TruthBook Religious News Blog

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On the eve of Black History Month, the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life released a new analysis (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=389) that paints a detailed religious portrait of African-Americans. The analysis finds that African-Americans are markedly more religious than the U.S. population as a whole on a variety of measures, including reporting a religious affiliation, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and the importance of religion in people's lives.

Compared with other racial and ethnic groups, African-Americans are among the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation, with fully 87% of African-Americans describing themselves as belonging to one religious group or another. The analysis also finds that nearly eight-in-ten African-Americans (79%) say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 56% among all U.S. adults.

These are among many findings of the new Pew Forum analysis detailing the unique nature of religion in the African-American community. Other highlights include:

* A large majority of African-Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular faith (72%) say religion plays at least a somewhat important role in their lives; nearly half (45%) of unaffiliated African-Americans say religion is very important in their lives, roughly three times the percentage who says this among the religiously unaffiliated population overall (16%).

* African-Americans express a high degree of comfort with religion's role in politics, with roughly six-in-ten saying that houses of worship should express their views on social and political topics and roughly half saying that there has been too little expression of faith and prayer by political leaders. At the same time, most African-Americans support certain restrictions on the mingling of politics and religious institutions, with nearly six-in-ten (58%) saying that churches and other houses of worship should refrain from endorsing political candidates.

* The link between religion and some social and political attitudes in the African-American community is similar to that seen among the population overall. For instance, just as in the general public, African-Americans who are more religiously observant are more likely to oppose abortion and homosexuality and more likely to report higher levels of conservative ideology.

* On a variety of other questions, including political party identification and opinions about the proper role of government in providing services to the citizenry and assistance to the poor, there are few differences in the views of African-Americans across religious groups. Perhaps most strikingly, the partisan leanings of African-Americans from every religious background tilt heavily in the Democratic direction.

The analysis is based on the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Forum in 2007 and released in 2008, as well as other Pew Research Center surveys.

The report is for immediate release and is available online at http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=389.

The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life delivers timely, impartial information on issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs. The Pew Forum is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy organization and does not take positions on policy debates. Based in Washington, D.C., the Pew Forum is a project of the Pew Research Center, which is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Labels: African-Americans, faith, government, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, politics, religious belief

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

A pious nation?

Though the United States is considered a deeply religious country, a glance at America today reveals a society divided by wealth and poverty, tainted by violence and often oblivious to the common good. A country of believers? Perhaps. But saying is one thing, doing quite another.

By Tom Krattenmaker

There can be no doubting the piety of American society in this, the first decade of the 21st century. It's old news by now: The powerful influence of conservative Christians on culture and politics. An outwardly Christian president in the White House. Survey data showing the vast majority of Americans pray, believe in God and consider religion important in their lives.

"Pious," however, means something different than "religious." While both convey devotion to God and ultimate truth, "pious" also suggests showiness, sanctimony, even hypocrisy — a gap between words and action. Such a gap, unfortunately, seems glaringly on display when we survey the social landscape around us. If one is to judge by our care for the common good, American society today is more pious than consistently and truly religious.

Let's start with violence, a phenomenon hard to square with New Testament teachings about living in peace and Old Testament commandments not to kill one another.

The massacre at Virginia Tech this spring might seem an extreme case. Defenders of gun rights warn against overreaction, claiming that mass shootings, however horrific, are quite rare. In truth, Virginia Tech-style massacres happen every day, albeit in less dramatic form. Statistics show that gun violence kills close to 30,000 people a year in America, or about 80 a day — more than double the number slain in Blacksburg, Va. Is this what one should expect of a country guided by Jesus, the "Prince of Peace"?

Then there is the violence projected by our government. Here, too, it is impossible to claim that America is a peaceful nation in the image of Christ. Under the Bush administration, the United States has pursued an aggressive foreign policy and a war in Iraq that theologians struggle to justify with Christian doctrines about morally defensible war. Certainly, the case can be made that dangerous forces left our government with no choice but to fight. But the question must be raised again: Is our behavior as a nation consistent with our ostensibly Christian character?

