On religious ‘nones’

Dana Kelley’s recent analysis of the trend toward religious “nones” was rather pathetic. He spends most of his time accurately describing the statistical trends, but then claims the decline should be alarming because … of the opinion of a 19th century Frenchman?

Why don’t we do some real analysis? The United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) measures life expectancy, education, and per capita income and ranks countries around the world. The HDI shows that countries with higher religiosity have lower HDI scores. This correlation holds even in the United States, where the states with higher religiosity have lower HDIs. This does not mean that being religious causes lower human development scores, but being religious does not seem to improve one’s lot. Another report, the World Happiness Index, shows the happiest people in the world live in the least religious countries. So it seems clear that being religious, by itself, has little impact on the well-being of a country.

I don’t want to say that attending a church has no positives. It can create a great sense of community, and that is valuable. It can create vehicles to help society, for instance, feeding and clothing the poor and hungry. But look at today’s religious trends: Prosperity gospels, such as those taught by Joel Osteen (No. 1 NYT best-seller) and Paula White (our president’s “spiritual adviser”) tell followers that the way to receive blessings is to first send them money. I seem to have missed that part of Jesus’ gospel. Further, you have leading “Christians” such as Jerry Falwell Jr. who continue to praise a man who has committed adultery, sexualized his own daughter, and lies constantly.

It is no wonder “nones” exist. I just wonder why there are not even more. KEVIN ELSKEN

Springdale