What do you think?
Rate this book
Secular Studies Series
Losing Our Religion: How Unaffiliated Parents Are Raising Their Children
Examines how "Religious Nones" negotiate tensions with those who think they ought to provide their children with a religious upbringing
The fastest growing religion in America is―none! One fifth of Americans now list their religion as “none,” up from only 7 percent two decades ago. Among adults under 30, those poised to be the parents of the next generation, fully one third are religiously unaffiliated. Yet these “Nones,” especially parents, still face prejudice in a culture where religion is widely seen as good for your kids. What do Nones believe, and how do they negotiate tensions with those convinced that they ought to provide their children with a religious upbringing?
Drawing on survey data and in-depth personal interviews with religiously unaffiliated parents across the country, Christel Manning provides important demographic data on American “Nones” and offers critical nuance to our understanding of the term. She shows that context is crucial in understanding how those without religious ties define themselves and raise their families. Indeed, she demonstrates that Nones hold a wide variety of worldviews, ranging from deeply religious to highly secular, and transmit them in diverse ways. What ties them all together is a commitment to spiritual choice―a belief in the moral equivalence of religions and secular worldviews and in the individual’s right to choose―and it is that choice they seek to pass on to their children.
The volume weaves in stories from the author’s interviews throughout, showing how non-religious parents grapple with pressure from their community and how they think about religious issues. Engagingly written and thoroughly researched, Losing Our Religion will appeal to scholars, parents, and anyone interested in understanding the changing American religious landscape.
The fastest growing religion in America is―none! One fifth of Americans now list their religion as “none,” up from only 7 percent two decades ago. Among adults under 30, those poised to be the parents of the next generation, fully one third are religiously unaffiliated. Yet these “Nones,” especially parents, still face prejudice in a culture where religion is widely seen as good for your kids. What do Nones believe, and how do they negotiate tensions with those convinced that they ought to provide their children with a religious upbringing?
Drawing on survey data and in-depth personal interviews with religiously unaffiliated parents across the country, Christel Manning provides important demographic data on American “Nones” and offers critical nuance to our understanding of the term. She shows that context is crucial in understanding how those without religious ties define themselves and raise their families. Indeed, she demonstrates that Nones hold a wide variety of worldviews, ranging from deeply religious to highly secular, and transmit them in diverse ways. What ties them all together is a commitment to spiritual choice―a belief in the moral equivalence of religions and secular worldviews and in the individual’s right to choose―and it is that choice they seek to pass on to their children.
The volume weaves in stories from the author’s interviews throughout, showing how non-religious parents grapple with pressure from their community and how they think about religious issues. Engagingly written and thoroughly researched, Losing Our Religion will appeal to scholars, parents, and anyone interested in understanding the changing American religious landscape.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published June 17, 2015
About the author
Christel Manning
6 books2 followersChristel Manning is Professor of Religious Studies at Sacred Heart University (CT). She has a Doctorate and Masters degree in Religious Studies from the University of California Santa Barbara.
She teaches the introductory course in Religious Studies, as well as electives on women in world religions, religion and sexuality, cults and sects, and Eastern religions.
Her research areas include the intersection of religion, gender, and sexuality; the sociology of new or marginal religious movements; and, most recently, the study of those unaffiliated with religion.
She was born in southern California and raised in Germany. She has traveled all over Europe and the United States and more recently India and Turkey. She currently lives in New Haven, Connecticut, with her husband and daughter.
http://www.sacredheart.edu/academics/...
She teaches the introductory course in Religious Studies, as well as electives on women in world religions, religion and sexuality, cults and sects, and Eastern religions.
Her research areas include the intersection of religion, gender, and sexuality; the sociology of new or marginal religious movements; and, most recently, the study of those unaffiliated with religion.
She was born in southern California and raised in Germany. She has traveled all over Europe and the United States and more recently India and Turkey. She currently lives in New Haven, Connecticut, with her husband and daughter.
http://www.sacredheart.edu/academics/...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
March 20, 2024
This survey of America’s growing “religiously unaffiliated” sector was published in 2015. Although the statistics are slightly outdated, the trends Professor Manning points to have not abated in the last nine years.
“. . . one-fifth of Americans now list their religious affiliation as “None” or their religious preference as “nothing in particular”—up from only 7 percent twenty years ago.”
Who are these Nones?
