Nones again

May 16, 2015

The Pew Research Center has a new study out on the “landscape” of religion in America. In just 7 years the percentage of American adults not claiming any religious affiliation has risen from 16.1% to 22.8%. The “Nones” now outnumber Roman Catholics, and way outnumber “mainline Protestants” according to Pew’s classification of denominational families; only the Evangelicals are more numerous, at 25.4%. At the same time total Christian identification has fallen from 78.4% to 70.6%

The increase in Nones seems to involve both generational change – the more religious older folks dying out and being replaced in the sample by youngsters – and a steady drift away from religion within each generational slice. There has been little sign of what used to be considered a “thing”: people drifting away from church in their late teens and twenties, but returning when they marry and have kids of their own. And while in the past a significant number of people raised as Nones eventually found themselves churched, this too is becoming less common.

As I see it, Nones have reached a self-sustaining critical density in many parts of the country, especially metropolitan areas outside the South. When I was a kid in the 1950’s, even though I myself wasn’t actually raised in a church (my parents were marginally affiliated with Greek Orthodoxy), I got the sense from people I knew, as well as from the media, that church-going was something normal, something most people did. This was the age of Eisenhower, who said it was important to have a religion, no matter which; I recently read somewhere that he was the only President to have been baptized while in office. It was the age when Billy Graham was always being mentioned in the media, widely admired by millions who didn’t share or even understand his particular beliefs. There were times I felt I was missing something, and once I was on my own I had to try to figure out what it was and how it worked. Today’s young people are much less likely to get that message, less likely to have close friends or relatives who are religious and who might inspire or at least enable them to give it a try at some point; moreover, most of the Christians and other religious-identifiers whom a young None is likely to encounter in daily life, in school or at work, are a lot less likely to be involved in their respective faith traditions than their predecessors were, more likely to have lifestyles and moral and political beliefs similar to those of the Nones rather than to those of the religiously more conservative, and therefore much less likely than in previous decades to pull their None friends into church (or whatever) with them. Back in the ’50s, even though there were plenty of differences among religious and denominational groups, they all seemed to share a certain mindset – a respect for traditional teachings, scriptures, and that hot topic for kids growing up in all eras, sexual morality; it was those who rejected religion altogether who were “marked” as a somewhat alien minority. Today it’s the Evangelicals who are isolated on the conservative wing, with Mainliners, Catholics, members of non-Christian traditions and Nones tending to agree among themselves on most issues.

Ross Douthat and others have published interesting reflections on the Pew results, which I may find time to comment on in days to come…

Where to (re-)start…

April 16, 2015

In the months since my last post, hardly a week goes by without something in the news or everyday life that makes me think “I should post something on that;” but by the time I get to where I can sit down and do it, I have other things on my mind and it never happens.

Maybe the trick is to stop feeling I have to clear enough time and attention to do a long fully-argued post before I can write anything.

But I like spinning out long fully-argued posts.

OK, here’s a quickie. This thought underlies a lot of my thinking about politics, morality and religion topics, and almost everything I start spinning out on those topics leads back to it, so I’ll say it once here, and maybe unpack it in the near future:

The history of all human society is, above all, the history of society.

Atheism: What Is It?

July 25, 2014

There’s a (probably apocryphal) tale about a German scientist who proved conclusively, by the laws of aerodynamics, that hummigbirds cannot fly. In a similar vein, this article has been circulating around the web recently, purporting to show that atheism may not be psychologically possible.

It would seem that the author is using the word differently from the growing number of people who claim to be, in fact, atheists. The cognitive scientists he refers to speak of unconscious metaphysical presuppositions that seem to be hard-wired in the brain. Maybe they’re right. Self-described atheists are talking about something else, which is a conscious, as-rational-as-possible evaluation of evidence leading to a conscious, as-rational-as-possible conclusion regarding a specific proposition about the real world, namely the existence of a being or beings that can be plausibly called a “god.” Many people claim to have made this evaluation and to have decided the question in the negative; writers like Mr Vittachi can hardly dismiss this fact out of hand. If the metaphysical hard-wiring he claims is really there, then there must be a way we can consciously override it, at least under certain conditions and for certain purposes. If this is not possible then it is hard to see how any sort of science is possible. The very authorities that Mr Vittachi calls upon to support his conclusions are not possible. His own article is not possible. And if it is not possible, I see no reason to say any more about it.

It is true though that the word “atheism” has collected a lot of baggage. Theism is so deeply engrained in Western culture, education, and our sense of the ethical that to deny it can easily seem to be a denial of everything good in the world. If atheists were necessarily amoral, they would never admit to being atheists, given all the trouble it gets them into. Give them credit for honesty at least.

On the other hand, the most outspoken atheists like Dawkins seem to me at times to err in the opposite direction, treating everything that goes by the label “religion”, every attempt to find comfort and joy in metaphysical possibility, as just as evil as the most rigid fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is not essential to religion. Strict doctrinaire theism is not essential to religion. Fundamentalism exists, and Dawkins exists, and on all the issues clearly dividing the two I side with Dawkins, but there’s a lot of ground in between and a lot of other dimensions on which to agree or disagree, which are to me often more interesting than simply saying Yes or No to “god.”

Enough for now. I’ve managed two posts this week, that’s pretty good, I think I’ll save some material for a few more.

 

 

Religion: what is it?

July 21, 2014

A few words on a favorite topic of mine, to see if I can get back into the writing habit.

A few weeks ago I noticed a brief theater review in the New York Times. In the play, “The Religion Thing,” a young couple with successful high-powered careers find that a visiting college friend has joined an evangelical megachurch, married a fellow she met there, and is giving up her partnership in a law firm to prepare for motherhood. This naturally leads the couple to reappraise their own plans and the role in them of their own conflicting but largely ignored religious traditions. The review is generally positive regarding the staging and performances, but ends with this paragraph, which is what really held my attention:

Crucially, though, for a play called “The Religion Thing,” there is surprisingly little real discussion of theology. Patti and Jeff briefly describe the crises that brought them to their church, while Mo and Brian mention the rituals they have set aside. But virtually absent is any true talk of spirituality, of what role it plays in their lives. Without that, religion is just another weapon for people to wield against one another.

You see, I have increasingly come to believe over the years that for most adherents, both now and through history, this is just what religion is like. Something that can provide a useful social/cultural framework for life, a set of rituals to follow or not, a sense of belonging to a community, help from time to time with severe emotional needs, and yes, all too often a weapon. Theology has never been the concern of more than a handful of experts; very few of the loyal church members I have known over the years have known or cared much about the details of it. Nor have I known many to profess any really profound distinctively spiritual experience. And I doubt that this is just a function of my having lived my whole life in an urban secularizing environment. I doubt very much that many of the Catholics and Protestants who only recently stopped killing one another in Ulster could have given an articulate explanation of why they endorsed one faith over the other, beyond the fact that they were born to it; likewise the Sunnis and Shi’ites who are still very much engaged in killing one another in the Middle East. Religious wars, no less than political ones, are conducted by organized social groups most of whose members support with more or less fervor the side they happen to find themselves on, with no real say in the matter.

Not that theology and spirituality are not interesting topics worthy of study; I just think their role within the vast complex of phenomena we label “religion” tends to be overrated.

Although it was pretty clear that the caveats in Monday’s Hobby Lobby decision – along the  lines of “we are only deciding the specific case before us, our decision says nothing about other possible cases” – wouldn’t hold much water in the long run, I was expecting the Court would manage to maintain the pretence for at least a term or two, until other cases had a chance to percolate up through the system. No way. The very next day they issued orders extending the effect of the decision to the whole range of contraceptives covered by the ACA, not just the four which Hobby Lobby claimed to “believe” were abortificants.  Then two days after that, they granted an injunction to Wheaton College effectively invalidating the “less restrictive alternative” whose presence they’d cited to justify the original decision. Even having to fill out the paperwork to trigger alternate means of coverage, it seems, can be claimed as an “excessive burden.” If the Wheaton case ends up being decided in favor of the College, doesn’t that invalidate the logic of Hobby Lobby?

The Supreme Court has done dumb things before, it has done malicious things, it has done cynical things. This is the first time I am aware of that the majority on the Court has revealed its cynicism so openly, so quickly.  The next step of course is to start ruling for “religious freedom” in cases not involving contraceptives. Like people claiming a religious objection to hiring gay people? Or members of racial minorities? Or will they draw a line and try to claim that contraceptives are different? Why? Because sex is a matter of uniquely religious concern?

And if we ever do get that stupid Religious Freedom Restoration Act repealed, will the Court turn around and say no, Hobby Lobby really follows from the First Amendment itself?

Can we trust anything they say?

Alas, the only way to deal with a bad Court is to get a better one appointed. If the Democratic Party can just hold on to the Presidency and the Senate for a decade or so…

 

Are we in Dred Scott territory yet?

Not quite.

Chief Justice Taney back in 1857 was determined to settle the slavery question once and for all; he could have just dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff not being a “citizen of any state,” but instead he went on to discuss the merits at great length, so there would be no doubt. The effect of course was to enrage the North and help bring on the Civil War.

