'Knowledge of religion shallow, commitment deep' in U.S.

[ZombieHorde]

Charles Lewis, National Post

snip

But there is another problem: Americans may be some of the most religious people on Earth, but they are also incredibly ignorant about religion and the Bible.

snip

In addition, politicians are not debating the religious merits of their public policy arguments. Rather, they are simply posturing and because of voters' ignorance these positions go unchallenged.

"We give politicians a free pass for some demagoguery because of our inability to engage them on the Bible or on Christian doctrine," he said.

"The Bible doesn't talk about abortion. So there's this implication that I'm a religious person, so I'm opposed to abortion -- and I just don't see how that follows. Jesus doesn't say don't have abortions. That's not really not a biblical or a Christian question, even though it's considered one of the most Christian questions."

Religious Literacy portrays Americans as living in the midst of an extreme dichotomy: a nation of religious people who know little about religion and the Bible. Among his findings: - Only half of American adults can identify one of the four Gospels. - Most cannot name the first book of the Bible. - Only one-third know that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount. - A significant number believe Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife.

"Today, religious illiteracy is at least as pervasive as cultural illiteracy, and certainly more dangerous," Prof. Prothero writes.

"Religious illiteracy is more dangerous because religion is the most volatile constituent of the culture … Americans' knowledge of religion runs as shallow as Americans' commitment to religion runs deep."

Last year, a Gallup poll found that 31% of Americans believe the Bible is to be taken literally, while 47% said it is the inspired word of God.

To test his proposition further, Prof. Prothero gave a literacy quiz to his students at the start of an introductory religion course. Among the 15 questions: What is the holy book of Islam? Where was Jesus born? What is the Golden Rule?

Most failed the test. He said most people assume religious ignorance came about from the secularization of U.S. schools, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court banned devotional Bible readings and prayer in the 1960s.

But he believes the problem can be traced back 100 years ago to changes in Christianity itself.

"It's because the centre of religion has moved from the head to the heart," he said.

----------
More at link:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=296303

[kurth]

1. Well, religion ain't like nuclear physics

All you need is belief.

[Lithos]

2. Yes

I remember a long time ago that people seek out a religion which meets their needs based on three criteria. 1) Mysticism (the rites, practices), 2) The morality/theology and 3) Social acceptance/need. Many churches have taken advantage of the great US diaspora (the movement inside of the US starting with the 1920's) to portray themselves first and foremost as extended family and social hub than actually teaching real religion.

L-

[varkam]

3. If I recall correctly, most Christians have never read the entire bible.

Far be it for me to assume how I would behave if I believed that my actions and how well I followed the guidelines set out in the bible determined whether or not my immortal soul would burn for eternity, but I think I'd at least read the whole thing.

[BurtWorm]

4. I think the "begats" are a major obstacle for most people.

;)

[varkam]

6. Yeah, John Grisham certainly didn't write that section, that's for sure.

:boring:

[struggle4progress]

9. Your assumptions about the significance of the Bible for Christians may not be correct

One of the most fundamentalist Christians I ever knew, with whom I socially disputed theology several decades ago, and who was an avid student of the Bible, told me once that he considered most of the Bible completely inessential. At another time, he indicated clearly that he did not regard the Bible as providing a collection of rules to follow; in his view, as I understood it, that meant Christianity was not really a religion. I cannot now remember whether I ever learned what view he took of everlasting fire, but in the churches I have attended the theme of eternal punishment seldom (if ever) arose: people simply had other concerns

[varkam]

10. Then again, who is to say who is right.

I would imagine that your friends view that Christianity is not really a religion is kind of an extreme outlier among the plurality of thought out there, wouldn't you say? Of course not everyone believes in hell, and not every Christian does - the point that I was making was not really dependent on hell but on punishment. Regardless though, who knows? There may be a hell, there may not be. Everyone's got their own interpretation of the source material (hence the splintering of religions into various factions). There is, unfortunately, no way to settle the debate of just how many angels do, in fact, dance on the head of a pin.

