The Rise of the Irreligious

One hears from a lot of secular people worries that the country is plunging over the edge into theocracy. At the same time, the press often seems to feel that the country is experiencing a massive religious revival that it needs to cover by hiring new "religion" correspondents. The truth, as shown in the above chart based on National Election Survey data, is more like the reverse -- more people than ever say "other" or "none" when asked about their religious beliefs.

It's this, rather than an intensification in fervor, that's made it possible to mobilize conservative Christianity for political purposes. Back in 1960 there were so few avowedly irreligious people out there that trying to rally opposition to the perils of secularism was a non-starter.

Comments

Chris Bowers had a great post on the secularization of Gens X and Y being "The Great Story Not Being Told" yesterday. It's a good read.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2928

Posted by Dave | December 27, 2007 1:04 PM

Moreover, there was a study done in 2004 (I think) that argued that when everyone was religious, no party could gain an electoral advantage from the organizing power of churches. Once the society started to become less and less religious, the people still going to church on a regular basis were overwhelmingly conservatives, and thus the GOP was able use the church as a social network for its advantage. Simultaneously, the traditional fortress for Democratic/liberal organizing and social networking, the labor union, was being destroyed.

Posted by Andrew | December 27, 2007 1:05 PM

That's great and all, but the fact is that we have religious dildos like Commander Guy who does incredibly stupid shit like invade The Iraq because The Baby Jesus ("a higher father" or whatever that asshole said) told him to.

Posted by ed | December 27, 2007 1:06 PM

more than ever? looks like it's been pretty static for the last 25 years.

Posted by cleek | December 27, 2007 1:07 PM

"It's this, rather than an intensification in fervor, that's made it possible to mobilize conservative Christianity for political purposes. Back in 1960 there were so few avowedly irreligious people out there that trying to rally opposition to the perils of secularism was a non-starter."

Sorry, but that's a pathetically inept analysis. Why does MY repeatedly suck up to theocons?

"Conservative Christianity" was used to launch Prohibition - where was the spike in unbelief then?

It's not like this is the first period of fundie frenzy, and it's not the first time it intruded into politics, either. Nor will it be the last. But if anything I would say the rise of the fundie mobs is what has spurred the recent rise in rational activism, and not the other way around. I know that my own "aggressive atheism" was inspired by watching the way the Jesoids have been dragging this country into the toilet over the past 3 decades.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 27, 2007 1:10 PM

The whole "war on Christmas" thing was transparently based on reaction - It was an example of defensivness that was portrayed as an Offensive, by the secular press and as 'push bac' by the religious and faux religious.

It's amazing how many liberals delude themselves into thinking Bush is a fundamentalist Christian - There is zero evidence for this - It is based on their faith and driven by a felt psychological need to explain Bush away, so as to avoid tough questions.

Bush has occassionally given tactical winks toward the fundamentalists (" ...the jury is still out...") but it sure is strange that no one that knew him well before 1999 (when he bought his ranch and joined Laura's chuch) ever thought to mention his aleeged religious re-commitment.

Posted by Comment | December 27, 2007 1:18 PM

"Other" is not irreligious. The graph is excluding all Jews as religious but including even the most observant of Muslims, Hindus, and adherents of other non-Judeo-Christian religions as irreligious. Now, presumably those groups are outnumbered by the truly irreligious, but they've also presumably increased greatly in recent decades. So while the general point holds, the graph seems flawed.

Posted by KCinDC | December 27, 2007 1:20 PM

It seems that the religious "center" in America - the traditional main line Protestant denominations, liberal-to-moderate strains of Catholicism - is shrinking. In its place both edges - more extreme versions of Christianity as well as those who flat-out reject religion altogether - appear to be increasing.

I don't know as much about the Jewish and Muslim communities in America, but something similar seems to be shaking out with regards to Jews.

Posted by Answer Guy | December 27, 2007 1:20 PM

What Answer guy says - the Middle is declining at the expense of extremes on both sides. 1952, when only 3%, apparently, did not consider themselves religious, was probably a much healthier time in terms of church/state division because most people were members of sensible mainline churches that didn't get involved in politics.

Posted by John | December 27, 2007 1:31 PM

MY, aren't you going to put in a "Dawkins is a meanie!" qualifier? Don't want anyone to think you are committed to rational thought.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 27, 2007 1:43 PM

Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of immigrants are likely to be religious, and they've contributed about half the population growth we've had since 1970. Without them, the share of non-religious would probably be more like 22% or so. That's why the right wing hates immigration so much ... wait a minute ...