'Do unto others'

Although debates have raged for centuries over the essential meaning of Christianity and other religions, few would argue against the central importance of the Golden Rule. This is not merely the bias of a liberal writer. Asked by CNN recently to define Christianity, Richard Land, leader of the theologically conservative Southern Baptist movement, said, "It means to do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

How as a society are we living up to this religious imperative? We could do better. There is something deeply irreligious about the growing gap between our wealthiest and poorest citizens.

Surely, conservative-minded believers will respond that charity and philanthropy flourish today, that Christian compassion is best expressed through means other than government. They're partly right. Americans, religious and secular alike, have reached out impressively to Gulf Coast flood victims. We have donated billions of dollars to charities, churches and educational institutions. Americans shovel snow from neighbors' driveways, volunteer at soup kitchens and shell out for more expensive energy-saving light bulbs to curb our impact on global warming. On the national policy level, President Bush has on occasion lived up to his creed of "compassionate conservatism," especially with his efforts to combat AIDS and poverty in Africa.

But stories of individual big-heartedness cannot forgive a general direction in our politics that leaves shocking numbers of children without health insurance and decent educations.

The Bible has been playing a prominent role in the intensifying debate over immigration. Until very recently, the most outwardly religious people took what can be argued is the irreligious stance. According to 2006 polling data, white evangelicals — a group characterized by its taking the Bible very seriously — favored a more conservative (read: inhospitable) policy toward immigrants than other U.S. citizens. This, in spite of numerous passages in the Bible that emphasize hospitality to strangers and compassion for all God's people.

Compassion and faith

As is happening on this and other issues, the myth of the evangelical monolith is being exposed. More evangelicals are publicly embracing care for the earth and service to the poor, broadening an agenda that seemed stuck on hot-button social issues. And groups from across the Christian spectrum have been speaking up for immigrants. May these compassionate stands of religious America become ever more the norm.

For now, we have what we have: A society of decent individuals who usually do the right thing — but a culture nonetheless marred by violence, greed and politics that often display a hard-heartedness unbecoming a country like ours. We may disagree about the manifestations of our social morality deficit — conservatives will emphasize abortion and sexual immorality; liberals, economic injustice — but we can surely agree that we're capable of something finer.

Given that many social ills have grown worse during a time of Christian revival in the public arena, it's tempting to blame religion. Tempting, and also wrong. It's increasingly obvious that those who led us to our current state have heeded political ambition and expediency — citing faith when it's helpful, jettisoning it when it's inconvenient.

And on goes the pointless argument about whether America is a "Christian nation." Whether this country is Christian depends entirely on how we define the terms, of course. Our Constitution: secular. Our history and culture: religious.

And what do we mean by "religious"? If we're talking about rhetoric, volume and public display, it has been a very religious time indeed. If we mean behavior that creates peace, extends compassion to the less fortunate and reaches out to strangers outside our borders, we have a way to go. If we are a Christian nation, shouldn't we more consistently behave like one?

Tom Krattenmaker, who lives in Portland, Ore., specializes in religion in public life and is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

Labels: Bible, charity, Christian, compassion, faith, God, Golden Rule, government, Jesus, piety, politics, religion, Unites States, violence

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Consensus Is Sought on Religion in Schools

Published: March 12, 2007

Diverse groups meet to weigh issues that vex public education.

By Andrew Trotter
Digg This
Nashville, Tenn.

How can the nation’s public schools accommodate students’ religious practices, prepare them for living in a society with a multiplicity of faiths, and avoid related conflicts that disrupt the schools’ educational mission and consume time and money in lawsuits?

Those were the central questions that a conference of some 50 educators, curriculum experts, religious leaders, and legal scholars tried to tackle here last week.
And none too soon, because “there’s a lot of religion going on in public schools,” said Charles C. Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center of the Washington-based Freedom Forum, one of three groups hosting the conference at Vanderbilt University, which is also affiliated with the First Amendment Center.

Like a few others at the conference, Mr. Haynes has been working for more than two decades on building a consensus on religious issues in the public schools. He has seen students become more assertive about expressing religious sentiments in school, a growth in the number of religions embraced by students, and heightened interest in adding instruction about world religions and the Bible as a cultural text to the curriculum.

Teaching, Not Advocacy

Those trends create more areas of potential conflict—especially when national groups and the news media get involved in local controversies, many here agreed.