Moreover, whether or not the churches you attended ever covered the theme of eternal punishment strikes me as a bit of a non-sequitur. Just because your pastor doesn't talk at length about it doesn't mean that others don't.

[struggle4progress]

13. My point is merely that your post appears to make certain assumptions about what people believe:

in fact, it is not always terribly clear exactly what people believe

[varkam]

20. I don't think my assumptions are exactly baseless.

After all, I used to be a practicing Baptist and every one of my peers believed that should we not follow God's will that we would end up burning for eternity. I realize that there are a good number of other beliefs out there, but my post was also an attempt to be somewhat humorous.

[struggle4progress]

27. Well, I may have a tin-ear for tone-of-voice in message-board-posts

so the humor escaped me, though on re-reading your earlier post I have no trouble imagining it written with some twinkle-in-the-eye

Nor am I trying to deny the existence of the POV you reference in that post

I just don't know what people really mean by their religious references until I have had some conversation with them

For example: a few weeks ago, I had a conversation with a woman who earnestly explained to me that she had a "Biblical" attitude towards male-female relations, which she explained meant that the woman should defer to the man (a view which I personally find ridiculous, though I did not tell her so); further probing on this subject revealed that she felt the woman should only defer to the man as long as he behaved "like a good Christian" -- and a bit more conversation uncovered the fact that she had physically assaulted some of her significant-others, after she ceased to believe that they were "good Christians," a history she related without obvious embarrassment. This woman at least uses words differently than I do

[spin]

36. I recently read the Bible from cover to cover.

I would recommend reading it in conjunction with a book like: Don't know much about the Bible by Kenneth C. Davis.

My interest lately has been ancient history, how civilization developed and the effect of religion, both good and bad, on mankind.

The Old Testament contains a lot of violence and sex. Many Christians would question their religion after reading it. The New Testament is a lot more appealing and far less disturbing. What you hear in church and Sunday schools are the good excerpts, the other stuff is largely ignored.

Most religions seem to be based on the concept that "My God is bigger and badder than your God". Or "You all better follow God's rules carefully or really really bad things will happen to you and everyone in your tribe or nation".

Of course religion can have a positive influence. For example, the Ten Commandments are basic rules that if followed will foster a better society. The Golden Rule, an idea that has been expressed by many people in history (Jesus, Confucius, Aristotle, Hillel, The Earl of Chesterfield) also can help guide people to lead a beneficial and useful life.

[Warpy]

5. Most of us on the atheist side of the religious coin

have read the bible from cover to cover at least once. It is literature and forms the mythic base of this culture. It is necessary to read to understand the human culture around us. Many of us have also read at least part of the Quran, the Upanishads, and other religious works in an attempt to understand the mythic bases of other cultures or simply to find out what we might have missed since the religious indoctrination we all got didn't take.

We've all found it astonishingly easy to outquote most believers and have been amazed by their lack of knowledge of what is in that book they're constantly waving in our faces. I think much of the problem lies in their bible study groups. I've looked at their workbooks and homework, books that give them catch phrases taken out of context and directed them to the various, usually OT or Paul, books of the bible, and ask for the verse and line numbers. Since favorite catch phrases are generally in red, these things actually discourage reading the book as a whole and certainly discourage understanding any of it in any sort of context, cultural or written.

That's why so many, especially those on the right, groove on the myths of virgin births and magical resurrections and miracles and neglect the teaching completely. The teaching is incompatible with Republic values and with a lifestyle that focuses on the acquisition of things instead of the the care of the earth and one's fellow human beings.

Being ignorant of their own religion's basic teachings has turned them into prime suckers, in other words. The cure for ignorance is always education, and the education of reading their entire bible, from cover to cover, would be a good place to start.

The author of the OP is wrong about one thing. The center of the religion didn't move to the heart because what passes for much Christianity in the US today is heartless. It went to the gut, to an empty spot that tries to fill itself with things and with negative emotion toward all outsiders.

