DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Fact Check Team: The future of religion in the United States

Fact Check Team: The future of religion in the United States

Holy Week, Passover and Ramadan celebrations are happening around the same time this year; a rare occurrence that only happens three times in a century.

Christianity has consistently been the largest religion in the United States but things could be changing. According to a recent report from Pew Research Center, as of 2020, Christianity was still the most practiced religion. However, it has declined 26% from the early 1990s.

Another big group is people that don’t necessarily identify with any religion. This group is also referred to as “nones” and accounted for 30% of the U.S. population. Other religions including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism made up around 6%.

The report also found respondents that who leave their Christian faith said they usually just become unaffiliated from religion, and 31% of people raised Christian become unaffiliated between the ages of 15 and 29.

The same report from Pew Research Center also lists four potential scenarios for what the future of religion could look like in the U.S.

Overall, it found that depending on whether switching between religions continues at recent rates, speeds up or stops completely, Christianity will drop from 64% in 2020 to between a third and just over half of Americans by 2070.

Here’s a breakdown of what each of the four scenarios could look like according to the Pew Research report:

"Scenario 1: Steady switching – Christians would lose their majority but would still be the largest U.S. religious group in 2070

Switching assumption: Switching into and out of Christianity, other religions and the religiously unaffiliated category (“nones”) continues among young Americans (ages 15 to 29) at the same rates as in recent years. Most significantly, each new generation sees 31% of people who were raised Christian become religiously unaffiliated by the time they reach 30, while 21% of those who grew up with no religion become Christian.

Outcome: If switching among young Americans continued at recent rates, Christians would decline as a share of the population by a few percentage points per decade, dipping below 50% by 2060. In 2070, 46% of Americans would identify as Christian, making Christianity a plurality – the most common religious identity – but no longer a majority. In this scenario, the share of “nones” would not climb above 41% by 2070.

Scenario 2: Rising disaffiliation with limits – ‘nones’ would be the largest group in 2070 but not a majority

Switching assumption: Continuing a recent pattern, switching out of Christianity becomes more common among young Americans as each generation sees a progressively larger share of Christians leave religion by the age of 30. However, brakes are applied to keep Christian retention (the share of people raised as Christians who remain Christian) from falling below about 50%.3 At the same time, switching into Christianity becomes less and less common, also continuing recent trends.

Outcome: If the pace of switching before the age of 30 were to speed up initially but then hold steady, Christians would lose their majority status by 2050, when they would be 47% of the U.S. population (versus 42% for the unaffiliated). In 2070, “nones” would constitute a plurality of 48%, and Christians would account for 39% of Americans.

Scenario 3: Rising disaffiliation without limits – ‘nones’ would form a slim majority in 2070

Switching assumption: The share of Christians who disaffiliate by the time they reach 30 continues to rise with each successive generation, and rates of disaffiliation are allowed to continue rising even after Christian retention drops below 50% (i.e., no limit is imposed). As in Scenario 2, switching into Christianity among young Americans becomes less and less common.

Outcome: If the pace of switching before the age of 30 were to speed up throughout the projection period without any brakes, Christians would no longer be a majority by 2045. By 2055, the unaffiliated would make up the largest group (46%), ahead of Christians (43%). In 2070, 52% of Americans would be unaffiliated, while a little more than a third (35%) would be Christian.

Scenario 4: No switching – Christians would retain their majority through 2070

Switching assumption: This scenario imagines no person in America has changed or will change their religion after 2020. But even in that hypothetical situation, the religious makeup of the U.S. population would continue to shift gradually, primarily as a result of Christians being older than other groups, on average, and the unaffiliated being younger, with a larger share of their population of childbearing age.

Outcome: If switching had stopped altogether in 2020, the share of Christians would still decline by 10 percentage points over 50 years, reaching 54% in 2070. The unaffiliated would remain a substantial minority, at 34%."

The report says that the third scenario of rising disaffiliation with limits best shows what would happen if recent trends in the US continue and overall seems to most closely fit the patterns observed in recent years.

https://ktxs.com/news/nation-world/...2WeIo2NlRV_opPiCze3JLIHnYnXxVIbziPdaVKZI

Fundamentally, there is a big difference between a belief in God, and the following of a religion.

