Grumpy

There's a link to a <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/261/nation/Mormon_church_sees_most_growth+.shtml" target="_blank">Boston Globe</a> story in the II Newswire about a new study of religious attendance & membership. Unfortunately, the press release clearly says the information is too be embargoed until Friday. Looks like the AP jumped the gun.

Let's look at the study anyway!

The <a href="http://www.glenmary.org/grc/RCMS_2000/release.htm" target="_blank">Glenmary Research Center</a> of Nashville compiles its report based on census data, so they do this every ten years. For 2000, they find that Oregon is the state with the lowest church attendance, with only 31% of residents filling the pews. (I'll note that Alaska is near the bottom in attendance rate as well, and with our small population, we literally have the fewest churchgoers of any state!)

Utah, of course, is number one. Good ol' <a href="http://ext.nazarene.org/rcms/metroswithhighestratioadherents.html" target="_blank">Provo</a> is Medford, OR's opposite number: 89.9% attendance, compared to 22.2%.

The Boston Globe uses the growth of the Catholic and Mormon churches as its headline. That's a fine angle, if you like. Note that this <a href="http://www.glenmary.org/grc/RCMS_2000/maps/Wall_Map_simplified.jpg" target="_blank">county-by-county map</a> shows a broad swath of Catholic domination. In the North, anyway. As expected, Baptists dominate the South. Strange to see buffer of Methodists on the fringe of the Baptist zone, however.

Lutherans, of course, populate the upper Midwest. Notice on this <a href="http://www.glenmary.org/grc/RCMS_2000/maps/All_Groups.jpg" target="_blank">map of attendance rate</a> that peak church attendance is concentrated in the middle of the country, from border to border (with Utah/Idaho standing on its own). Or you can use this map to plan your vacation: avoid the hot spots, stick to the blue and green areas.

But remember: you didn't hear about any of this until Friday.

Grumpy

Pardon my bump, but I thought I'd add another observation. Look at the map of attendance rate, and compare it with the prevailing religion in each county. Apart from the Mormon zone and possibly the ELCA in North Dakota, there is very little correlation between type of religion and rate of attendance. For example, you can clearly see the outline of Southern Baptists marked in red, but on the attendance rate map it's a blurry patchwork.

Ab_Normal

I'm so proud of Washington State... it's such a soothing shade of blue... alas, I'm located in one of the green counties. Oh well.

Rosiel

Wow...I'm from one of the only non-baptist counties in the south. I guess that's why I never ran into that many raving fundies growing up.

*feels very lucky*

(edit: that map is really tiny...I'm really just guessing that that's my county. I never saw many Baptists there though, so if it's not they must have been hiding in the woods or something O_o)

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rosiel ]</p>

Mecha_Dude

I could find only a single "None" on the map

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Mecha_Dude ]</p>

Grumpy

The "None" is Loving County, TX. Only three towns there, I see. Anyone who lives there probably drives 30 miles down the road to Pecos every Sunday. So why is it a county in the first place?

galiel

Woah, woah, WOAH!

Don't let this piece of misinformation go by unchallenged.

In fact, this utterly bogus bit of religious propaganda masquerading as a statistical study is based on self-reporting by religious organizations, NOT on the census, a field study or even phone poll.
(emphasis added)

Furthermore, it is primarily, and was until now exclusively, a survey of Christian organization's self-reported data.
Note: SELF-REPORTED DATA
The U.S. Census, incidentally, is prohibited by statute from collecting any data on religious preference.

Whenever examining statistical data, it is useful to check out where the data is coming from. The Glenmary "study" was carried out on behalf of
and was
Still unconvinced?

The study makes no claim to be comprehensive, despite the way it has been spun to the press.

Good news for us. Basically, half the population doesn't belong to organized religions, even given the understandably self-interested inflation of membership numbers by most faith organizations.

In fact, the report notes:
[quote]However, here are, however, 14 groups that reported more than 100,000 inclusive members to the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches that did not participate in the RCMS 2000 study. oops!!!

More prevarication: Incidentally, Jones is Let's see what they actually asked for and what was their standard for inclusion:
Check out these yummie definitions.

The study authors claim (without detailing their adjustment methodology) to "adjust" for reporting bias and the fact that each group uses different criteria to count membership!

There is no collection of data on non-religious members of the population at all.

This is strictly a PR exercise with no inductive value.

It is important to read carefully and approach media reports with skepticism.

If you are interested in a legitimate, respected and widely viewed as authoritative survey of religious identity in the U.S. , you should look at ARIS

Even the authors of the Glenmary report praise it as a more accurate view than its own report and all others it lists on the report site.
It is the most recent ARIS survey, by the way, that found a doubling of people reporting "no religion" from 7% to 14% over the past ten years.

The ARIS press release explains:

The ARIS survey found very different results than the Glenmary report did. Interestingly, it found significant decreases in religious affiliation, including a drop in the percentage of Catholics, and a sharp decline in theose (still a majority) who identify themselves as "Protestants", not a rise as Glenmary deduces from the submissions of the Catholic Church and Protestant congregations. It also identifies "no religion" as the second largest minority affiliation in the country, after Catholics.

The Glenmary site, though praising the study (on a page that has no direct link from the home page, a series of links at the bottom of a page on how the Catholic results relate to the rest of the study.

The link to ARIS is:

<a href="http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/aris_index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/aris_index.htm</a>

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Grumpy

Since the data is based on per capita figures, naturally it incorporates the latest census data. But you are correct in that this is not simply number crunching which the Commerce Department could have done, because it can't.

The Boston Globe story prominently mentions the center as a "Roman Catholic research group." In fact, it does so in the lede of the story. I didn't bother mentioning it, because it doesn't interest me. Everybody spins, so I treat everything with a grain of salt.

The Glenmary study, to the extent that it is valid, has virtues that the ARIS lacks: the county-by-county breakdown, for one. It also lists <a href="http://ext.nazarene.org/rcms/listofreligiousgrouppopulationpenetration.html" target="_blank">"population penetration"</a>; likewise maps like the <a href="http://www.glenmary.org/grc/RCMS_2000/maps/Catholics.jpg" target="_blank">percentage of Catholics</a> not only show where Catholics are present, but how "deeply" -- they are evidently squeezed out of the market in Utah and the South. Also, ARIS has no data for Alaska and Hawaii (for reasons of cost).

galiel

I see. Surely you aren't saying that you take Holocaust deniers "evidence" with the same degree of salt as you give documentation of the death camps, are you?. And you surely do not take creationist's falsification of evidence and lying about research findings in stride, assuming that evolutionary scientists are planting fossil evidence and making it all up as they go along as well?

I don't think you do. you know there is spin, and then there is SPIN And you know that there are certain standards of objective data collection, analysis and interpretation without which it is not worth wasting one's time.

When presenting statistical data, the source of the data, the objectives of the study, the methodology used, and the openness to process review are all fundamental tools for evaluating the merits of the findings.

I don't think you were trying to hide anything. I think the folks promoting this report are deliberately obfuscating and misleading as to its credibility, and it is easy to be fooled, especially given the media's tendency to be superficial and deadline-driven. This report is propaganda, not positioning.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Grumpy

So what if the study doesn't reveal the actual numbers of adherents? It reveals what churches believe are the actual number of adherents. That's the number that impresses me.

It's like a poll asking whether O.J. did it. You're not going to find out who killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, but it's interesting to know who people think did the killing.

I don't need to defend the Glenmary Center. To be honest, I just like looking at the maps, which should be obvious. (Does anyone dispute that Washington & Oregon are the most secular states in America?)