[varkam]

7. Great observation:

The author of the OP is wrong about one thing. The center of the religion didn't move to the heart because what passes for much Christianity in the US today is heartless. It went to the gut, to an empty spot that tries to fill itself with things and with negative emotion toward all outsiders.

I think that's dead-on.

[heidler1]

12. I agree and would like to add thar IMO on one hand employers bitch about

the level of US education while on the other hand employers actually want to hire for lowest wages possible, this turns out to be people who can't even speak our most popular language. What these employers like more than anything else is being able to holler jump and the guy says "How high." This creates confusion all the way around for workers and students the pitch reeks of more BS. Of course this does not apply to professional types.

Learning what's in the Bible is more of the same and could have a very bad effect on believing what they read. Reading a verse or two a day nearly prevents getting it tied together so you could question the whole.

I'm convinced that employers do not want employees to be the least bit smarter than necessary. I also believe that recruiters into the army show preference for minimal expertise and this in turn causes job placement problems after being discharged. Smart people are cautious and statistically less apt to be killed in combat. I was in WW2 and IMO it was that way, way back then.

[skepticscott]

17. One good reason why

the Reformation took off and the Catholic church started its long, slow decline is that the Bible started to be translated and printed widely in vernacular languages instead of just Latin. Once people could actually READ what up to that point they had to settle for being spoon fed selectively, they tumbled to the fact that a lot of theology was non-credible BS.

[JerseygirlCT]

22. Good post, and I'd have to agree to a large part

Many of the atheists I've met here and elsewhere are quite well-versed (forgive the pun). Not all, mind you, but those who aren't aren't usually much for any kind of interesting conversation, either.

And I love your final analogy. Makes perfect sense!

[struggle4progress]

8. Doesn't this simply parallel a widespread ignorance of many topics in the US?

Americans typically do not know basic history or geography. They often do not know fundamentals about the organization of US government. Many brag about their incompetence at simple math, and a surprising number can barely read. Only a tiny fraction can communicate in a second language. Similar problems exist in the understanding of modern scientific concepts. And the situation is no better for knowledge of current events

Why should we expect a different result for religious topics?

Such widespread ignorance must be created and maintained by systemic forces. People do not typically decide that they want to be ignorant -- and a consideration of US history might suggest that the population has been rather better informed in the past: a century ago, when people worked long hours for low pay, self-improvement movements involving night or weekend lectures for working class people on a variety of subjects, political and scientific, were quite popular

[varkam]

11. Americans aren't exactly passionate about either history or geography, though.

You do make an interesting point about the forces that keep us ignorant. Personally, I think it's got a lot to do with mass media which, ironically enough, should make access to knowledge easier.

[TZ]

15. add in science and math to that

Hell, there seems to be a strong core of Americans who seem proud of their ignorance!! It makes me want to weep.
Seriously, with the short attentionspan of Americans I can well believe most of the religious bigots have only read parts of the Bible...The ones that support their idiocy.

[skepticscott]

16. Well, ya know

all that edjumakation and all that book larnin' ain't worth a heap o' cornpone..

[JerseygirlCT]

24. Heck, we can start with the Ignorant in Chief

for that. The towel-snapping, frat boy, C student and proud of his lack of achievements is held up as some sort of standard. Anyone seeking to actually learn something, be curious, is dismissed, frat-boy fashion as a nerd.

I'll be a nerd, thanks.

[DeSwiss]

14. You've identified the real problem....

...which is that of the poor quality of education of many Americans in general. The article states further:

"Religious illiteracy is more dangerous because religion is the most volatile constituent of the culture. Americans' knowledge of religion runs as shallow as Americans' commitment to religion runs deep."

An absence of the ability to think critically under almost any circumstance, would make the members of a society ripe for manipulation by their political and religious leaders. And some of us can see that manipulation being used everyday....

[JerseygirlCT]

23. Yes, we are definitely becoming stupid

And comfortable with it. That sucks.

[Realityhack]

30. Ding! My thoughts exactly.

Yes religion is a volatile topic (and has/will be for a long time) but Americans in general are just as ignorant on pretty much every other volatile topic as well.
We have gotten to a point (not sure if we where ever anywhere else) where style and sounding 'smart' trump knowledgeable reasoned arguments and explanations.