“Schools are a battleground for the culture wars,” said Steven Shapiro, the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has sued districts to enforce strong church-state separation in schools.

The ACLU, based in New York City, co-sponsored the conference, and Mr. Shapiro explained that he hoped the discussions would clarify the difference between students’ “expression of religious speech and government endorsement of religion.”

The third co-sponsor was the Council for America’s First Freedom, a Richmond, Va.-based group that promotes the use of dialogue, rather than litigation, to solve conflicts over religion in the public schools.

The council’s president, Robert A. Seiple, told participants that “slash-and-burn litigation” civil-liberties groups has been harmful to the nation.

Oliver “Buzz” Thomas, an ordained Baptist minister who is the executive director of the Niswonger Foundation, an educational and charitable organization in Greeneville, Tenn., said, “People get so polarized by this emotional stuff, they can’t get on with the primary task of the school district.”

Seeking Consensus

Meeting March 5-6, participants representing a range of religious and nonreligious perspectives tried to identify areas of agreement that could help districts and outside groups avoid unnecessary conflict, and especially litigation.

Working groups tackled religion in the public school social studies curricula, including world religions and religious holidays; religion in the science curriculum; Bible courses; and student religious expression.

The talks were a reminder that consensus on general issues—say, that public schools should teach “about religion”—can evaporate as discussions get into specifics or touch on current legal cases.

A working group considering religion in science curricula ran into trouble on how to handle “intelligent design,” which many scientists say is religion masquerading as science.

Some participants said the concept, which holds that humans and other living things show signs of having been created by an intelligent being, deserved mention as an alternative to the theory of evolution, which is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists. But curriculum specialists in science said that intelligent design should be handled in social studies—a position opposed by the social studies experts in the room.

A group discussing the school calendar pondered the “December dilemma,” in which Christmas dominates the scheduling of the winter school break. One school superintendent described how he found consensus to close schools on the most significant Jewish and Muslim holidays as well. He assembled a committee of educators and community members that designed a calendar, which was approved by the school board, that gave evenhanded treatment to all religions represented in the district’s schools.

A Muslim attendee described ways that school districts have successfully accommodated Islamic religious holidays and used classrooms after the school day for Friday prayers by students. He advised that by consulting with local religious authorities, school administrators would learn where Islam permits flexibility in certain practices—useful information for accommodating students within the confines of school operations.

The group also agreed that teachers’ jewelry that used religious symbols, such as a cross or a Star of David, could be permissible and an opportunity to teach about religious pluralism.

During a general session, an attendee reporting on the discussions of the Bible-as-an-elective working group said that some conservative Christians in the group argued that the public schools cannot teach about the Bible without undermining students’ faith. Those with this perspective also disapproved of schools’ teaching about sacred texts in general, preferring as a less troubling option a general course in world religions.

Although most participants seemed to accept that schools could teach about religion in the school curriculum—something that is permissible under court rulings, as are elective courses about the Bible—several people acknowledged that many teachers resist taking up the subject. Either the teachers fear that their lessons will interfere with their students’ religious training at home or church, this argument went, or they have objections to courses that may inadvertently help spread a particular religion.

The participants agreed to exchange summaries of their deliberations; and the organizers plan to craft a document discussing the conference’s key points, including strategies and recommendations.

Teaching About Religion

Experts in law, education, and religion at a recent conference on religion in public schools discussed how conflicts over religion could be minimized.

• School districts should develop policies on handling religious issues before disagreements at schools explode into public controversy and lawsuits.

• Educators should develop such policies in consultation with their communities, including local religious leaders. They should try to identify areas of agreement, as well as “safe harbors,” where groups disagree but will not take school districts to court.

• Schools that address religion in the curriculum need better instructional materials, including textbooks and Web sites.

• Teachers need to be better trained about the law on religion in the public schools; of the facts about major religions; and of the recommended pedagogies for teaching about religion.

• Public schools can lessen friction over religion by promoting neutrality, on matters such as the religious holidays that are recognized on the school calendar, and by making reasonable accommodations, such as allowing teachers to wear jewelry featuring religious symbols.