“Religious “nones” are people who describe themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” when asked about their religious affiliation in our surveys.” -Pew Research Center, January 2024
While Pew breaks the None demographic down to three definable categories (atheist, agnostic, and ‘nothing in particular’) Christel Manning takes a deeper and more analytical approach by dividing her research subjects into four distinct groups—Unchurched Believers, Spiritual Seekers, Philosophical Secularists, and Indifferent.
Unchurched Believers
No matter what poll one uses as a reference, Unchurched Believers are the largest subgroup of the Nones. Some are simply Hindus or Muslims who live in communities that lack the facilities to serve their needs. Others are Christian or Jewish individuals who have maintained their faith but, for one reason or another, have disassociated or distanced themselves from organized religion. These are the proverbial “lost sheep” many religious leaders have set out to recapture.
Spiritual Seekers
As Manning defines them, Spiritual Seekers identify with a pluralistic worldview (e.g. Buddhist-Catholic) or refuse to confine themselves to the constraints of a single religious sect. They often define themselves as “spiritual but not religious” and reject theism for a more deistic outlook. Among the Seekers, prayer, yoga and meditation are commonly practiced.
Philosophical Secularists
These are smart ones (that’s my opinion, not Manning’s). They explicitly reject religion and commonly self-identify as humanists, freethinkers, agnostics, skeptics, and atheists. Philosophical Secularists typically view both religion and spirituality as irrational. As a group they are often seen as outsiders and social pariahs, especially those who are openly atheist.
“Many Americans . . . are suspicious of secular individuals, atheists in particular, because the lack of an external moral authority is presumed to leave secular individuals selfish and hedonistic, with nothing to reign in the baser aspects of human nature.”
Because of the stigma attached to the word “atheist” many of Manning’s respondents with atheistic worldviews do not label themselves as such. Atheists in America are still widely perceived as deviants, abnormal, untrustworthy, and (gulp!) dangerous. For example, it is not uncommon for divorced parents to have custody rights limited or denied because of their professed atheism. Manning makes mention of one survey where 70% of the respondents said they would be troubled if an immediate family member married an atheist.
Indifferent
In other studies of this sort Indifferents were lumped in with atheists, agnostics, and general secularists. But unlike Philosophical Secularists who reject religion, Indifferents simply ignore it. They’re not anti-religious, they’re not pro-religious, they simply don’t give any of it much thought. That is, until they become parents.
But wait, there’s more…
The real essence of Manning’s research isn’t even about the Nones. The best insights of this book are the snapshots of their children—how they’re being raised, how their lives are being impacted, and what that means for the changing religious landscape of this country.
“. . . we can understand the growth in Nones as the inevitable outcome of individualization and commodification in religion. Declaring yourself to be None is the penultimate expression of personal worldview choice, a declaration that you are unique and will not be defined by somebody else.”
Five big stars.
“. . . one-fifth of Americans now list their religious affiliation as “None” or their religious preference as “nothing in particular”—up from only 7 percent twenty years ago.”
Who are these Nones?
“Religious “nones” are people who describe themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” when asked about their religious affiliation in our surveys.” -Pew Research Center, January 2024
While Pew breaks the None demographic down to three definable categories (atheist, agnostic, and ‘nothing in particular’) Christel Manning takes a deeper and more analytical approach by dividing her research subjects into four distinct groups—Unchurched Believers, Spiritual Seekers, Philosophical Secularists, and Indifferent.
Unchurched Believers
No matter what poll one uses as a reference, Unchurched Believers are the largest subgroup of the Nones. Some are simply Hindus or Muslims who live in communities that lack the facilities to serve their needs. Others are Christian or Jewish individuals who have maintained their faith but, for one reason or another, have disassociated or distanced themselves from organized religion. These are the proverbial “lost sheep” many religious leaders have set out to recapture.
Spiritual Seekers
As Manning defines them, Spiritual Seekers identify with a pluralistic worldview (e.g. Buddhist-Catholic) or refuse to confine themselves to the constraints of a single religious sect. They often define themselves as “spiritual but not religious” and reject theism for a more deistic outlook. Among the Seekers, prayer, yoga and meditation are commonly practiced.
Philosophical Secularists
These are smart ones (that’s my opinion, not Manning’s). They explicitly reject religion and commonly self-identify as humanists, freethinkers, agnostics, skeptics, and atheists. Philosophical Secularists typically view both religion and spirituality as irrational. As a group they are often seen as outsiders and social pariahs, especially those who are openly atheist.