I disagree however that most people do not decide to be ignorant. I think willful ignorance is definitely a huge problem. In most cases there are loads of psychological reasons for a person to want to remain ignorant.

As for history etc. One could argue that the discovery channel is quite popular but it doesn't mean the people watching it know their ass from their elbow (or the people producing it). I think we need to be very careful not to idealize history. I honestly don't know enough to say wither we are historically at a low or not, never mind wither we have had past lows just as bad.

[dmallind]

31. The problem is the combination of ignorance and enthusiasm/influence

I don't think it's the end of the world that most Americans, even most American Christians, know next to nothing about the Bible or theology, but it's pretty bad when they use what little they know, or think they know, as a social, legal and political hammer so extensively. I'm pretty damn ignorant on astronomy and high end physics, but I don't insist that NASA set up their missions according to my opinions on escape velocities and orbital paths, and nobody in their right mind who is similarly ignorant would ask them to either. Generally speaking most people are happy to let economists sit on the Fed and prefer lawyers to be AG's. Somehow though when it comes to "values", even values supposedly based so squarely on the Bible, Christians, mostly ignorant of the Bible as a whole, tend to think that their ignorance is what should drive government, law and policy.

That's when it becomes troublesome - when ignorance is not questioned, not examined, not corrected, and STILL used by a majority to inflict the effects of that ignorance on everyone.

[Bill McBlueState]

37. not a perfect analogy

Neither of the major political parties has spent the last thirty years trying to convince us that they're better mathematicians than the other, only that they're more religious.

(But that would be kinda cool.)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Too many evangelicals attend megachurches with self-ordained preachers

who harp on their pet topics (abortion, homosexuality, militarism as patriotism) and never do anything else.

They pay lip service to the Bible, but even when they have "Bible study," it's the preacher's pet passages, not the whole Bible. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those preachers have never read the whole Bible themselves.

It's likely that they've never studied ancient history or theology or read the centuries of commentary on the Bible, as mainstream clergy do.

This is not true of all evangelicals. I once dated a young man whose father was a minister in one of the evangelical denominations, and when his parents came to town, we attended a service at a church of that denomination. After the service EVERYONE, from pre-schoolers to adults, went to Sunday School. For the adults, the lesson was about the period between the Old Testament and New Testament, a very appropriate lesson for the last Sunday before Advent.

In the mainstream churches, especially those that use the Common Lectionary for Sunday worship, you get through the all four Gospels in three years, as well as the entire Bible, if you do the daily readings. You get an Old Testament reading, a New Testament reading from the non-Gospel books, and finally, a reading from one of the four Gospels.

The clergy are expected to preach on one of the day's readings, unless there's some compelling reason to do otherwise, such as the Sunday after 9/11. However, even then, our priest made an effort to tie the events to the readings for the die.

The mainstream denominations also offer opportunities for members to delve deeper if they choose. I'm in the midst of a four-year course for lay people in which we read the entire Bible, learn church history, and take a survey of theology. Even people who don't want to make that kind of commitment can sign up for short-term study groups on an individual book of the Bible or the work of a given theologian.

[knitter4democracy]

19. It's a huge problem in the church.

I don't care which church it is, either--all churches have trouble with their flocks not knowing squat about their own faith.

NPR did a cute story yesterday on Huckabee's language. It's full of Biblical references, so a reporter went out to try and find people who knew what the references were. The reporter found only one. She went around and around and kept finding people who didn't have a clue what he was talking about--many of whom self-identified as church-going Christians.

I'm always amazed at what fellow Christians don't know, haven't read, haven't studied. Many have no idea what their own church's history involves, let alone Christian history, and they definitely don't know the Bible. Now, I may not have read every single word (though I think I have, but I'm not sure), but at least I know all the big stuff and know the Gospels. Then again, I grew up in a bible-obsessed evangelical church and went to their college with two required Bible and Christian history classes.

I think a class on World Religions should be required in high schools. People need to know about Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Deism, atheism, and all the rest. It sure would help our communities live in peace with each other, knowing our common beliefs and backgrounds.

[JerseygirlCT]

25. I agree. It might be difficult to hammer out the curriculum so as to

avoid it being overtaken by proponents of one belief system or another, though.

I know, personally, I've always found different beliefs absolutely fascinating. Different people, different cultures... even as a kid, I ate it up. I certainly don't read Nat'l Geographic for the bug and animal stories, but the stories of people from places I don't know much about? So cool.

[knitter4democracy]

26. It might be difficult, but it's necessary.

I taught at a Catholic girls school with a teacher who taught World Religions, and from what I read of his curriculum and heard from his students, he was more than fair to everyone. If it can be done in a Catholic school, it can be done anywhere. :)

[JerseygirlCT]

29. I had some terrific teachers in Catholic schools

(Some not so much, too!)

I wholeheartedly agree about it. I do think it should be a basic educational expectation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. One of my favorite books when I was a kid was

a coffee table book from Time-Life called "The World's Great Religions." It had sections on Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and what it called The Philosophies of China (Confucianism and Buddhism).

It was published in the 1950s and is quite outdated now, but it had the history and then-current state of each religion lavishly illustrated with photographs and artwork followed by a section of excerpts from each religion's sacred writings, including not only the Bible but also the Koran, the Talmud, the Analects of Confucius, and others.

[spin]

35. A similar but more recent book

is World Religions...the great faiths explored & explained by John Bowker.

http://www.amazon.com/World-Religions-John-Bowker/dp/0789414392/ref=ed_oe_h

[JerseygirlCT]

21. Oh yes, yes, yes!

Exactly. And all that ignorance creates this big fat dangerous vacuum into which demagogues pour their hate and tripe.

Basic understanding of one's one faith and - as important - at least a good number of the others in the world - is simply part of being a responsible human being, I think. Certainly of being an educated one. Although in the age of Bush, being educated has been turned into something like "elitist".

There's nothing wrong with one's religion reaching one's heart - I should think it would. But when your brain is required to be checked at the door, watch out. No, check that: RUN.

[kwassa]

32. This shows it all to be a culture war rather than a religious war.

It is really not Bible-based at all, but conservatism versus liberalism, with allegedly proper use of the Bible to give legitimacy to the conservative cause. Scripturally-based, indeed, only with a certain selection of the Bible.

The internal war in the Episcopal church is essentially that right now, with the extreme conservative minority attempting to break away from the main church, and it is really about religion changing, and those not happy with change.

[sakabatou]

33. Blind faith...

Icky.

[pingzing58]

34. The bible developed in three stages - the teaching on abortion is found in early church writing.

The Pontifical Bilbical Commission in 1964 On the Historical Truth of the Gospels, endorsed a certain emphasis upon the development of the Gospel tradition in three stages: the experiencing by the Apostles of the words and deeds of Jesus; the Apostolic preaching and testimony after the death and resurrection of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit; and the written composition of the Gospels from material contained in the Apostolic preaching (45 CE to 120 CE). Not everything Jesus said or taught was committed to writing (John 21:25).

An early church catechism called the Didache written around 100 CE forbids abortions: 2:1 And this is the second commandment of the teaching. 2:2 You shall do no murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not corrupt boys, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not deal in magic, you shall do no sorcery, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born, you shall not covet your neighbor's goods, you shall not perjure yourself, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall not cherish a grudge, you shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued....

<http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html>

I disagree with Prof. Prothero who faults the supreme court for lack of religious knowledge or bible knowledge among people today. It is the responsibility of each parent to teach their children in the way of faith and for church communities to assist the parents in those duties with sunday school and catechism classes. I would rather fault the abuse of bible verses by those who control others for evil ends: Jim Jones, David Koresh, those who preach the gospel of prosperity and those preach hate and call themselves Christian (cross burners). Why should anyone look to the bible when it produces such division?