SOURCE: Education Week

Labels: Andrew Trotter, Christmas, evolution, Freedom Forum, government, public school, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Survey Finds Link Between Decline in Values, Waning Belief

Payton Hoegh
Correspondent

(CNSNews.com) - A majority of Americans believe the nation's moral values are declining, according to a survey gauging the state of American culture. It also found a correlation between the shift in values and a reduced emphasis on religion.

In the survey by the Culture and Media Institute, 74 percent of respondents, including a majority in each major demographic, said moral values in America are weaker than they were 20 years ago.

Forty-eight percent felt moral values were much weaker than two decades ago.

Using the data, the CMI classified American adults into one of three value groups -- Orthodox, Progressive, and Independent.

"Orthodox" Americans, comprising one-third of the adult public, are those who believe in God, think religious values should be reflected in government, and see moral issues in black and white, the survey said.

"Progressives" represent the one-sixth of adults who are fundamentally secular, opposed to religious values in government, and see moral issues in shades of gray.

"Independents" -- about half the adult population -- did not fully accept the values of the other two categories.

Ninety-one percent of the "Independent" respondents were found to believe in God and to be more "Orthodox" in questions of politics and sexual morality. But they also tend to be more "situational" in viewing moral issues and to side with "Progressives" in questions of right and wrong.

__At a press conference Wednesday launching the survey, CMI Director Bob Knight said the organization "wanted to take a snapshot of America and show [the culture] for what it is - good or bad."

The results showed that religion played a large role in the morality of the nation, he said.

Knight noted that although 87 percent of all respondents said they believe in God and a significant majority showed a commitment to classical virtues such as integrity and honesty, their actual decisions in particular situations did not always reflect it.

"In reality, there are three groups out there. The group we call the Orthodox believes in obeying God above all ... the Progressives want to write their own moral rules [and] ... the Independents respect God and tradition, but still like to do things their own way."

Using the results of its survey, CMI argues that "attitudes toward God and religion" is the crux of the conflict over culture in America.

CMI argued that if more Americans adopt "Progressive" values, the country could "expect to experience even greater moral confusion."

"The battlefield in America's culture war is the hearts and the minds of the Independents ... reversing America's moral decline will require a renewed acceptance of Orthodox values which implies increased acceptance of God's authority."

CMI said Americans should demand that the media "strive to more fairly represent all views, including those of the Orthodox."

CMI is a division of the Media Research Center, the parent organization of Cybercast News Service. Its mission is to "preserve and help restore America's culture, character, traditional values, and morals against the assault of the liberal media elite."

'No worse than any other time'

Lori Brown of the Atheist Coalition for America challenged the conclusions of the study, saying it incorrectly implied that if two things happen at the same time, then one must have caused the other.

"This shows how much misunderstanding there is of the morality of those of us who don't hold a God belief," Brown told Cybercast News Service . "If a person believes that this is the only life we have and this is the only world there is, than there will be great impetus to make it the best world possible.

"Those of us who don't believe in those concepts [of God] feel a tremendous obligation to live moral, ethical lives and to help people less fortunate then ourselves," she said.

Brown noted that when Christians gather on May 3 for the National Day of Prayer, atheists plan to observe a "Gift of Life Day," when they will donate blood rather than pray.

She also argued that the idea of a nation in moral decline is nothing new and could probably be said of any decade.

"I find people all over the country who are loving, kind, generous, and help each other, so I don't think the nation is in any worse of a decline than at other times ... people just notice this particular moment and don't put it into perspective," Brown said.

Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family welcomed the report, saying, "I don't think any American could look at the culture today and not agree with the conclusion of this study."

"Whether it is abortion, out-of-wedlock birth, the divorce rate, sexuality in media, or destructive embryo research it is across the board, and I agree with their conclusion," she said.

"If you don't have -- as they are phrasing it -- God's morality then all you have is man's opinion and that is leading us into death and destruction."

Earll conceded, however, that Christians could cooperate with people of other faiths, or no faith, when there is agreement on "core principals of morality."

"There are some basics that we can agree without having to quote a scripture verse."

Ultimately, however, she said the country does need to return to God. "Morality is based in recognizing that there is a God that created the universe and that we are subject to him ... God's standard is supreme and as humans we are held accountable to that," Earll said.

Labels: Americans, Culture and Media Institute, God, government, independent, morality, orthodoxy, Payton Hoegh, progressive, religion