The Roberts Court in contrast is issuing opinions so closely tailored, so moderate and judicious, that Justice Scalia has taken to issuing very angry concurrences arguing that the official reasoning doesn’t go far enough. Last week the Court invalidated the Massachusetts 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, but left plenty of space (so to speak) for the State to adopt less drastic measures focused on actual harassment. Women’s groups are understandably outraged at losing their 35-foot safety zone, but Scalia seemed just as outraged that Roberts didn’t strike down the very idea of protecting abortion clinics. The same day, the majority ruled against the President’s power to make “recess appointments” in the three-day gaps in “pro forma” Senate sessions; but it didn’t insist (as Scalia would have) that the only valid “recess” was the adjournment at the end of the year. A ten-day gap along the way, the majority indicated, might pass muster.

OK, the Court is trying to be reasonable, nothing wrong with that. But it’s getting harder and harder to pull off. This week, on the last day of their term, they had a chance to overrule a precedent allowing certain union fees to be imposed on public service employees who are not members of the union. They avoided going that far, by pulling out of its collective hat a new category of “partial public employees” to cover the home-care workers involved in the case at hand.

And of course there’s Hobby Lobby – totally outrageous to everyone on my side of the political spectrum, and still “not as bad as it might have been” thanks to some clever legal footwork. For one thing, the Court did not decide the case under the First Amendment, but rather the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, one of those dumb things (like DOMA) that the Clinton-era Democratic Congress passed to show that they weren’t “crazy leftists” out of touch with “middle American values.” This means once we get a really progressive majority elected to Congress, the thing can just be repealed and Hobby Lobby will be out in the cold.

– As to the absurdity of a corporate “person” having religious views, the Court dealt with that by singling out “closely held corporations” which can be regarded as a kind of extension of their owners. Now this kind of “corporate personhood” isn’t quite the same as what Citizens United was about; that followed a more traditional notion of the corporation as an entity distinct from its owners. What will this new argument mean for the “corporate veil”? Who knows? Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

– And the Court insists that its ruling is only about contraception, and doesn’t address other issues like whether the Jehovah’s Witnesses have the right not to pay for employees’ blood transfusions, or whether anyone has the right to discriminate against gay people. At first glance this looks like mere handwaving, but really when you look at the opinion itself it finally comes down where it does by invoking as a “less restrictive alternative” the allowance the administration has already made in the case of churches and religious non-profits, which is supposed to give employees full contraceptive benefits without the employers having to get their hands dirty. So it really is a very narrow opinion, the Court is doing its best not to be outrageous – they just can’t bring it off. They can’t see that in the eyes of a growing majority of Americans, any claimed “right” to discriminate against women is unacceptable, and any right of an employer to “conscientiously” object to paying a mandated benefit is unacceptable.

Also there are voices pointing out that all this fuss would be unnecessary if we had a single payer health care system and employers were out of the loop altogether.

So yes, we’re as polarized as in the 1850’s, and no compromise is possible any longer between the forces of progress and of reaction; the most earnest efforts by Roberts and Alito not to be Taney are doomed to failure. We won’t have another Civil War, because the sides don’t align this time into states capable of raising their own armies. But either the country will be gridlocked forever, or one side will somehow manage to win; and demographics would indicate that it will be the side of progress.

 

 

– and Corporate Personhood! All wrapped up in one tidy case which the Supreme Court has agreed to hear. It’s gotten a fair amount of publicity by now – the famous Hobby Lobby case, in which a corporation with religious owners demands that its (their?) freedom of conscience should allow them to defy the ACA’s mandate to include contraceptive coverage in its (their?) employees’ insurance package.

I’d like to write about it at length but there are other things I have to get out of the way before the holiday, so just a few words: In my view, even if it can be argued that under Citizens United a corporation, being a person, can be said to have a conscience – for let us grant that the logical consequences of an absurd premise are likely to be equally absurd – I don’t accept that any employer’s religious freedom should allow them to infringe on the personal freedom of their employees. If you are required by law or contract to pay someone something, it is their conscience and not yours that should dictate how they spend it. You can’t object to your landlord’s spending the rent money you pay on a lifestyle you consider immoral; the health coverage you owe your workers should be treated the same way.

One of the reasons the Court agreed to hear this, by the way, seems to be a conflict of circuits; a companion case involving a Mennonite furnitare company has been taken up also, and in the two cases the Court of Appeals reached opposite decisions. Which reminds me of a thought I had the other day – if the employers win in this case, does that mean that if we ever return to compulsory military service, the Mennonites will be able to demand conscientious objector status for all their workers (whether they want it or not)???

Another recent court case, which my clergy friends are naturally concerned about, involves the constitutionality of the tax exemption allowed for their housing allowances. When I have time I will write something wrapping up all of these issues into an overall discussion of how to understand the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Stay tuned!