Posted by DCBob | December 27, 2007 1:49 PM

Um, theocracy has to do with the *government*. The feelings of the *governed* are quite beside the point.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | December 27, 2007 1:54 PM

Sorry Matt, but they were called Godless Communists for a reason.

Posted by Rob | December 27, 2007 1:54 PM

"both edges - more extreme versions of Christianity as well as those who flat-out reject religion altogether - appear to be increasing.... I don't know as much about the Jewish and Muslim communities in America, but something similar seems to be shaking out with regards to Jews."

Ha! We invented secular modernism. Cf Spinoza.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 27, 2007 1:57 PM

Mr. Sugar,

I would think that 'secular modernism' would scarcely be something to be proud of.

Posted by Hector | December 27, 2007 2:16 PM

It is precisely because the fundamentalists feel threatened by the increasing secularization of society that they want to use the law to enforce their belief system. If everyone believed, they wouldn't need the law.

Posted by rea | December 27, 2007 2:16 PM

I would think that 'secular modernism' would scarcely be something to be proud of.
Posted by Hector | December 27, 2007 2:16 PM

Please don't provoke me. I try not to ridicule myths and superstitions unless they're used to justify malice.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 27, 2007 2:31 PM

Note that the choices are only Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or Other/None. Thus, to some extent "Other and None" may encompass growing numbers of Hindus and Muslims (and, I suppose, Mormons and Eastern Orthodox Christians?).

That said, one can't help but notice the spikes and drops in the "other/none" category and their relationship to various historical events. It's hard not to see some sort of cause for these correlations, although it's sort of dime-store armchair historical analysis. Still, a drop after Sputnik in the late 50's (greater religiosity to contrast the godless Communists), then a spike during the cosmopolitan Kennedy administration. A sort of Woodstock-era peak, with an Altamont dip, then a big Watergate spike.

The biggest spike happened after the Berlin Wall fell. Perhaps with the end of the Cold War, people felt more comfortable identifying as other or none? Then, a drop after the 1994 Gingrich revolution (all that hectoring seemed to push people back into the religion camp somewhat). But then a return to early-90's levels pretty quickly, and dip after 9/11, but, again, a quick recovery.

Posted by infirm | December 27, 2007 2:34 PM

I find the pattern interesting.

1952 - 1962: no change
1962 - 1978: increase from 3% to 10%
1978 - 1988: no change
1988 - 1994: increase from 10% to 17%
1994 - 2004: no change

Posted by Al | December 27, 2007 2:54 PM

I won't be happy until the percentages of religious and irreligious are reversed.

Do I think that Scientology and Mormonism are dangerous cults? Yes, yes I do. Just like Judiasm, Christianity, Islam and all the rest.

Whent TSHTF (the shit hits the fan), and it's going to in the next few years, you're going to see religion rear its ugly head as the answer to our problems, and the vilification of the "other" will commence.

John Judis's magnificent article "Death Grip"
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19566&prog=zgp&proj=zusr
explains why this will be so. (The article gets my vote for best article of 2007.) When times get tough, people retrench culturally, be it nationalism, race, religion, whatever, and lash out at those who don't fit their own profile.

Upton Sinclair: “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”

One day the rest of the secular world will stop mocking Dawkins and Harris and realize that in the long, religion and belief in thousand-year-old religious texts is incompatible with secularism and rational thought. But I think the religious will kill all of us before that happens, so it's actually neither here nor there.

Posted by blah2 | December 27, 2007 2:54 PM

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”
Sinclair Lewis, not Upton Sinclair. I got mentally tangled up. My apologies.

Posted by blah2 | December 27, 2007 2:57 PM

Full text of Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here
http://reactor-core.org/cant-happen.html

Posted by blah2 | December 27, 2007 3:11 PM

Political ideologues and religious fanatics are cut from the same cloth. They both think theirs is the One True Creed, so when they're not trying to cram it down your throat, it's only because they're too busy trying to shove it up your a$$.

Posted by kafka | December 27, 2007 3:15 PM

That said, one can't help but notice the spikes and drops in the "other/none" category and their relationship to various historical events.

I think you're reading too much into it. Note the scale of the chart: from zero to 20 percent. The overall trend is pretty clearly an increase from the beginning of the 1960s until a plateau or slight drop in the 1990s, but all the other variation is close to if not within the margin of error of the survey.

Posted by Cyrus | December 27, 2007 4:40 PM

"looks like it's been pretty static for the last 25 years."

That's probably because we've reached the basic thirty percent of the country who are morons, who breed morons, and thus will stay morons.

This is why Bush's approval rating continues to hover around thirty percent, give or take a few percent.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 27, 2007 5:05 PM

Re:One day the rest of the secular world will stop mocking Dawkins and Harris and realize that in the long, religion and belief in thousand-year-old religious texts is incompatible with secularism and rational thought.

Odd that the US did not quite well for 200 years with a highly religious population. Even the Civil War had no real religious component ("Both sides read the same Bible, both sides prayed to the same God" to quote Mr Lincoln). Indeed, the American Founders were notably rationalist but almost none of them were outright Atheists, though few of them were orthodox(small "o") Christians either (some were what we call mainline Protestants; others would be known as liberal Christians today; and more than a few were Deists or Unitarians.) This suggests that, contrary to the paranoia of the more fundamentalist atheists here, there are indeed strains of religion which are perfectly compatible with reason and secular governance.

Posted by Jonf | December 27, 2007 5:38 PM

The rise in Nazism was due, in part, to collapse in religious faith in Germany - beginning in the 1870s and speading up during Weimar.

Could it happen here? Hope not - but we are a ways off.

Posted by Comment | December 27, 2007 5:45 PM

Mr. Iglesias's Rise of the Irreligious, I suppose, is meant as a counterweight hope to the Rise of the Religious Right. We should not take too much hope. The Irreligious include many disaffected types who vote for such meaningful candidates as Pogo. The Religious Right votes as a bloc and that is what gives them political clout. They vote for real live candidates whom the believe--wrongly for the most part--will deliver them the religious goodies they crave.

Posted by ShowMeSTL | December 27, 2007 6:04 PM

JonF,

I wouldn't include the deists and Unitarians as examples of much good. With friends like that, we don't need enemies.

I would hardly view the U.S. during most of its history as a force for good, so pointing out that it was formed as an explicitly secular republic only confirms me in my beliefs. It wasn't the Catholic states of Latin America that committed genocide against the Indians (check out what percentage of Mexico or Peru is of Indian blood today). No, they left that to the secular English and Dutch.

Posted by Hector | December 27, 2007 6:32 PM

I question the statement that the press is beefing up religion coverage in recent years. (It's not flat wrong, but it could use some refining.) The religion beat is one of the first to go when daily newspapers engage in belt-tightening. Time, Newsweek, and the NYT have had a religion reporter for many years. Clearly, the role of religion in politics has grown so there is more punditry aimed at religion.

The secularism that led to a conservative-religious reaction was more experienced than proclaimed: free love, civil rights, bell-bottom pants, etc. The poll results in your chart are a lagging indicator.

I second Dave's recommendation of the Chris Bowers post from the other day. One of his commenters hypothesized that the press is one major wave behind on religion; they are still scrambling to understand the religious right, when in fact that wave crested in 2004.

I'm not sure the US is becoming more secular, but it's becoming less traditional and institutional in religious observance/identification.

Posted by Dix Hill | December 27, 2007 6:33 PM

"I would hardly view the U.S. during most of its history as a force for good, so pointing out that it was formed as an explicitly secular republic only confirms me in my beliefs. It wasn't the Catholic states of Latin America that committed genocide against the Indians (check out what percentage of Mexico or Peru is of Indian blood today). No, they left that to the secular English and Dutch.

Posted by Hector | December 27, 2007 6:32 PM"

This is a false dichotomy. Look back on the rhetoric of the Indian Wars. A lot of the rhetoric was talking about the need to Christianize or kill the red-skinned heathens. The earliest example I've ever seen of the use of the word "terrorism" was applied to the French treatment of their slaves in what is now Haiti. The likes of Columbus, Pissaro and Cortes had Rome's backing during their conquests of the Americas to Christianize the locals. As Hernando de Soto pointed out, the elites in DC were less gung-ho about depriving the Native Americans of their land than the people who actually went west. I don't recall the Western settlers traveling with copies of Voltaire, but instead setting up churches and looking to the Bible to get them through hardship.

Posted by Reality Man | December 27, 2007 8:54 PM

Geronimo was a famous Christian convert - but then look what happend, George Bush's grandfather steals his skull from his grave and hides at Yale.

Prescott Bush's felt need for reliqs obviated respect for a fellow Christian's burial.

Posted by Comment | December 27, 2007 9:13 PM

JonF writes: "This suggests that, contrary to the paranoia of the more fundamentalist atheists here, there are indeed strains of religion which are perfectly compatible with reason and secular governance."

Except for blah, no other "fundamentalist atheists" (what a dumb phrase) suggested otherwise, so JonF is pulling a Dumbya and creating a strawman - again.

JonF is in many ways a rational fellow, but add atheism to the discussion and he gets more than a little paranoid and starts seeing "heathen hordes" that do not, in fact, exist.

I would also suggest that a huge swath of American Christianity has moved over the line that divides "perfectly compatible with reason and secular governance" from "I wouldn't trust these muttonheads to run a carwash."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 27, 2007 10:35 PM

How does an increase from 10% in 1978-1980 to 17% in 2004 translate into "basically static over the last 25 years?

Posted by SqueakyRat | December 28, 2007 12:00 AM

"It wasn't the Catholic states of Latin America that committed genocide against the Indians."

Westward-tending 19th-century Americans, of course, were just a big ol' gaggle of atheistical rationalists of the French Revolution sort. Everyone knows this.

Sheesh.

"Even the Civil War had no real religious component ("Both sides read the same Bible, both sides prayed to the same God" to quote Mr Lincoln)."

And both sides appealed to the same bible and same god to justify -- even demand -- killing each other. Most of the Protestant denominations split along sectional lines over these issues, just as the nation itself did. So while it's true that our Civil War wasn't religious in the same way, say, the English Civil War was, or the German Peasants' Revolt, etc., it's not quite accurate to say it had no real religious component.

Posted by urbino | December 28, 2007 1:11 AM

The rise in Nazism was due, in part, to collapse in religious faith in Germany - beginning in the 1870s and speading up during Weimar.

That's complete and utter bullshit, but leaving that aside I guess the Spanish Inquisition and such must have been the result of the untimely death of God.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 28, 2007 1:37 AM

Hector is obviously trying to imply that religion is necessary for morality, which is frankly retarded.

Posted by Reality Man | December 28, 2007 1:37 AM

Interesting post. One complicating issue is that historically the political fault lines have not always run between religion and secularism, but have run between the type of religiousity espoused by some groups with access to political power and the type of relgiousity (which could include not being religious) espoused by groups seen as threatening to the groups with access to political power. For example, MoeLarryAndJesus notes that "Conservative Christianity" was used to launch Prohibition". The threat perceived by (white, rural, Wasp conservative protestants) was not a "spike in unbelief" but rather a spike in (urban, immigrant, ethnic) Catholicism. Romanism was often seen along with Rum as the enemy.

Posted by AmericaWillBe | December 28, 2007 6:41 AM

It wasn't the Catholic states of Latin America that committed genocide against the Indians (check out what percentage of Mexico or Peru is of Indian blood today). No, they left that to the secular English and Dutch.

Posted by Hector | December 27, 2007 6:32 PM

It's pretty common to hear bigoted Protestants confuse the Enlightenment with the Reformation because they like to think Protestant myths and superstitions are less ridiculous than Catholic ones. But living in America, I haven't heard Hector's opposite but equally bigoted version very often. Anyway, I have to thank those evil British and Dutch for giving my ancestors sanctuary when the good religious Spanish started torturing and killing them, also in 1492.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 28, 2007 8:13 AM

Pizarro and Cortes were actually secular British and Dutch gentlemen... who knew?

Posted by melior | December 30, 2007 12:27 AM

I might suggest the Versaille Treaty, inflation, the fact we Americans tried to starve them and the French stole entire train tracks from the Germans had more to do with Hitler's rise to power.
The fact that all three major political parties were intent on destroying the Weimar Republic didn't help either.
Hitler, a Roman Catholic, and his new radical right defeated the promise of Weimar Germany, not a collapse of faith, at least I don't perceive it that way.
Just got back from Berlin and am reading Eric Weitz's "Weimar Germany" which explains away a lot of what went wrong in a country that has had a very dark history for almost ever.

The analysis is all very interesting but I recall 5 million evanglicals formed by Reagan's nonsense, and now there's about 80 million fundies. I agree with those that assume the ones that believe are simply becoming more fanatical about it, in the States, specifically, but in many countries.

Posted by Bailey | December 31, 2007 9:37 AM