.

Only 25% of Californians are white Christians, for example. We're a majority-minority state now anyway. 

3. More than 1-in-5 Americans are religiously unaffiliated.

This is the same number as are Catholic, and are disproportionately young (over 1/3 of young people are unaffilitated.)  Wow, if they would just vote.....

4. In fact, the religiously unaffiliated is the largest religious groups in 13 states, including Oregon (37 percent), New Hampshire (35 percent), Washington State (33 percent), and Vermont (32 percent).

No wonder Portland is so popular.  Though there's a certain woo-woo element that goes with that "unaffiliated" -- not all are atheists, not by a long shot.

5. The Northeast is still Catholic country. Over one-third (34 percent) of Northeast residents identify as Catholic—and 77 percent of the Catholics are white. ....

6. Consistent with national trends, Evangelical Protestants are becoming less white. Today, roughly two-thirds (66 percent) of Protestants who identify as evangelical or born again are non-Hispanic whites. ....

7. Hispanic Catholics make up an increasing proportion of Catholics...

This is keeping the numbers up in Roman Catholicism.  There's a real drop-off in the participation by cradle Catholics as they become adults;  fewer weddings and baptisms, and more likely to marry outside the faith.

8. White evangelical Protestants are facing a generational divide on same-sex marriage, but not abortion. ....

9. Buddhists are the most likely to be single and Mormons are most likely to be married.

Do you know any practicing Buddhists?  The ones I know have all made vows of some sort.

10. Unitarians and white evangelical Protestants are aging, while Hindus and Muslims tend to be younger. Unitarians have an average age of 55, 7 years older than the national average (48 years). White evangelical Protestants and white Catholics also tend to be older than average, with 54 years old as adherents’ average age. Hindus and Muslims, on the other hand, have an average age of 36.

Great maps of the data at the Washington Post. 

Poll highlights effects of religion on equality debate

From PRRI:

Currently, a majority (53%) of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, compared to 41% who oppose.... 

.... Religiously unaffiliated Americans (73%), white mainline Protestants (62%), white Catholics (58%), and Hispanic Catholics (56%) all favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry....Only 27% of white evangelical Protestants and 35% of black Protestants support same-sex marriage....

This next one is interesting:

Regular churchgoers (those who attend at least once or twice a month), particularly those who belong to religious groups that are supportive of same-sex marriage, are likely to over- estimate opposition for same-sex marriage in their churches by 20 percentage points or more.

• „„About 6-in-10 (59%) white mainline Protestants believe their fellow congregants are mostly opposed to same-sex marriage. However, among white mainline Protestants who attend church regularly, only 36% oppose allowing gay and lesbian people to legally marry while a majority (57%) actually favor this policy.
• Roughly three-quarters (73%) of Catholics believe that most of their fellow congregants are opposed to same-sex marriage. However, Catholics who regularly attend church are in fact divided on the issue (50% favor, 45% oppose).

This is not a surprise.

....Majorities of Americans perceive three religious groups to be unfriendly to LGBT people: the Catholic Church (58%), the Mormon church (53%), and evangelical Christian churches (51%). Perceptions of non-evangelical Protestant churches, African-American churches and the Jewish religion are notably less negative. 

And this is what's getting all the press:

...Nearly 6-in-10 (58%) Americans agree that religious groups are alienating young people by being too judgmental on gay and lesbian issues. ... 

Among Americans who left their childhood religion and are now religiously unaffiliated, about one-quarter say negative teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people was a somewhat important (14%) or very important (10%) factor in their decision to disaffiliate. 

The poll also says that about 5% of respondents ID as LGBT.

 

New survey from PRRI: religious progressives

From an Economic Values Survey published by the Public Religion Research Institute (PDF here)

A newly developed religious orientation scale that combines theological, economic and social outlooks finds that 28% of Americans are religious conservatives, 38% are religious moderates, and 19% of Americans are religious progressives; additionally, 15% of Americans are nonreligious.

As expected, the more liberal groups trend Democratic, and younger.

When we break down what denominations fall into what category, it's not a surprise....

... Catholics (29%) constitute the largest single group among religious progressives, followed by white mainline Protestants (19%), those who are not formally affiliated with a religious tradition but who nevertheless say religion is at least somewhat important in their lives (18%), and non-Christian religious Americans such as Jews, Buddhist, Hindus, and Muslims (13%). Notably, white evangelical Protestants constitute only four percent of religious progressives. By contrast, white evangelical Protestants constitute more than 4-in-10 (43%) of religious conservatives, followed by Catholics (17%) and white mainline Protestants (15%). Black Protestants comprise about 1-in-10 of both the religious progressive (9%) and religious conservative (8%) coalitions.