“Many Americans . . . are suspicious of secular individuals, atheists in particular, because the lack of an external moral authority is presumed to leave secular individuals selfish and hedonistic, with nothing to reign in the baser aspects of human nature.”
Because of the stigma attached to the word “atheist” many of Manning’s respondents with atheistic worldviews do not label themselves as such. Atheists in America are still widely perceived as deviants, abnormal, untrustworthy, and (gulp!) dangerous. For example, it is not uncommon for divorced parents to have custody rights limited or denied because of their professed atheism. Manning makes mention of one survey where 70% of the respondents said they would be troubled if an immediate family member married an atheist.
Indifferent
In other studies of this sort Indifferents were lumped in with atheists, agnostics, and general secularists. But unlike Philosophical Secularists who reject religion, Indifferents simply ignore it. They’re not anti-religious, they’re not pro-religious, they simply don’t give any of it much thought. That is, until they become parents.
But wait, there’s more…
The real essence of Manning’s research isn’t even about the Nones. The best insights of this book are the snapshots of their children—how they’re being raised, how their lives are being impacted, and what that means for the changing religious landscape of this country.
“. . . we can understand the growth in Nones as the inevitable outcome of individualization and commodification in religion. Declaring yourself to be None is the penultimate expression of personal worldview choice, a declaration that you are unique and will not be defined by somebody else.”
Five big stars.
June 17, 2016
Summary: Qualitative sociological research on the religious category of "nones" exploring the different types of "nones", the influences of time and place, and the parenting choices around religion "nones" face in raising their children.
Some observers would argue that the category of "nones" as in "none of the above" in a list of religious categories is the fastest growing group on the religious scene. This work extends the growing body of work on this group in two important ways. One is to more finely define the different types of "nones" that fall under this category. The other, and motivating interest in this research, was to explore how "none" deal with the question of religion and religious identity with their children.
The author, who describes herself as one who was a Spiritual Seeker at the beginning of this study but a Philosophical Secularist by its conclusion, confronted the question of how parents who are "nones" raise their children. To explore this question, she began by exploring the demographics of the "nones"and what they believe. Most significant in these first two chapters is a fourfold classification that brings added clarity to the different kinds of people who fall under this category: Unchurched Believers, who identify with one faith but avoid any institutional connection; Spiritual Seekers, who believe in some form of higher being or spiritual reality, often cobbling together various beliefs into their own personalized worldview; Philosophical Secularists, who subscribe to a material view of life and often are highly motivated by ethical considerations; and Indifferents, for whom religious or ultimate questions are irrelevant to the lives they live.
Time and place are significant factors in "none" experience. Many who were brought up in a religious tradition abandon this during college years for a variety of reasons. The critical question is how these decisions are reconsidered when people marry and begin to have children. Do they return to the religious institutions they grew up in, identify with new communities, or make a more deliberate choice to not raise their children in any of these traditions. Some of this is determined by the kind of "none" one is. In some cases this transition forces a clarification of where one stands, as it did for the author of this study. Likewise, some parts of the country, particularly New England and the Northwest are friendlier to those who are "nones" The South is a more difficult place, as are parts of the Midwest.
In her exploration of the parental choices of "nones," the issue of choice emerges as quite important to understanding the decisions these parents make about raising their children. Just as they have defined for themselves their worldview, often departing from that of their parents, many also believe it wrong to define these choices for their children. While some, particularly the Unchurched Believers return to institutional expressions of their faith, for many, they choose exposure to multiple religions as well as philosophical secularism and allowing children to choose their own path. She also addresses the question of the often touted benefits of raising children religiously, demonstrated signally in the work of sociologist Christian Smith. She argues that the comparisons are often between more and less religious youth and do not considered those brought up in principled secularist backgrounds.
At this point she reveals her anti-religious bias. Generally, I appreciated her openness about her own point of view rather than a pretended neutrality. But here, it seems she sets up the worst examples of religion, and particularly Christianity, against the most commendable examples of secularism and atheism. Anyone can play that game. I could argue that Christians built hospitals, cathedrals and universities, while atheist Marxists built Gulags, colorless tenements, and brutally genocidal cultural revolutions. I think this mars otherwise fine work and indulges in the anti-religious caricatures common among academic elites. But I get that some people really experience these things and don't want to believe in such a god or practice such a religion. I would not and do not either!
