Religion, Demographics and Red & Blue America

This isn't an OC-specific topic, although it applies here as much as anywhere. I read an intriguing opinion article entitled "Our Religious Destiny" in today's Wall Street Journal on a topic I've been familiar with for some time, and wanted to share at least an excerpt with readers as food for thought and discussion:

If you picked 100 adults out of the population who attended their house of worship nearly every week or more often, they would have 223 children among them, on average, according to the 2006 General Social Survey. Among 100 people who attended less than once per year or never, you would find just 158 kids. This 41% fertility gap between religious and secular people is especially meaningful because people tend to worship more or less like their parents. According to data collected in 1999 by Gallup, 60% of adults who were taken to church at least once per month as children grew up to attend at least this often; only 15% stopped attending as adults.

The demographic implications are even more profound for the political left, where a disproportionate number of secularists are located. Religious people who call themselves politically "conservative" or "very conservative" are having, on average, an astounding 78% more kids than secular liberals. Studies show that people are even more likely to vote like their parents that they are to worship like them. The secular left, therefore, has to rely on the tough slog of bringing people from the political and religious middle over to their views. The religious right simply has to keep having lots of babies.

The author is Arthur Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. The entire column is well worth reading. I'll inquire about permission to reprint it in its entirety.

UPDATE (8/21/07): I Googled around and it turns out the entire article is available online at the Wall Street Journal. You can read it here.

Comments

[Hanna]

However, the story starts with this:

The salience of religion in our presidential politics perplexes Europeans, who generally see religion as a weird relic from the pre-scientific past. If Angela Merkel or Nicolas Sarkozy had made public statements during their campaigns about their personal relationship with Jesus Christ, it probably would have ended their political aspirations right then and there. As the head of a French think tank put it, "The biblical references in politics, the division of the world between good and evil, these are things that simply don't get. In a number of areas, it seems to me that we are no longer part of the same civilization."

[Jubal]

Yes, it does, which goes back to the point of the article: secularist societies, or sub-sets of societies, have lower birth-rates than religious people. The article doesn't get into Euro demographics, but the low-birthrates of these secular Europeans is putting them on a path to demographic suicide.

[Chuck DeVore]

All this makes one wonder at the linkage with liberal secularist support for restricting growth through various measures (typically the environment these days) vs. conservative support for economic growth. Also, how much longer the modern Democratic Party can maintain its present face when all of its growth may come from immigrants who do not share its current elitist secular no-growth ideology (cue DanC for a zippy comeback…).

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[Karl Rove]

That's easy Chuck. They still have Jerry Brown who will sue to stop all growth. Then the unions will have nothing to do and the immigrants will do the work that remains for less than half the price.

And then we can all retire on our state's social welfare programs!

"As the head of a French think tank
put it, "The biblical references in
politics, the division of the world
between good and evil, these are
things that simply don't get. In a
number of areas, it seems to me
that we are no longer part of the
same civilization.""

Alas Dear Frenchman! But there is good and evil...and we have seen it and it has exhibited on 9/11. Perhaps the Christians of the world are not of this world; therefore your supposition that we are not of the same civilization could be true! The French, never shy to back down from a confrontation, may not understand that we poor mislead Americans must do what we think is right and "good" and fight evil and preserve our freedoms.

With regards to procreation and its relevance to Christianity; one could guess that's why the Dem's like immigration so much. They invite the poor of the world to come, then promise them everything and get them to vote democrat. Nice racket there Dems! Hopefully the Christians can keep producing more hope and freedom, and thank God, children, for America!

[redperegrine]

What it means is that regular churchgoers are less likely to use birth control. The reasons I leave for other bloggers to contemplate.

[Jubal]

Yes and no, RP. Less likely to use birth control in order to avoid having children at all, or to have only 1 or 2. But that's different from using birth control -- artificial or natural -- to space children out.

But in my experience, religious people - and I don't mean just Christians -- have a different attitude toward having children.

[Bladerunner]

I'll leave the snappy comebacks to Comrade Chmielewski and look forward to seeing the entire article but a couple of random thoughts:

1) Most churchgoers are like most Americans--pretty much in the middle of the spectrum. So greater procreation will mean, amoung other things, more RINOS in your Party's future.

2) As you can see from some of the comments, the GOP's nativist base will come out from under the rock with the least provocation, even dropping the "illegal" pretense.

3) As to Assemblyman Devore's concern about the modern Democratic Party keeping its present face: last time I looked the "current elitist no-growth ideology" was alive and well amoung the GOP. You do need to get our of your caucus(which I'll concede has concrete running thru its veins) and see what local Republicans are doing in San Juan Capistrano and other bedroom communities to stop growth. Maybe they need to listen to those allegedly pro-growth immigrants they have cleaning their homes, watching their kids and mowing their lawns.
4) Although I haven't read the entire study or article(too cheap today to subscribe to the WSJ)I suspect they may not have controlled for the "ass-backward" factor. Operationally , the study may fail to control for a well-known phenomenon---that many young people stop going to church when they leave the nest and only return when they have kids. And then stop going once their kids leave the nest, etc. For a large roupmof adults its having children that leads you to church, not the other way around. Looking forward to reading the entire thing if you post it.

5) When looking at today's online WSJ I actually DID find something of use--an article titled " How to Cut the Cancer Risk When You Fire Up the Grill" in their Health Journal. So thanks for the post.

[Bladerunner]

er, I meant to say "For a large group of adults...."
roupof is not a new word.

[Dan Chmielewski]

No comeback; but I am amused at how you continue to equate liberals and Democrats as non-religious people. Last time I checked, there were more registered Demcorats than Republicans nationally.

Matt -- by the standards of the church, you're not suposed to use any birth control at all.

Which begs a personal question; you're a man in your 40s with 4 children. Got snipped yet?

[Hanna]

I have never understood the lamentation about lower birth rate. Where are all the new people supposed to live? From where will they get their water? Where will the new infrastructure be built? Especially in SoCal. Especially in Orange County that raised the concept of planned and of gated community to an art form.

Europe is pretty crowded - if you've ever been there. Yes, they - and us - need new immigrants to provide service for the aging population. One would think, however, that at some point the lower number of young people will replace the aging population for some kind of a balance.

[Jubal]

but I am amused at how you continue to equate liberals and Democrats as non-religious people.

Dan, if you're referring to me, I did no such equating.

Matt -- by the standards of the church, you're not suposed to use any birth control at all.

That is untrue. A common misperception, but nonetheless untrue.

Which begs a personal question; you're a man in your 40s with 4 children. Got snipped yet?

That is a personal question.

[Patricia]

James Taranto talks about this phenomenon too, particularly in regard to the liberal support for abortion and calls it the Roe effect. Lots of folks like Mark Steyn talk about the fact that numbers=destiny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect

In my experience as a former liberal, liberals view overpopulation as a real threat, so most liberals I know purposely had fewer kids and had abortions as well. We don't hear from the ZPG people anymore because they can see they've shot themselves in the foot!

The more extreme view humans as a virus destroying the earth. http://news.com.com/2100-1008-5492624.html?tag=tb

[Dan Chmielewski]

Well, it might be untrue, but its not what my monsignor told me at Sunday School. But that was in NY about 30 years ago. And the "you" in my comment was Chuck, not Matt.

Hate to break it to you right wingers here; Liberals and Democrats go to church. We pray. We believe.

So, snip or no snip?

[Bladerunner]

Dan, on the snipping thing for Jubal---that's really more information then most of us want to know. And his point about birth control is that the Catholic Church does permit the faithful to practice birth control.....natural birth control. Lots of rhythm, you know.

And Jubal--Dan's right--lots of the faithful pull the Democratic lever. Onward Christian/Jewish/Muslim etal soldiers, marching off to war, you know?

[Dan Chmielewski]

Blade - I bring this up because MY PRIEST told me I'd be committing a mortal sin by getting a vasectomy because I would be eliminating the possibility of creating a new life. Matt is a bigtime Catholic while I'm more of a fallen one.

And BR, you and I both know that the Rhythm method is hardly foolproof.

[Jubal]

BR and Dan:

I haven't said people of faith don't vote Democratic, nor do I think Brooks was saying that. What he's saying is and what I agree with is secularists with lower birthrates tend to be Democrats and religious folks with higher birthrates tend to be Republicans.

And his point about birth control is that the Catholic Church does permit the faithful to practice birth control.....natural birth control. Lots of rhythm, you know.

That's correct, although Natural Family Planning and the infamous "rhythm method" aren't the same thing. NFP is highly effective when properly practiced. But artificial means of preventing pregnancy are sinful.

But that is a teaching about means. According to the Church, it is still wrong to use even a licit means like NFP to avoid having any children at all -- that contravenes the procreative purpose of marriage.

I bring this up because MY PRIEST told me I'd be committing a mortal sin by getting a vasectomy because I would be eliminating the possibility of creating a new life.

For simplicity's sake, I'll quote Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin here:

"Having a vasectomy is intrinsically wrong and a grave sin. To have one knowingly and deliberately is a mortal sin."