Some of the beliefs are sadly predictable.

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of religious conservatives agree that it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral.  Only 29% of religious progressives and 12% of nonreligious Americans agree with this statement. 

But here's a real eye-opener:

Nearly 8-in-10 (79%) religious progressives say being a religious person is mostly about doing the right thing, compared to 16% who say it is about holding the right beliefs. By contrast, a majority (54%) of religious conservatives say being a religious person is primarily about having the right beliefs, while less than 4-in-10 (38%) say it is mostly about doing the right thing.

Religious conservatives and religious progressives disagree about the degree to which social problems stem from individual actions and decisions. More than 8-in-10 (82%) religious conservatives agree that if enough people had a personal relationship with God, social problems would take care of themselves. By contrast, nearly 7-in-10 (68%) religious progressives disagree that if enough people had a personal relationship with God, social problems would take care of themselves, compared to 31% who agree.

So, to summarize, progressives say that your acts matter, and conservatives say no, it's your beliefs.  (So go ahead and cut food stamps!)  And conservatives think that if we all just "got GEEEzus" we wouldn't NEED foodstamps.

Not a surprise, but still stunning to see the numbers...

Also surprising is evidence that 41% of  religious conservatives aren't necessarily comfortable with capitalism, and see it as incompatible with religious values.  Then why do they keep voting Republican?

Meanwhile, from the press release:

“Religious conservatives are a known quantity and they play an important role in our politics,” said E.J. Dionne, Brookings senior fellow. “But this survey also shows that religious progressives are a more significant group than is usually assumed, and that there is a strong social justice constituency among religious Americans that cuts across labels.”

New Gallup Poll on Religion (CORRECTED)

From Gallup:

Over three-quarters of Americans (77%) say religion is losing its influence on American life, while 20% say religion's influence is increasing. These represent Americans' most negative evaluations of the impact of religion since 1970, although similar to the views measured in recent years.

But look at the following data(corrected:  previously I had the wrong table). While about 75% of Americans in aggregate think more religion would be good, the breakdown between more-religious and less-religious is dramatic.  People who are not religious think it would be bad to increase religious influence.

And that is because for most non-religious, the face of American religion isn't Bp Gene Robinson, but Abp Timothy Dolan. The public face of religion is anti-gay zealots like Tony Perkins and Brian Brown. It's people who denigrate atheists and argue that we should live under Biblical rules (even if mis-interpreted).   It's people who deny evolution and climate change as part of their anti-intellectualism.  That's the face of American religiosity, and no, we don't need more of that.

Post-Christian? Not really.

source

The Barna Group has identified "post-Christian" cities in the US, according to the following criteria:

Post-Christian = meet at least 60% of the following 15 factors (9 or more factors)
Highly Post-Christian = meet at least 80% of the following 15 factors (12 or more factors) 

1. do not believe in God
2. identify as atheist or agnostic
3. disagree that faith is important in their lives
4. have not prayed to God (in the last year)
5. have never made a commitment to Jesus
6. disagree the Bible is accurate
7. have not donated money to a church (in the last year)
8. have not attended a Christian church (in the last year)
9. agree that Jesus committed sins
10. do not feel a responsibility to “share their faith”
11. have not read the Bible (in the last week)
12. have not volunteered at church (in the last week)
13. have not attended Sunday school (in the last week)
14. have not attended religious small group (in the last week)
15. do not participate in a house church (in the last year)

 I don't think you can buy their criteria as all necessarily "Post-Christian".  The Barna group is evangelical, and I think that you can better describe some of these as "Post-Evangelical".   For example, 5. have never made a commitment to Jesus.  Would your average Episcopalian say s/he has made such a commitment?  That's not the language of the mainline, or the Catholics.

Similarly, 6. disagree the Bible is accurate.  Well, I don't know any Episcopalians who buy that the Bible is literally true, do you?

And what about 9. agree that Jesus committed sins.  If Jesus was human, didn't he commit any sins?  He doubted, didn't he?  I bet he got rude and annoyed. Did he ever talk back to Mary when he was a teenager?

And then:  10. do not feel a responsibility to “share their faith” That would be the evangelizing that names the evangelical, don't you think?  God's Frozen Chosen are often very reticent.

11. have not read the Bible (in the last week) Until BP joined EfM, I don't think she read the Bible frequently, I mean outside of the Gospel readings in church.   Occasionally, yes, but not every week.

12. have not volunteered at church (in the last week)  Oh, you mean because you are working two jobs and have the flu?  C'mon Barna, not everyone volunteers.

13. have not attended Sunday school (in the last week)  If you're over 15, you probably aren't attending Sunday school.  But this makes you "post-Christian"?

14. have not attended religious small group (in the last week)
15. do not participate in a house church (in the last year)
Wow, I don't think the big Sunday Eucharist counts.

So, 'piskies:
If you are not clergy: how  many of the Barna's list applies to you?  Are you, by their definition, "post-Christian"?

New Pew Poll on same sex marriage, and a comparison

People are noticing new poll results, in keeping with other recent polls indicating that a plurality, if not a majority of Americans now support the right of gay couples to marry.

I think it's interesting to compare this to approval of inter-racial marriage. A couple of years ago I compared the rate of approval of inter-racial marriage to that of approval of marriage between same sex couples, using data from different polls*.

I've revised the graph with the newest poll numbers and added some landmarks.

I want you to notice a couple of things, as I've noted before.  First, at the time of Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court overturned anti-miscegenation laws and declared inter-racial marriage legal, only 20% of Americans approved of such marriages.

Compare this to the 27% percent who already approved of marriage equality when DOMA passed, which prevented the recognition of same sex marriages.  20% approved when we legalized inter-racial marriage, 27% approved when we essentially de-legalized same sex marriages.

At the time marriage equality for gay couples was approved in Massachusetts (2003) about 35% of Americans approved. It took 10 years after the Loving decision for the numbers to reach that point.  That is, only  10 years AFTER inter-racial marriage was legal, did that many people agree with it.

We're now just below 50% on approval of same sex marriage (sometimes a few points up, sometimes a few points down). It took 25 years AFTER inter-racial marriage became legal, to reach that point.  So at the same point of approval of inter-racial marriage that we're at now, it had already been legal for 25 years.

Why are we still fighting this battle?

*Method:  For this analysis, I assigned a starting year to the absolute value "0" (1968 for inter-racial data).  Each data point was then plotted based on how many years had elapsed since year "0".  I then registered the same sex marriage data against the inter-racial marriage data based on the nearest value (that is, 1996 for same sex marriage was closest to 1972 for inter-racial marriage). The density of points for same sex marriage relative to the inter-racial marriage reflects the difference in frequency of polling the questions.


*Inter-racial marriage from two Gallup polls here and here
*Same sex marriage from two Pew polls here and here
More Pew data analysis here

Discrimination against white Americans?

Last week, the Brookings Institute and the Public Religion Research Institute released a report based on a new survey, asking about diversity in America on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. In amongst the expected questions about opinions of Islam and immigration, there is this gem:

Nearly half (46 percent) of Americans agree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities. A slim majority (51 percent) disagree. 

• •A slim majority of whites agree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against minority groups, compared to only about 3-in-10 blacks and Hispanics who agree. 
• •Approximately 6-in-10 Republicans and those identifying with the Tea Party agree that discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against minority groups.  
• •Nearly 7-in-10 Americans who say they most trust Fox News say that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities. In stark contrast, less than 1-in-4 Americans who most trust public television for their news agree."

I admit to being flabbergasted. i don't know how any white American can possibly imagine they suffer discrimination anything similar to a black person in this country. I just don't.

It's right up there with the idea that Christians are somehow victimized, despite being a clear majority. And then there's this:

More than 8-in-10 (83 percent) Americans say that self-proclaimed Christians who commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity are not really Christians. In contrast, less than half (48 percent) of Americans say that self-proclaimed Muslims who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam are not really Muslims.

Got that? So Anders Breivik, who massacred his fellow Norwegians and justified it by his Western Christian culture, isn't REALLY a Christian, but Mohammad Atta, who flew a plane into the WTC, is a stalwart Muslim.

I despair.

New poll: views of gay morality, and the role of TEC

Public Religion Research has published their latest poll, which shows yet again a country evenly split on marriage equality overall, but with very strong support particularly in the young.  Majorities of main-line Christians and Catholics support equality, with Evangelicals and black protestants still opposed.  You can read the summary as well as access all the data on their website.

So I explored  the data and looked at some of their interesting questions about views of the morality of gay persons, and graphed this for you.

First, the poll asked how people viewed the morality of different sexual behaviors :  sex between unmarried adults, sex between people under 18, sexting and sexual emails, and gay sex.  As expected, sexual acts between gay people were disapproved of, although not quite as much as sex <18 years of age, and not near as much as sexting.

Next, I looked at their data about the acceptability of gay people in different roles in the community.  These answers were broken down by the level of comfort.

I was surprised that strong majorities approved of gay people serving as police, judges (despite the Judge Vaughn Walker issue in the Prop8 case),  doctors, or elected persons with relatively little "very uncomfortable" beyond a baseline 12%.   Curiously, the most vehement response AGAINST anyone was the idea of a gay clergy person.  That means that some number of people (around 12% or so) who have no problem with a gay policeman, are uncomfortable with a gay clergy person.

 

 But in some respect, the most interesting data were in the views of the morality of gay persons themselves.  Participants were asked to agree or disagree with various statements.  I was surprised that relatively few disagreed with the statement that gays can have good moral values, or can be committed to their religion and to God.  In fact, a majority agreed that gay relationships should be accepted by society.  As before, there's a pretty consistent 12% who disagrees strongly with any gay-positive statements.

Where they disagreed, however, was the idea that gay relationships can be blessed by God.  The baseline of 12-15% swelled to  33% who strongly disagreed with this idea.  The overall disagreement totaled 47% as opposed to 45% who agreed.  Thus, a substantial fraction of those who admit that gay people can have good moral values and be committed to religion, nevertheless feel that gay relationships cannot be and are not blessed by God.

From this selective analysis, I take away two broad points.
First, the marriage equality issue must be separated from the religious aspect of Holy Matrimony in the political sphere.  Too many people absolutely disagree that gay couples can be blessed as a couple. Therefore, we must frame the political debate  about civil marriage and educate people in how that differs. This includes explicit statements separating what people do in their faith communities from civil law.   Yes, I know that they aren't necessary, but we need to make the line bright.

Second, in these and other data from the poll, there appears to be a baseline of about 12% who are completely opposed to any rights for gays, who view gays as immoral, and are always negative.  These are the core opposition:  the NOMmers and their like.  They are not going to be moved.  They are implacable foes.  Where we have to fight the battle is in the moveable middle.
 
And that means reaching people in faith communities.  Sure, over 50% of lay Catholics and mainline white Protestants are pro-marriage--but we need those numbers to be closer to 60 or even 70% if we are to achieve civil equality.  Just as we all need to come out at work and at home, I believe the full participation of LGBT in churches, active participation in religious life, will help.  I have to hope that seeing devoted gay couples living faithful lives together will move some of those in the middle from the slightly disagree to sort of agree columns in these polls.  Simply by being us, we can make a difference.

And TEC, by recognizing us as couples like any other, could play a big part in this.  I think the challenge for GC2012 will be huge:  you will need to  resist codifying gay relationships as "less than," and fight for the same blessing for everyone.  Otherwise, you would commit the ecclesiastical equivalent of domestic partnerships for The Gay Folk.  And separate is never equal.

Well, we'll see, won't we?

Update:  From the mouths of babes, a great column in the SMU student newspaper (of all places)

The truth of the matter is that what we have here-to-fore referred to as "same-sex" marriage is no different than any marriage between opposite-sex couples. In both cases, two people come together in love and unity to declare, before God, their unending love for one another. It makes no difference whether it is a man and a woman, two men, or two women. Ultimately, holy matrimony derives its sanctity from the love that both partners share for one another, and not from the genitalia with which they were bestowed....

Gay men and women across the country are not fighting for "same-sex marriage;" they are fighting for "marriage."

I hope that GC2012 will make that so. 

Are the American people buying what the Tea Party is selling (and does it matter)?

A new poll suggests that the right wing lurch in Congress is not what the public had in mind.

Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, says these results are a “cautionary sign” for a Republican Party pursuing deep budget cuts.

He points out that the Americans who are most concerned about spending cuts are core Republicans and Tea Party supporters, not independents and swing voters.

“It may be hard to understand why a person might jump off a cliff, unless you understand they’re being chased by a tiger,” he said. “That tiger is the Tea Party.”
....
The survey ... also listed 26 different ways to reduce the federal budget deficit.

The most popular: placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year (81 percent said that was acceptable), eliminating spending on earmarks (78 percent), eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says aren’t necessary (76 percent) and eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries (74 percent).

The least popular: cutting funding for Medicaid, the federal government health-care program for the poor (32 percent said that was acceptable); cutting funding for Medicare, the federal government health-care program for seniors (23 percent); cutting funding for K-12 education (22 percent); and cutting funding for Social Security (22 percent).

Those numbers, GOP pollster McInturff says, “serve as a huge flashing yellow sign to Republicans … if they are going to start to talk about changes to Medicare and Social Security.”

But will it make any difference? Does it even matter that the people are dismayed? Look at Wisconsin....they will destroy it anyway.

Ideologues gone mad.

Churches attack gays, and the Roman Catholic exodus

The Public Religion Research Institute has a new study that says 2/3 of Americans see a connection between what's said in church and increased rates of suicide in LGBT youth.

Think about that. Two in three Americans can see a direct link between the bile spewed from some pulpits and the death of gay children. That's quite a burden for Christianity, don't you think?

It breaks down further, to show that Roman Catholics in particular blame their church.

A plurality (43%) of Americans say the messages coming from places of worship are negative...Catholics were most likely to give their churches negative marks, with nearly one-third giving their churches a “D” (15%) or an “F” (16%)......

You can't really be susprised. Remember that the Pew poll found that 49% Catholics support same sex marriage--they are one of the largest groups of supporters in the US, despite the fervid opposition of the Bishops. And they aren't happy with the relentless anti-gay politicking from the Bishops. I think you can draw a pretty explicit link between these polling data and the data that are generating a certain amount of handwringing by thinking Catholics. 1 in 3 "cradle Catholics" have left :

[A]bout half of that one-third leaving the church enter the ranks of the fastest-growing religious group in the nation, the “nones,” people who tell pollsters they have no particular religious affiliation, although many hew to surprisingly familiar religious beliefs and practices. ....Catholics becoming unaffiliated stressed disagreement with church teachings, both general teachings and church positions on specific issues like abortion, homosexuality, and treatment of women, and to a lesser extent clerical celibacy. In open-ended questioning, they also stressed hypocrisy and other moral and spiritual failures of church leaders and fellow Catholics.

Yup, speaking as an ex-Roman Catholic myself, that resonates.

The NCR looks at those it calls the "had it" Catholics with similar results. It notes the rates of Baptism, First Communion and Confirmation are also dropping, showing a continuing loss of engagement and identification with The Church at the level of the family.
Cathleen Kaveny writes

From the perspective of these Catholics, doctrine and practice are not developing but withering. But why not stay and fight? First, because they think remaining appears to involve complicity in evil; second, because fighting appears to be futile; and, third, because they don’t like what fighting is doing to them. The fight is diminishing their ability to hear the gospel and proclaim that good news. The fight is depriving them of the peace of Christ.

That certainly agrees with BP's experience. She felt cramped and oppressed by a structure that required her to lie about who she was in order to be included. It's been wonderful to see how she has opened out and spiritually spread her wings since crossing the Thames.

Of course, a big part of her transition is the familiarity of core doctrine and worship. It's not surprising that EPiscopal churches benefit from departing Catholics. Articles on departing Catholics in NCR and Commonweal interview Episcopal priests from different parts of the country who estimate that upwards of 50% or more of their new members are ex-RC. That certainly matches with our informal observation at St Paul's Cathedral, where lots of the congregants are ex-Roman. We've even met a couple of RC priests.

It's not a surprise that top-down RC hierarchy where you "pay, pray, and obey" is no longer able to retain people who are accustomed to using their own minds; who expect women's gifts to be valued equally in leadership; who understand that being gay is a normal human variation, not a pathology; who believe that GLBT couples should be called to the same expectations of faithful monogamy as straight couples; who recognize that even with the best of intentions, a marriage may not last but sentencing an unlucky partner to unwilling celibacy is brutal and inhumane. It's why I semi-jokingly refer to the Episcopal Church as the "thinking man's Catholicism".

