Posted on 09/23/2012 1:11:04 PM PDT by markomalley
A few months ago we looked at a survey that showed that the vast majority of Americans have no idea whatsoever what percentage of the population is gay.
Mainstream studies indicate that percentage is somewhere in the low single digits, but Americans believed — on average — that 25 percent of the population is gay. Yes, 25 percent. This includes data showing that 35 percent of Americans think that more than 25 percent of the population is gay.
I’ve long wondered why it is that Americans are so wrong on this, but I can’t help but think that the mainstream media plays a significant role.
I was reminded of that study when I read this Religion News Service report showing that Americans are way off when estimating the percentage of Americans who belong to various religious groups:
The typical American underestimates how many Protestants there are in the U.S., and vastly overestimates the number of religious minorities such as Mormons, Muslims, and atheist/agnostics, according to a new study.
Grey Matter Research and Consulting asked 747 U.S. adults to guess what proportion of the American population belongs to each of eight major religious groups: Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Muslim, atheist/agnostic, believe in God or a higher power but have no particular religious preference, and any other religious group.
The average response was that 24 percent of Americans are Catholic, 20 percent are Protestant, 19 percent are unaffiliated, 8 percent are Jewish, 9 percent are atheist or agnostic, 7 percent are Muslim, 7 percent are Mormon and 5 percent identify with all other religious groups.
Respondents were correct on Catholics — 24 percent of the country is Catholic. But according to the 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 51 percent are Protestant, 12 percent are unaffiliated, 2 percent are Jewish, 4 percent are Atheist/Agnostic, less than 1 percent are Muslim, 2 percent are Mormon and 4 percent identify with all other religious groups.
The article quotes Ron Sellers, the president of the research firm, theorizing that the word “Protestant” might have thrown people off. But this was the part that got me interested:
Sellers also mentioned that with Mitt Romney running for president as a Mormon and the current emphasis on Islamic-American relations, “smaller faith groups also may be getting disproportionate media coverage.”
This is undoubtedly true. But do we take this to an extreme? No one would claim that Mormonism and Islam or various tiny religious groups shouldn’t get disproportionate coverage at times — but I am sometimes surprised at the lack of good reporting on the majority of religious adherents in the coverage. If the coverage is disproportionate to the point that it is negatively affecting people’s understanding of the real world, that might be an argument for a bit more evenly distributed religious news coverage. Particularly since there are gobs of stories that go under-reported as it is.
The rest are the ones who also happen to be in communion with the Roman Catholic church
Then, where does one put the Oneness Pentecostals who do not believe in the Trinity? Or the various Jewish Christians or others?
It would be simpler to call all of these as non-Catholic or even to use the Freerepublic Religion Forum categories :)
The UMC are not apostate. Xzins has corrected me in the past for that wrong perception. From what I understand, they are still fighting with the liberals in their church. As conservatives — whether Catholic or Methodist or Baptist — we need to support the fellow conservatives in the UMC and not dump them in the same group as the liberals in their denomination
And Joseph Smith, took this idea and pushed it back even further in his teachings to apostolic times.
that depends on which Baptist you speak to. I believe it’s not restricted to a particular Baptist group but certain Baptist individuals believe they are not Protestants and others don’t. It’s down to the individual
The concept of Baptist successionism wrongly ascribes Albigensians or paulicians or Montanists of having the same beliefs as modern-day Baptists
However Montanists seemed more like modern day pentecostals, and had female bishops and heavily believed in ongoing prophecy
paulicians were adoptionists in their belief that Jesus was adopted by God and they believed that Satan was equally powerful as God, not as mainstream Christians do
Albigensians/Cathari were Gnostics who took that dualism one step further and believed that the created world is maya or an illusion created by a false god and Jesus came to take us away from this false world to the higher god.
Baptists do NOT have any of these beliefs (or at least the Baptists that I know).
....my drawing line is support of abortion -- anyone who openly supports this can't be Christian. Yes, that's an absolute. If someone says that they don't want to comment, but won't support abortion, just not do anything, that's still bad, still bad Christian, but not as awful as one who would support killing of babies just to control the population
Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.You can read the history of this changing statement at First Things. Meanwhile, the OPC's official position on abortion is found in their 38th and 39th General Assemblies. That position is summarized as follows:-- The United Methodist Church's official statement on "Social Principles - Abortion
Abortion. The 1971 Assembly—two years before the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of the U.S. Supreme Court—denounced the practice of voluntary abortion except possibly for the purpose of saving the mother's life.It would be appreciated if you would support conservatives in the OPC, EPC, PCA, and other Presbyterian denominations, and not dump them in the same group as the liberals in the PC(USA).
Why don't you practise what you preach first and then lecture?
It’s fine talk coming from a poster whose posts constantly say “Catholics — go vote for the Democrats” — that’s treasonous talk on FR and shouldn’t be allowed. While conservative Catholics, Methodists, Baptists etc. are trying hard within their own groups and reaching out to help conservatives else, it’s really strange to have a poster constantly post such articles over and over again.
The six ‘least-religious’ states in the nation are the six New England states...what a surprise. I’m not surprised it took you months to find a Bible-centered church.
Who posts threads like that? Who makes posts like that? Certainly not me.
As Cronos has pointed out, there is a lot in the United Methodist Church to be hopeful about. Most telling for those who follow these things is that a coalition of American and African conservatives are setting the direction for the UMC.
One must understand that our articles of religion are the same unchanged, that our principles on homosexuality have not changed, they still say that it is incompatible with Christian teaching, and that our focus is to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world for TRANSFORMING lives.
Are there liberals (and lots of them) in our hierarchy and our body of elders. Yes. That’s undeniable.
But, after THEIR LOSING in each 4 year denominational meeting for 24 years in a row, one would think that the conservatives would start getting support for their efforts in the way of simple recognition that they exist and that they’ve been effective.
The danger as I see it is that America is raising a new generation of young who accept homosexualism, license, and amorality.
They will be the ones replacing church leadership in all the churches mentioned and in ours.
Well, I don't hang my hat on the chronology of the development because there is no agreement on which event marks the real beginning of a movement long preceded by its identifiable doctrinal notions. It would be like arguing about the beginning of fundamentalism in relation to a calendar date on which something called "The Fundamentalist Church" might have been founded. Arguments don't necessarily develop a linear, let alone chronological, fashion.
It's enough for me that there was not a "Baptist" faction within the Universal Church which broke away in protest, or that it was formed in protest of Catholic authority, or that it was the product of the Protestant movement or developed from Protestant doctrine. Protestants, proper, trace the validity of their factions to the church from which they broke and point to the protesting episode to explain their continued validity in light of their institutional and doctrinal departure. For them, the act of protest was a birthing event in which they were delivered from Mother Church. Baptists don't rely on any past relationship with Catholicism to explain their existence and do not point to a protest as their foundational act. I'm just old-fashioned enough to believe that words mean things.
Some of the tone of this post was not directed at you, MayflowerMadam.
you do. I’ve told you this before. There are conservative Catholics and we have no intention of voting for the enemy. We are hitting catholics and cinos who are stupid enough to still vote democrat. We don’t need so called freepers who tell us to vote democrat because we are Catholic
and any one of us would be fools if we think what is happening in say the ECUSA isn’t a game plan to happen among us.
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.