I have come to believe in an observation made by my father. There are thousands of religions in the world, if you believe that there is only true religion, chances are that you may be disappointed.

Still an atheist and still baffled by it all. A lot of harm is being done in the name of religion in the world, but there is also a lot of good. But it's hard to feel the need for the latter when the former dominates headlines and politics in NOT A THEOCRACY.

Still a Christian and not baffled by any of it

I think because often good is not done with the purpose of attention, it's just done. Bad is done with intent and often wants it to be noticed, and media feeds into that, hence why the bad of religion often dominates the headlines. But like any group, there are typically way more good than bad.

Truth.. I believe in God, and I was raised Catholic.. But I follow no religion.

Your father was a wise man.

I do think that "organized" religion is fading, much of that is religions own fault. For too long, hard core traditionalists fought to keep things exactly as they are and not listen to new ideas or ways to make joining more desirable for the young generations, meanwhile those same older folks were dying off and their numbers began to dwindle, leaving a void.

Around us there are several newer non-denominational churches that have popped up, they took a more modern design, offer pre-service coffee bars, fruit, snacks, pastries. Take your coffee into service. Services are not in large "cathedral" like rooms with stained glass, pews etc. They tend to be large windowless rooms, with comfortable seating, stages, lights, video screens. Contemporary and traditional music/bands. They appeal to many people, and they tend to draw a much younger congregation than the older traditional churches.

In the end, is it not about the message and fellowship, not about how many time you stand, sit or kneel or say "amen"?

I think your description is spot on. When I do choose to go to church it's a non denominational church. The message I most often here there is how there are examples and stories in the Bible you can apply to your everyday life that can and will actually make your life better. They tend to try to include anyone and everyone that wishes to attend without ostracizing any group.

I'll take that one step further. There is even a difference in the belief of intelligent design and assigning that to what one would call God. Many believe that this planet and everything on it wasn't simply an accident. However believing books like the Bible as an explanation for that is something they find unacceptable.

I think one would have to admit that it takes a great deal of faith and faith alone to believe stories like Noah's Ark, the burning bush, Moses parting the Red Sea, that this great creator decided to impregnate a "married virgin" to have his son and that his son would be killed and then resurrected from the dead after three days and three nights. Not to mention the fuzzy math it takes to consider Friday afternoon until Sunday at sunrise as three days and three nights in the grave as that is how they arrived at Easter Sunrise service. Then there's all of the pagan customs that have been adopted into what are called Christian holidays.

I could go on and on but I think you get my point. As was discussed in another thread, from the writings of Thomas Jefferson he seemed to be one such person. He certainly believed in intelligent design yet he felt the Christian explanation of that design was at least somewhat more a fable.

Belief in Intelligent design and tying that belief to a religion isn't accurate. They are not synonymous.

Just to clarify, it doesn't say three days and three nights, it says " that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day", day one being the Friday he was crucified, and then Sunday being the third day.

Matthew 12:40 KJV

“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

So Mathew was an idiot and couldn't count.

Although I have heard several explanation of days and nights in translation, not matching to our modern interpretation. I've also read where they think Jesus was actually Crucified on Wednesday or Thursday as Passover was not always a Friday.

I have heard different reasoning that attempt to to explain this. As for the definition of what a day was in those times it was sunset to sunset. As for myself I think it's easy to understand once one looks at the pagan traditions adopted and incorporated into christian holidays and the meaning of worshiping the sunrise. But that's neither here nor there.

I think you can see by many examples I gave that one has to have a great deal of faith to believe the Bible in its entirety to explain tying a creator into a long book with these stories as part of the explanation.

That is correct. He was slain at the exact moment the Jewish people were to sacrifice their lamb on the Passover then rose 3 days later. Good Friday is a holiday that originated in Europe as they interpreted the Bible to celebrate the act Jesus did to sacrifice himself and innocent man for us the guilty man. The worthy for then unworthy. It does not corollate with our modern way to identify days of the week and time. If someone really wants to be able to interpret the Bible word for word, they must understand Israel and the Jewish people first. Even the end times prophesies are written about Israel. The Bible does not say what will happen in the USA during the end times. But it does say what is and will happen in Israel during that time.

