Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
UK teens: Reality TV outranks religion
Penguin Book did a survey of 1,000 United Kingdom teens and found that two-thirds don’t believe in God — and actually think reality tv is more important. Other findings:
- 50 percent have never prayed.
- 16 percent have never been to church.
- 59 percent say religion has had a negative effect on the world.
- 47 percent said organized religion has no place in the world
- 90 percent believed that they should treat others better than themselves.
The questions aren’t the same, but I checked Barna Research to get a feel for how how American teens might compare. (Some of it is old news, but worth recalling when we see how religion has diminished in Europe.) Barna’s surveys found higher levels of religiosity among teens:
- Half of all teens attend a church-related activity each week.
- More than three-fourths discuss matters of faith with peers.
- 81 percent of teens say they’ve attended church for a period of at least two months during their teen years.
However, the same survey found that this religious activity diminishes as Americans reach their twenties. Barna also surveyed 16-29 year olds, specifically about their perceptions of Christianity, finding:
- 16 percent of non-Christians had favorable* impression of Christianity.
- Only 3 percent of non-Christian teens had a favorable view of evangelicals.
- Nine of the top 12 perceptions were negative, including that Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%).
* Correction: That’s a favorable opinion, not an unfavorable opinion as I originally wrote it.
Topic: Religion, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top21 Comments to “UK teens: Reality TV outranks religion”
I think all that will change in a few decades given the birthrate patterns and unchecked immigration of non-native non-Christian Britons. LONDONISTAN here you come!
Report comment to moderator
Why treat others better than yourself, mates?
Report comment to moderator
I highly recommend the complete Barna study linked to in the main post. There are some really negative numbers in there, including the idea that, even among young self-described evangelicals, the kinds of intolerance and hypocrisy which is expressed here often is souring them on the faith.
I think that that is ocurring because church leaders have opted to politicize the churches, turning it from an advisory, “this is the way we ought to live” organization into a “this is the way everybody must live” organization.
Nobody likes to be told what they must do, and a substantial lot of church-goers don’t even like to be in the role of telling other people what they must do.
Report comment to moderator
#3 Arcadia, I agree. Which is why most Christians I knew before I was saved would say “The Christian is expected to..” “As Christians we’re called to..”
Change has to happen one heart at a time and then only later do superficial things like laws get changed or amended to reflect those heart changes.
Report comment to moderator
The United Kingdom is lucky because they undoubtedly have a smaller percentage of people who say things like “superficial things like laws”. I’m sure Dr. Tiller’s murderer thought along the same lines.
Report comment to moderator
If anyone is really interested in this topic, I recommend a somewhat recently published book called Soul Searching, by Christian Smith. It’s a report on a huge sociological study done on American teenagers and religion.
Report comment to moderator
The U.K. is unlucky because they undoubtedly have a larger percentage of people who say silly things like #5.
Report comment to moderator
What a superficial comment #5 is!
Arcadia, here’s the thing. In a republic such as the one that we live in, citizens have the right to help shape policy and even to help write the laws. If a certain group wants to prohibit a certain behavior, then they have the right to do so. The good news is that if their rival group disagrees, then they can try to defeat the measure.
As long as you do not hurt somebody else, I have no right to tell you what to do. However, I do have the right to petition for certain laws and to campaign for them.
Report comment to moderator
In the documentary Super Size Me, the narrator shows a series of pictures to grade one students. Almost all identify Ronald McDonald and most George Washington, but the traditional picture of Jesus left them stump. One student thought it was George Bush.
Religious illiteracy is evident not only in agnostic or apathetic youth but even in religious youth. Rite, ritual and rote are undertaken but when they become 20s somethings its no longer good enough.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A: Very naive and totally missing the point. If, as most believe, religion is mostly about saving one’s soul, about doing the right thing oneself, either for selfish or unselfish motives, then, when religion gets mixed up with politics, that message gets lost.
In the same process, I think, religion also finds itself forced into a) more inflexible and harsher positions than many believers are willing to accept and b) becomes a force much more easily depicted and seen as “against” something than “for” anything.
I am not, and would never suggest that you, Kyle A, should not personally seek to influence policy. But, when you and and a band of your co-religionists, seek in the name of your church or your bible to affect policy, especially to prohibit others from certain behaviors, you put your religion’s name and reputation on the line, often to deleterious effect. Political opponents will arise to try to tear down your house, and many who are already within it, will wonder “what am I doing here, I didn’t sign up to tell everybody else what they can’t do, all I want to do is live my life in an appropriate way”.
Of course this process happens even faster and more effectively when the “religious position” is presented by church leaders. Not only that, but as we have seen over and over and over again, those leaders themselves are frequently revealed in the heat of partisan political clashes to be fools, knaves, or charlatans.
I think the founders were pretty wise to everything they could to separate these two estates. Religious intrusion into politics coarsens the political dialogue because of religion’s totalitarian and unchallengable insistence on what its particular god wants. It also undoes a lot of the good works that religion does perform, both for believers and unbelievers.
One other thing. Politics, inevitably is about alliances of convenience. By entering into politics, religion must at some point ally itself with one side or another on some very heated issues, most notably economics. Once again, this puts religious followers into some uncomfortable positions. Whether you are talking about the “social gospel” movement, or the Republican/evangelical alliance of convenience, many followers simply will not follow their religious leaders down that path. The leaders then have to make a case for God or Jesus or Mohammed as a socialist, a free market capitalists or something else; that case is often difficult to make and causes more disaffection and disillusionment.
Report comment to moderator
Questions that come to mind:
How come gay rights activists who condemn and threaten “homophobes” never get accused of judgmentalism?
How come environmentalists, gay rights activists, anti-smokers and other supporters of liberal causes are never criticized for being too involved in politics?
How come nobody cares if liberal politicians behave hypocritically, as long as they vote for the right policies?
One suspects that charges of “judgmentalism,” “hypocrisy,” and “excessive involvement in politics” are mainly attempts by liberals to get Christian conservatives out of the way, so the liberals can dominate the political process themselves.
Report comment to moderator
RAB: Gay rights activists, environmentalists etc, do not generally seek to cloak themselves in godly robes. They do not need or seek or use the “cover” of religion to assert what they want. They speak, I think, generally more broadly in line with what most of their interest group wants.
You, as “one”, may suspect what you want about this liberal’s motives; I respectfully submit that there are as many, if not more Christians who agree with me than you.
I also respectfully submit that there are precious few evangelicals who feel that they were called to Jesus in order to prevent homosexuality or promote the causes of big business. By making evangelicalism about those causes, I don’t think that movement is doing itself much good.
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe those Barna numbers are wrong, but I think maybe you ought to be thinking some about them.
Report comment to moderator
Rab: How come gay rights activists who condemn and threaten “homophobes” never get accused of judgmentalism?
How come environmentalists, gay rights activists, anti-smokers and other supporters of liberal causes are never criticized for being too involved in politics?
How come nobody cares if liberal politicians behave hypocritically, as long as they vote for the right policies?
The answer to all of those is that they do come under criticism. The right criticizes the left all day long, and vice versa.
What you’re really asking is how come liberals don’t criticize liberals, which is as silly as asking how come conservatives don’t criticize conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
Teenagers think they will live forever.
Once people mature enough to realize we all die, they began thinking about what Ernest Becker described as “Immortality Project” in The Denial of Death.
The more sophisticated immortality project is thinking your work or good deeds will live after you. The next level down is passing on your genes in your children. (It’s not very hard to make children; even the dumbest of the dumb manage to pass on their genes.)
Down another level, one finds the people who think if they say the right prayers and beg forgiveness of a man born of a virgin who rose from the dead, they, too will live forever.
Below that level…well, we don’t want to go there.
Report comment to moderator
“If, as most believe, religion is mostly about saving one’s soul, about doing the right thing oneself”
Your religious beliefs are fine, so long as they don’t interfere with the way you live your life? A private, compartmentalized faith is no faith at all, whether most believe it or not.
Ethical and moral valuations are intrinsic to all laws. Even procedural laws are designed because orderliness and equity are valued. Not only can you “legislate morality,” you must, or you legislate immorality instead.
Our secular government precludes the the imposition of liturgy, theological doctrines, and coerced support of religious institutions. It does not exclude legilsation that is informed by Christian morality. Laws relating to perjury, murder, charitable giving, and seven year bankruptcy all have a Biblical foundation and all are constitutionally valid.
“But, when you and and a band of your co-religionists, seek in the name of your church or your bible to affect policy, especially to prohibit others from certain behaviors…”
By virtue of your identification as Christian, Arcadia will condemn your responsible involvement in the political process. Such naked bigotry is appalling and shameful.
” also respectfully submit that there are precious few evangelicals who feel that they were called to Jesus in order to prevent homosexuality or promote the causes of big business. By making evangelicalism about those causes, I don’t think that movement is doing itself much good.”
Not a strawman left standing. Evangelicals didn’t simply enter the political arena to engage in the culture wars. They are simply that curious beast that dares defend itself when attacked. Capitalism is not about promoting big business; it is about promoting private enterprise and free markets, that economic system that best encourages human flourishing. Corporatism is the antithesis of capitalism. It seeks to limit competition in favor of established enterprises. It is about gaining and holding power and is the handmaid of big government. Corporatism finds a more congenial environment in the Obama Administration than it would with most conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
Random,
While your statement (Teenagers think they will live forever.) is often true, it’s not very accurate as an all-encompassing statement. While you likely didn’t mean that all teens think that, that’s what you said. I try to tell people to avoid using generalizations with words such as “all,” “every” and others. I am sure I can find many other teenagers besides me that don’t see themselves as invincible.
Arcadia,
Some Christians, including some I know, believe that a Christian should just be concerned with theology and their soul. However, I believe that we’re in the world to make a difference and if we can change it, we should.
-Death to political correctness!
Report comment to moderator
Funny how it’s the most politicized people of all (and who have little regard for religion), who are most critical of evangelicals who ever dare to approach anything related to politics. Evangelicals are the only group in the USA I know of who is subjected to virulent criticism and bashing if they merely lift up a voice on anything political. The political critics of evangelicals (for being political) are quite hypocritical.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus said;
“This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” John 3:19-20
More from Jesus;
“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.” John 15:18-20
When the world starts to love and appreciate serious Christians, that will be because those Christians have left the real Jesus far behind.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: You have a point. But Joel Mark in #17 restates what I intended in a clear and succint manner.
Arcadia: I am doing a lot of thinking about the numbers, as you suggest. But I think the political activity of most evangelicals is simply an attempt to live out their faith in the Amercian context where citizens have the right and responsibilty to participate in the democratic process. It isn’t using religion as a “cover” for anything. And their efforts are not illegitimate simply because they are religiously motivated.
That said, we do need to be careful to keep politics in its place as only a small part of what we do as Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Rab: an attempt to live out their faith in the Amercian context where citizens have the right and responsibilty to participate in the democratic process
Problem is, they seek to force everybody else to follow their faith, rather than rational rules, rooted in the Constitution and our history. And in making their case, they are perceived as extremely intolerant. One might argue that Christianity really is extremely intolerant, but that is not most peoples’ perception of it, until some Christians seek to enforce their intolerant positions. Heck, an awful lot of Christians are shocked at the depiction of their religion by the most activist evangelicals.
And, as I wrote above, at some point many evangelicals gag at the political compromises and back-scratching their leaders engage in.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
I understand the gagging at some of the political junk.
But I insist that for Christians to engage in politics to promote their faith-based views is no different from non-Christians trying to pass laws enforcing their non-faith-based opinions on the rest of the country.
As for the Constitution and US history, there is a lot of Christian involvement in both. And I would argue that policies based on the Christian faith are usually far more “rational” than what is proposed by liberals.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!