What is valuable in the work is something I've long contended, that we should assume at least the same level of thoughtfulness in those of different religious persuasions than ours. This is equally so with "nones" and this extends to the thoughtfulness of their parenting choices. I do wonder if "nones" just as much as the affiliated religious subtly encourage, or at least model the choices they have made, even while upholding choice. I wonder how "nones" would feel if their children embrace a strong religious affiliation, such as fundamental forms of Islam or Christianity or Orthodox Judaism. Time will tell whether, in fact, the religiously affiliated and "none" parents in fact have more in common than they might admit. That could make for interesting conversation!
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher via Netgalley. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Some observers would argue that the category of "nones" as in "none of the above" in a list of religious categories is the fastest growing group on the religious scene. This work extends the growing body of work on this group in two important ways. One is to more finely define the different types of "nones" that fall under this category. The other, and motivating interest in this research, was to explore how "none" deal with the question of religion and religious identity with their children.
The author, who describes herself as one who was a Spiritual Seeker at the beginning of this study but a Philosophical Secularist by its conclusion, confronted the question of how parents who are "nones" raise their children. To explore this question, she began by exploring the demographics of the "nones"and what they believe. Most significant in these first two chapters is a fourfold classification that brings added clarity to the different kinds of people who fall under this category: Unchurched Believers, who identify with one faith but avoid any institutional connection; Spiritual Seekers, who believe in some form of higher being or spiritual reality, often cobbling together various beliefs into their own personalized worldview; Philosophical Secularists, who subscribe to a material view of life and often are highly motivated by ethical considerations; and Indifferents, for whom religious or ultimate questions are irrelevant to the lives they live.
Time and place are significant factors in "none" experience. Many who were brought up in a religious tradition abandon this during college years for a variety of reasons. The critical question is how these decisions are reconsidered when people marry and begin to have children. Do they return to the religious institutions they grew up in, identify with new communities, or make a more deliberate choice to not raise their children in any of these traditions. Some of this is determined by the kind of "none" one is. In some cases this transition forces a clarification of where one stands, as it did for the author of this study. Likewise, some parts of the country, particularly New England and the Northwest are friendlier to those who are "nones" The South is a more difficult place, as are parts of the Midwest.
In her exploration of the parental choices of "nones," the issue of choice emerges as quite important to understanding the decisions these parents make about raising their children. Just as they have defined for themselves their worldview, often departing from that of their parents, many also believe it wrong to define these choices for their children. While some, particularly the Unchurched Believers return to institutional expressions of their faith, for many, they choose exposure to multiple religions as well as philosophical secularism and allowing children to choose their own path. She also addresses the question of the often touted benefits of raising children religiously, demonstrated signally in the work of sociologist Christian Smith. She argues that the comparisons are often between more and less religious youth and do not considered those brought up in principled secularist backgrounds.
At this point she reveals her anti-religious bias. Generally, I appreciated her openness about her own point of view rather than a pretended neutrality. But here, it seems she sets up the worst examples of religion, and particularly Christianity, against the most commendable examples of secularism and atheism. Anyone can play that game. I could argue that Christians built hospitals, cathedrals and universities, while atheist Marxists built Gulags, colorless tenements, and brutally genocidal cultural revolutions. I think this mars otherwise fine work and indulges in the anti-religious caricatures common among academic elites. But I get that some people really experience these things and don't want to believe in such a god or practice such a religion. I would not and do not either!
What is valuable in the work is something I've long contended, that we should assume at least the same level of thoughtfulness in those of different religious persuasions than ours. This is equally so with "nones" and this extends to the thoughtfulness of their parenting choices. I do wonder if "nones" just as much as the affiliated religious subtly encourage, or at least model the choices they have made, even while upholding choice. I wonder how "nones" would feel if their children embrace a strong religious affiliation, such as fundamental forms of Islam or Christianity or Orthodox Judaism. Time will tell whether, in fact, the religiously affiliated and "none" parents in fact have more in common than they might admit. That could make for interesting conversation!
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher via Netgalley. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
April 4, 2016
Manning has provided a valuable resource for those who are interested in the socio-religious landscape of the USA. More, she has provided a window into the values and mindset of the non-religious living in what has always been a deeply religious nation. And though the book reads like an academic monograph, that's the heart of the book. This is about people - about parents who choose to go against the grain and chart a different course for their children.
As a conservative Christian, I was truly surprised by some of her findings. For instance, though many surveys tell us that as much as 20% of our population identify as religious "nones," we neglect to recognize that maybe half of them are, in fact, unchurched Believers who have not discarded their faith, only their institutions. And Manning expands the taxonomy to include Spiritual Seekers, Philosophical Secularists, and the Indifferent. To further confuse matters, many people shift categories at different times in their lives.