Neither the days of the week nor how days were recorded changed until man had time pieces. The Jewish calendar dates back to well before the time of Christ. It actually dates back to before 3700 B.C. that may or may not be the reason for Christ keeping the Sabbath in the synagogue. To show us the calendar being used so we would not get confused now by people trying to make up explanantions to the contrary. The days of the week have been a constant since then. The Sabbath is still the seventh day of the week and not the first day of the week. A day was logged as sunset to sunset. Dark was night and light was day. The reason for that is simple and easy to understand. There were no watches or devices with which to keep or tell time. As such there was one thing everyone could see and understand as light and dark. As such dark was night, day was light and a day lasted from sunset to sunset.

The United States is not based on any religion. Hence freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. So it shouldn’t matter to a true patriot or US citizen what the future of region in the United States is. My 2 cents.

That's what happens when you replace logic with faith; you think you have it figured out. From my POV there are few true followers of Chris; the rest are idolaters, false prophets, and Sunday Christians where few are even remotely Christ-like. You know, people who use faith as an excuse to crap on others.

The US is absolutely not based on Christianity or any other religion. And anyone saying that is a theocratic fascist traitor.

JMHO, raised Catholic, still Catholic- everything in life must be questioned using who, what, where, when, why, and how- including religion. Shroud of Turin- those who want science to solve everything- do some really hard thinking about how and why the Shroud exists....don't get fooled by the British "experts" who stated it was from 1200s-1400s- they violated their own protocols AND got lucrative jobs for stating the Shroud was a hoax. BS- simple- explain the image which MATCHES the biblical events- explain how the blood type matches the Sudarium of Oviedo, Spain- Christ's head covering. Check the evidence. For those who don't believe- look up the number of miracles from Lourdes- over and over unexplainable cures- if you aren't to sceptical there is PLENTY of undisputable facts present.
Youtube has excellent Noah's Ark- it HAS BEEN found- but world doesn't want to publish it- doesn't fit the message.

Note I didn't claim the Catholic religion isn't without faults- it has some sinful men- hundred vs millions who are good and just- just like every other religion- we are ALL sinners- BUT, Catholic faith educates, helps, saves multiple millions throughout the world. Peace. The Shroud could be scrapped off with razor blade on surface- WHY wasn't it? Why does it exist? Have courage to check it out- Google Shroud of Turin site- be amazed.

Maybe you should follow the teachings of Chris, He is pretty smart


Yes I sure do. I also know people who are athiests who also use that excuse to crap on others. Those who are agnostic who use that to crap on others. People can be both cruel and stupid no matter what their beliefs. That goes for everybody.

Matthew 24:10–12 — The New International Version (NIV)

10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold.

j/c:

"I think it was David Hume who put it slightly vulgarly, this was again about the virgin birth, I think. Which is more likely... that the whole natural order of the world is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"- Christopher Hitchens

Maybe so, but there are a couple of issues. At the time various factions of Christianity were in battle so to speak. Very possibly the thinkin was about Christian segement and not so much others...but I admit that could be a stretch in moder tems. but then, maybe "other" religions weren't considered religions?

What isn't a stretch is the lack of moral teaching people receive, something religion does teach. I think we have seen a serious decline in morality and a sense of shame.

I'm not saying that it should. I'm saying it does.

One thing you quickly can see is that there was nothing written about the "Christian religion". I believe it would be hard on one hand to strictly adhere to the second amendment by claiming the forefathers could somehow see into the future to understand that citizens would be carrying rifles made for war with the capacity to fire 30 rounds before reloading and then turn around in the next breath and try to translate that they were talking about various Christian religions only. I think those that wish to use the literal context in one place should be willing to use the literal context everywhere.

And when it comes to morality I agree that a certain chosen moral standard of some isn't broadly taught. But you see morality is a complex thing. What you consider certain moral standards others do not. The Bible teaches what man has written in a book and some think that should be taught to everyone. Still others have a totally different moral standard they believe in. Some think that you are who you are. That you are either born gay or you're not. Some feel gay marriage is okay. Some consider that a sin. The Bible is nothing but a religious view of morality. Something that should not be compelled learning for anyone.

Some of what I consider very moral people are not Christian. In fact they are not religious at all. They give to a lot of charities, love their neighbors, are respectful to others and above all, are not judgemental towards others who choose a different lifestyle or believe differently than themselves. Many Christians I know are the same way and very good people. But there's good and bad in both. Nobody has the market cornered on morality and good people. You see, I don't believe in ostracizing people because they are different. I don't make excuses to take away their rights, call them sinners and call that being Christian.