The US Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church may well succeed in achieving the Pope's goal of a smaller, purer Roman Catholicism as they embrace the absolute worst of culture-war politics. But eventually, the numbers will catch up to them. [T]hree Catholics leave the church for each one who enters. And this will not be helped by a widely accepted viewpoint that their Church is contributing to an epidemic of suicide in at risk LGBT youth, on top of its coverup of sex abuse and financial scandals.. 47% of Catholics believe their Church is negative about gay people. Those gay people are parents, children, sisters and brothers. And when a Bishop suggests that a mother choose between rejecting her gay child, or her salvation, is it any wonder that she may reject the Bishop?

By the numbers: same sex marriage compared to inter-racial marriage

"Activist judges do not have the right to redefine marriage if the majority of voters disagree." That's what the marriage equality opponents tell us all the time, to justify the "right of the people" to let their opinion determine the rights of a minority group.

So let's consider what the People thought in 1968. In that year, Americans told Gallup that they disapproved of inter-racial marriage by a margin of 73%-20%. Overwhelmingly, Americans did not think people should marry across racial lines.

That's a year after the Supreme Court, in the landmark case Loving v. Virginia, legalized inter-racial marriage. Despite the fact that nearly 3/4 of Americans disapproved. How dare they! Over the voices of the mob majority, how dare they?

It wasn't until 1991, twenty three years after the decision, that a plurality of Americans approved of racially mixed marriages. The number approving has flattened out in recent polls at around 75% now. I suspect it will stay there for some time, until a particular generation dies out.

Now, let's think about marriage equality for GLBT people. When the question was asked in 1996, it was 65% opposed, 27% in favor. Pretty close to where we started with inter-racial marriage, back in the 1960s. So, I wondered: how does the trend compare? The answer is, remarkably well.


These graphs look almost perfectly superimposed. By this prediction, marriage equality will have a plurality of support by about 2019, and an overwhelming majority by 2028. Good news for our kids, eh?

But here's the thing. All these data points for inter-racial marriage come from a time when inter-racial marriage was already legal in all 50 states . We didn't wait for majority approval to remedy the injustice. In contrast, I'm sure I needn't remind you that same sex marriage is not legal yet, except in a few pockets in the country.

Further, by the time public opinion was at the point regarding inter-racial marriage as it is now for same sex marriage, inter-racial marriage had been legal for 14 years.

So please, just what in hell are we waiting for?

And next time you have to deal with the "activist judges" line, remember these data.

Method I took the data from the Gallup polls on inter-racial marriage, and the Pew polls on same-sex marriage. For this analysis, I assigned the starting year to the absolute value "0" (1968 for inter-racial data, 1996 for same-sex marriage data). Each data point was then plotted based on how many years had elapsed since year "0". The density of points for same sex marriage relative to the inter-racial marriage reflects the difference in frequency of polling the questions.

Religious freedom in CA: SB 906 restates the obvious

Following up on Ann's post, below: The first amendment protects religious speech. And any clergy person may legally refuse to marry any couple, for any reason. These are simple facts.

Despite this, however, the Prop8 campaign and the liars of the anti-equality movement have inflamed fears that they will be forced to marry gays, or that they will have to stop preaching against gays. This has allowed them to frame the argument as an issue of religious freedom: as though denying OTHERS' religious freedom somehow benefits them.

In a recent poll released by the Public Religion Research Institute, specifically about Prop 8, the pollsters found that support for marriage equality in the Golden State is around 51%. If, however, civil unions are an option, 42% support marriage, with another 31% for unions.

However, support for marriage increases with specific reassurances:

A significant number of Californians who initially say they support civil unions but not same- sex marriage are willing to support marriage equality if the law addresses either of two basic concerns about religious marriages. When presented with an assurance that the law would guarantee that “no church or congregation would be required to perform marriages for gay couples,” nearly one-third of Californians who initially only supported civil unions are willing to support marriage equality. With this religious liberty reassurance, support for same-sex marriage increases 12 points, from initial support of 42% to a solid majority at 54%. Similarly, when Californians are presented with an assurance that the law “only provided for civil marriages like you get at city hall,” more than half of Californians who initially supported only civil unions are willing to support marriage equality. This civil marriage reassurance results in a 19-point increase in support for same-sex marriage, from 42% to more than 6-in-10.

To make this freedom explicit, CA State Sen Mark Leno introduced Senate Bill 906, which has now passed the Assembly. THis bill

reaffirms the separation of church and state and clarifies under state law that no member of clergy will be required to perform a civil marriage that is contrary to his or her faith. The Assembly approved Senate Bill 906 with a 46-25 vote. The bill will return to the Senate for a routine concurrence vote before going to the governor’s desk.

“This bill simply affirms that California is a diverse state, and that we can all co-exist and make space for each others’ beliefs without compromising the tenets of any religious group or individual,” said Senator Leno. “With the recent federal court ruling, we know that marriage for same-sex couples in California is on the horizon. Under the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act, churches and clergy members who fear their religious views are threatened by marriage equality will have clear and solid protections under state law. In addition, churches that welcome same-sex couples will continue to fully recognize those families within their faith.”

Of course, the right wing opposes this bill, with lunatic arguments like this one from a Roman Catholic opponent of SSM:

"SB 906 seeks to cause confusion by creating a new 'civil' class of marriage, implying it is different from religious marriage.

Of course, there has always been a separate civil marriage, given that couples can be married by the county clerk with no religious expression at all.

" It also creates the illusion of new protections for 'religious' marriage by essentially saying that religions can't be forced to change their doctrine on marriage (which is already prohibited by the 1st Amendment).

Yup, it does simply restate the 1st Amendment. It does this because the opponents to SSM apparently don't understand what religious freedom really means.

"It is clear this bill will be used to fool the voters into thinking that same-sex 'marriage' will have no impact on churches and people of faith."

Umm, is that because it WON'T have any impact--except on those churches who WANT to marry same sex couples.

They are panicked out of their mind to lose this favored talking point and spinning their wheels violently. Because if protections are explicitly stated, support for equality goes up.

Of course, none of this should be necessary. But the right wing has MADE it necessary, since they try to use this non-issue as a wedge.

Who are you? Results of the FoJ poll

The graph to your right counts the unique visitors to Friends each day last week (total page views, not shown here, are larger as some of you come back). Typically more visitors come during the week than on weekends (thus we are all skiving off work to be here. I see you! ;-) We averaged 119 unique visitors per day last week, which is pretty typical.

We got 116 unique responses to our poll, which is a great response rate, so thank you everyone! I have processed the basic data for you. The raw numbers (not percentages) are provided. Click on any graph for a closer view.

Politically, about 80% of you are progressive or liberal in your politics. As for your religious identity, nearly everyone is Episcopalian (or Anglican of some flavor). We also have 4 atheist/agnostics, a Roman Catholic, a few other Christians of different types, and a couple of "others". Quite of few of these non-'piskies visit daily.

When asked your favorite topics, slightly more than half say "all of it!" A substantial fraction prefers the posts on Episcopal and Anglican politics. A few like the religion/spirituality topics best. I'm going to take that as meaning that we are doing a pretty good job mixing it up.

Next, let's look at the access and participation. Only 4 people considered themselves regular commenters, while more than half of you are lurkers. The rest are occasional participants. (Don't be shy, dive on in!) About a third of you get here via RSS feed. Slightly under half of you drop by daily, or even more often, which we take as a great compliment. Nearly everyone else is in the "occasional" category.

I also asked how you categorize yourselves. The possible answers were, "I'm a Friend of Jake!" , which over 70% chose. Then there was, "I'm not really one of you, but I like the blog," which accounted for nearly 20%. About 7% of you chose "I drop in now and again but I'm not really into it". Interestingly at least two people in the latter category nevertheless visit us daily. Folks, if you visit here daily, I think you are a Friend of Jake. Just sayin'.

Anyway, that concludes our first Friends of Jake poll. This would be a good time to introduce yourself in the comments if you feel like it. Also feel free to give us any opinions or thoughts you may have (including whether you like the idea of polls!)

Techy note: For those of you with blogger, it's really easy to set up the poll and collect the data in GoogleDocs. I did not analyze it there but imported it into Apple's Numbers program, which is my preferred data analysis program. Happy to explain further if you are interested; drop me a line or FB, or let me know your questions in the comments here.

To our readers: who are you? (poll)

We thought it might be interesting to know who our readers are. Please participate in this poll. No individual information will be saved, so it's completely private. Please take the poll just once. We'll post the results in a week or so. Thanks!

Update: I think I have fixed the width so the scroll bar now fits. Please let me know in the comments if you can't see it properly on your browser. At the bottom of the poll is a "submit" button.

If you have comments for us, please put them in the comments thread to this post. You can do so anonymously if you prefer (just sign out of your Google account for the purpose).

Update 2: While the poll is still active for now, I downloaded the data on Saturday 7/31. I'm processing it now and will post the results next week.