Which prompted this book. The author confesses that her young daughter sent her on a journey to discover how "nones" raise their children. What she found was a broad range of answers, including the fact that many people change affiliations when they become parents. Others incorporate a customized strategy for instilling values and worldviews. But regardless of which path they chose, the point is that they CHOSE. And personal choice emerges as the defining value of the "nones."
Throughout, the author maintains a personal, though academic, stance. She is obviously familiar with the claims of Christianity, and though she personally rejects it, she does not use her findings to attack it, except in extreme cases most Christians would themselves disavow.
And that's where I find the most benefit in this book. Where many socio-religious studies are written from a devout, even defensive Christian perspectives, here is a committed secularist evaluating the same evidence. Where evangelical rhetoric thrives on marginalization, she demonstrates what the country looks like for the non-religious, who are still in the minority in most communities.
The biggest weakness I found was that I felt the author failed to deliver on her promise in at least one case. Many times she promised to show us how Church isn't the only place where morals can be cultivated, but all she provided was a critique of a famous study that claimed a causal link between organized religion and civic morality. Her critique was fair in showing that perhaps Church wasn't as responsible for cultivating as many morals as we may like to think, but she never went on to show the basis for any moral judgment in the non-religious home.
Which leads to one of the classic theistic arguments, though she implicitly answers it by providing that single greatest value - personal choice. That phrase carries a world of meaning to the religious, but like with this book, sometimes it is best to listen to people explain themselves in their own words. For if we never listen we cannot know how best to love.
As a conservative Christian, I was truly surprised by some of her findings. For instance, though many surveys tell us that as much as 20% of our population identify as religious "nones," we neglect to recognize that maybe half of them are, in fact, unchurched Believers who have not discarded their faith, only their institutions. And Manning expands the taxonomy to include Spiritual Seekers, Philosophical Secularists, and the Indifferent. To further confuse matters, many people shift categories at different times in their lives.
Which prompted this book. The author confesses that her young daughter sent her on a journey to discover how "nones" raise their children. What she found was a broad range of answers, including the fact that many people change affiliations when they become parents. Others incorporate a customized strategy for instilling values and worldviews. But regardless of which path they chose, the point is that they CHOSE. And personal choice emerges as the defining value of the "nones."
Throughout, the author maintains a personal, though academic, stance. She is obviously familiar with the claims of Christianity, and though she personally rejects it, she does not use her findings to attack it, except in extreme cases most Christians would themselves disavow.
And that's where I find the most benefit in this book. Where many socio-religious studies are written from a devout, even defensive Christian perspectives, here is a committed secularist evaluating the same evidence. Where evangelical rhetoric thrives on marginalization, she demonstrates what the country looks like for the non-religious, who are still in the minority in most communities.
The biggest weakness I found was that I felt the author failed to deliver on her promise in at least one case. Many times she promised to show us how Church isn't the only place where morals can be cultivated, but all she provided was a critique of a famous study that claimed a causal link between organized religion and civic morality. Her critique was fair in showing that perhaps Church wasn't as responsible for cultivating as many morals as we may like to think, but she never went on to show the basis for any moral judgment in the non-religious home.
Which leads to one of the classic theistic arguments, though she implicitly answers it by providing that single greatest value - personal choice. That phrase carries a world of meaning to the religious, but like with this book, sometimes it is best to listen to people explain themselves in their own words. For if we never listen we cannot know how best to love.
November 2, 2017
A close look at an under-studied group. Similar in some ways to Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong, this also discusses ways in which a scientist's own experiences can unintentionally or even unconsciously bias their results. Just as when medical research looks at white men as the "normal standard," religious research typically views the religious as normal and "Nones" as juvenile or deviant.
The author starts and ends by admitting her own biases as a None. She manages to be objective throughout the book, until toward the end. It's like she just couldn't help herself, ridiculing conservative views on sex (in response to the idea of waiting to have sex before marriage she queries, "what century are we in?!" which comes across as less scholarly than her tone thus far).
Most of the book is fairly dry and scholarly, but not uninteresting. She covers the life cycle of religious affiliation, and how parenthood affects a person's None-ness. The impact that kids have on parents is fascinating, and I completely understand how seeing kids as a mirror of yourself can be disconcerting.