I'm not trying to say that you do. But let's face it, the very people that claim to represent the Christian base in this country often do. They wear it as a badge of honor and use it for political gain. I think that has a lot to do with why Christianity is having trouble keeping and gaining it's younger crowd more and more. I don't see anything wrong with saying you don't share some of those views about gay marriage, or the gay lifestyle. But when it gets to the brimstone and fire parts of such a message I don't feel Christianity is doing itself any favors.

I believe that God and Jesus Christ are about love. And often times these days that's not the message I see a lot of Christians sending. It seems when it comes to the love part, it's only they that God loves.

I think it helps explain the "none's" part of the original post. They love the teachings of Christ and the Bible. They just feel that religion as a whole doesn't represent the Bible and it's most precious message. That's why they consider themselves Christians but refuse to attach themselves to organized religion.

Now I'm not trying to get you to agree with me. I'm not even trying to convince you to change your mind. I'm just presenting you with a different perspective.

What morals are those? The only moral, religion has a responsibility to teach is…”Do onto others as you wish done to yourself”. Yet we get religious factions at war with women reproduction rights, LBGTQ, and others they can’t accept into their little club of god fearing humans.

The trouble with such writings is that people can and do find a way to twist words to fit their skewed perspective. Nostradamus said a bunch of stuff and people find ways to say his predictions came true. People used the Bible to suggest Obama was agent of Satan and that the end of the world was nigh. Or something like that.

I agree that the concept that morals originate from or are based on religion is a complete falicy. I know that's not actually what Pit said but I've heard that suggested many times.

If anyone wants a change of perspective and to hear someone articulate Uber intelligent and lucid thoughts from an agnostic perspective, often while in a public debate forum, Google Christopher Hitchens. Interesting no matter where you stand.

There are crazy people on both sides of this issue. But you see most folks are not crazy.

That was excellent. Thank you for sharing, I've never heard of him before but he said just about everything I believe .... Just much more eloquently! Particularly when (10:10) he talks about people believing humans are the particular beneficiaries, moreso than other species (and by extension, all of mother nature). Again, thank you.

Alan Watts is another…

Never heard of Sagan? Must be a young pup!

Carl Sagan did more to bring science to the masses, to make it "cool", than just about anybody I can think of.

He was so much the face of science that others became jealous and started hating on him for just about everything he said. 🤣

His passion for science shone through in his eloquence. It was easy to be engaged as a reader or viewer because of his ability to explain things. You watched Sagan -- you walked away "smarter"; and generally enjoyed the hell out of it.

His book (best-selling science book ever published) and TV series Cosmos were amazing.

If you ever get a chance to check it out, don't miss out:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081846/

Ditto, your comments on shame- what's that? In good old USA we have LOTS of diversity- number of church goers, bible beaters, and many non- Christian religions. We also produce and watch lots of PORN- good old sex, lots of sick stuff which degrade both men and women. Amatuer sex is very popular- post your sex life for all to see- shame, modesty, self worth- out the window. In this world, anything goes, if it feels good, do it.

With loss of "virtues"- highs in suicide, gun killings, drug overdoes- damn, we sure have improved with less religion.

Noted, no one commented on "Shroud of Turin"- all the atheists- most scientifically researched garment in history and NO ONE can say why, how it exists- AND the British liars stated it was false, they did the human thing- followed the MONEY- got jobs for lying. Normal. Peace.

Actually it was Peen who posted that quote. I'm not sure how it ended up attributed to me.

Only moral things to teach....do on to others....really, most religions speak of lowest things vs higher things. Christians use opposites= charity vs greed, chastity vs lust, humility vs pride, kindness vs envy, temperance vs gluttony, patience vs wrath, and diligence vs sloth- old morality vs today's anything goes. The virtues/ heavenly vs the sins/ deadly.....check out those deadly sins and compare our politicians/ leaders to each.....most are wanting.

Deadly sins? What sins are there that you can't repent of and be saved?

Im not sure. I am at the beach on vacation, mostly reading on phone or tablet. Apologies for any confusion on my end.