Another section that was done really well was when she covered the tensions in regions where religion is always on public display vs the invisibility and loneliness in places where religion is private.
Both situations offer positives and negatives for Nones, but it was interesting that just because they are a minority they do not always feel like outsiders. Interesting political insights here as well. How the "religious right" came to have their current power may have begun through leveraging outsider status, which Nones currently hold.
The parents who eschew religious activities (in part) because they are too busy, I understand. The ones who let it go because the kids don't like it... I'm inclined to be a little curmudgeonly and wonder what else they don't do for their children because the kids don't like it (doctor visits, vegetables, exercise?). It may be more of a pick your battles philosophy, and religious education is a battle left unfought because it's low priority, but that distinction isn't made here.
Oh, this part is kind of exciting - without exception, None parents are concerned with providing a framework for religious choice for their child. Then she gets into religion as individualism and consumerism. Even organized religion is no longer the conforming, unifying force it's been in the past. She makes a compelling case for Consumerism as being more influential than religion. We now buy something for its meaning and what it says about us, we don't just buy out of necessity.
Hm. Is personal bias showing? The author takes a brief look at some who say that too much choice and individualism sets us up for rampant narcissism and the disintegration of community and family. She concludes with a comment about how choice may be ambiguous for society and culture, but it is"unambiguously positive" for an individual. I'm not sure that can be true (153). How great is it for an individual if society is peopled with narcissists and we lose all family and community structures entirely?
She must have gotten really tired here at the end. It's throes of passion, not throws.
All this taken into account, I really enjoyed this, learned a lot, and found a lot to think about.
The author starts and ends by admitting her own biases as a None. She manages to be objective throughout the book, until toward the end. It's like she just couldn't help herself, ridiculing conservative views on sex (in response to the idea of waiting to have sex before marriage she queries, "what century are we in?!" which comes across as less scholarly than her tone thus far).
Most of the book is fairly dry and scholarly, but not uninteresting. She covers the life cycle of religious affiliation, and how parenthood affects a person's None-ness. The impact that kids have on parents is fascinating, and I completely understand how seeing kids as a mirror of yourself can be disconcerting.
Another section that was done really well was when she covered the tensions in regions where religion is always on public display vs the invisibility and loneliness in places where religion is private.
Both situations offer positives and negatives for Nones, but it was interesting that just because they are a minority they do not always feel like outsiders. Interesting political insights here as well. How the "religious right" came to have their current power may have begun through leveraging outsider status, which Nones currently hold.
The parents who eschew religious activities (in part) because they are too busy, I understand. The ones who let it go because the kids don't like it... I'm inclined to be a little curmudgeonly and wonder what else they don't do for their children because the kids don't like it (doctor visits, vegetables, exercise?). It may be more of a pick your battles philosophy, and religious education is a battle left unfought because it's low priority, but that distinction isn't made here.
Oh, this part is kind of exciting - without exception, None parents are concerned with providing a framework for religious choice for their child. Then she gets into religion as individualism and consumerism. Even organized religion is no longer the conforming, unifying force it's been in the past. She makes a compelling case for Consumerism as being more influential than religion. We now buy something for its meaning and what it says about us, we don't just buy out of necessity.
Hm. Is personal bias showing? The author takes a brief look at some who say that too much choice and individualism sets us up for rampant narcissism and the disintegration of community and family. She concludes with a comment about how choice may be ambiguous for society and culture, but it is"unambiguously positive" for an individual. I'm not sure that can be true (153). How great is it for an individual if society is peopled with narcissists and we lose all family and community structures entirely?
She must have gotten really tired here at the end. It's throes of passion, not throws.
All this taken into account, I really enjoyed this, learned a lot, and found a lot to think about.
February 15, 2021
Read for my EVAN 5013 Evangelism and Mission in Contemporary Society course. Challenging thought-provoking read to introduce the Christian to the growing population of Nones as a mission field. Important to understand any people group in order to share and witness. Nones are not just those who have rejected Christianity, and this book outlines categories that help to understand others and especially what is needed to provide viable options to consider.
February 10, 2017
Interesting research on what the author calls "nones" in America.
February 24, 2016
The author did a lot of research and presents a lot of data in this book about people who are defined as "unaffiliated" with any religion. They are the "nones" and there are other terms to describe this large and growing segment of the population. She focuses on how they explain religion to their children and the risks and benefits of raising children without religion. I received this book free to review from Netgalley.
June 30, 2016
An interesting book based on a problematically limited research sample.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews