Atheists, agnostics, and apostates.

Streib, Heinz; Klein, Constantin

doi:10.1037/14045-040

Cited by 46 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 106 publications

(123 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, atheism may have specific political repercussions, as well as political antecedents (Campbell et al 2018). Unlike agnosticism and NIP, atheism is characterized by a hostility toward religion (Streib and Klein 2013). Such hostility is likely to conflict with the perceived religiosity of the Republican constituency and conservative political ideologies that employ religious language (Calfano and Djupe 2009;Claassen et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Religious Nones

Schwadel

2020

Scientific Study of Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Americans with no religious affiliation (aka religious “Nones”) are not a politically homogeneous community. Just as there are political differences between groups of Christians, there are political differences between groups of religious Nones. I use nationally representative survey data to examine the political activities and perspectives of atheists, agnostics, and those who are “nothing in particular.” Results show that Americans who report that their religion is nothing in particular are relatively uninterested in politics and unlikely to be politically active; atheists are relatively liberal and likely to experience political conflict and follow political news; and agnostics are particularly likely to vote and feel politically isolated from their families. In many ways, the “softer” secularism of those who are nothing in particular is politically more similar to religious affiliates than the “harder” secularism of agnostics and especially atheists. These results have important implications for the future of American politics as Nones now have the potential to rival evangelical Protestants as a politically relevant constituency.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Religious Nones

Schwadel

2020

Scientific Study of Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the same global poll that counted nearly 60% of the world population as religious, nearly 40% claimed to be unaffiliated. Religious affiliated and unaffiliated parents may hold different caregiving values, allocate time and effort in caregiving differently, and involve their children in social networks associated with different (religious vs. nonreligious) communities; not unexpectedly, some developmental trajectories are thought to differ for children from religious and nonreligious homes (Evans, ; Streib & Klein, ; Wilcox, ). Compared with children reared in nonreligious households, children in religious homes have been reported to be better adjusted socially and emotionally, have higher self‐esteem and social responsibility, and show lower levels of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems (Bartkowski et al., ; Brody, Stoneman, & Flor, ; Gunnoe, Hetherington, & Reiss, ; King & Furrow, ; Regnerus & Elder, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Mixed blessings’: parental religiousness, parenting, and child adjustment in global perspective

Bornstein

Putnick

Lansford

et al. 2017

Child Psychology Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Most studies of the effects of parental religiousness on parenting and child development focus on a particular religion or cultural group, which limits generalizations that can be made about the effects of parental religiousness on family life. Methods We assessed associations among parental religiousness, parenting, and childrens adjustment in a 3-year longitudinal investigation of 1198 families from 9 countries. We included 4 religions (Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Islam) plus unaffiliated parents, 2 positive (efficacy and warmth) and 2 negative (control and rejection) parenting practices, and 2 positive (social competence and school performance) and 2 negative (internalizing and externalizing) child outcomes. Parents and children were informants. Results Parents greater religiousness had both positive and negative associations with parenting and child adjustment. Greater parent religiousness when children were 8 was associated with higher parental efficacy at 9 and, in turn, childrens better social competence and school performance and fewer child internalizing and externalizing problems at 10. However, greater parent religiousness at 8 was also associated with more parental control at 9, which in turn was associated with more child internalizing and externalizing problems at 10. Parental warmth and rejection had inconsistent relations with parental religiousness and child outcomes depending on the informant. With a few exceptions, similar patterns of results held for all 4 religions and the unaffiliated, 9 sites, mothers and fathers, girls and boys, and controlling for demographic covariates. Conclusions Parents and children agree that parental religiousness is associated with more controlling parenting and, in turn, increased child problem behaviors. However, children see religiousness as related to parental rejection, whereas parents see religiousness as related to parental efficacy and warmth, which have different associations with child functioning. Studying both parent and child views of religiousness and parenting are important to understand effects of parental religiousness on parents and children.

show abstract

“…When someone has been born in the first half of the 20th century, he or she has grown up in a context where most people were a member of a religious institution and where religion had a major influence on culture and politics. In the 1960s, large numbers of young people (who are today's older generation) choose against this and actively disaffiliated from the churches for a wide range of reasons (Streib and Klein 2012). Because of this, today's older birth cohorts will feature higher levels of anti-religiosity than younger ones, because the latter have grown up in a secular context that the former has not experienced during its formative years.…”

Section: Anti-religiosity As the Outcome Of Deprivatization Of Disbeliefmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deprivatization of Disbelief?: Non-Religiosity and Anti-Religiosity in 14 Western European Countries

Ribberink

Achterberg

Houtman

2013

Politics and Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to move beyond media discourse about "new atheism" by mapping and explaining anti-religious zeal among the public at large in 14 Western European countries. We analyze data from the International Social Survey Program, Religion III, 2008, to test two theories about how country-level religiousness affects anti-religiosity and its social bases: a theory of rationalization and a theory of deprivatization of disbelief. Hypotheses derived from the former are contradicted, whereas those derived from the latter are largely confirmed. Anti-religiosity is strongest among disbelievers and among the higher educated in the most religious countries and among the older generations in today's most secularized countries.

show abstract

Atheists, agnostics, and apostates.

Cited by 46 publications

References 106 publications

The Politics of Religious Nones

The Politics of Religious Nones

‘Mixed blessings’: parental religiousness, parenting, and child adjustment in global perspective

Deprivatization of Disbelief?: Non-Religiosity and Anti-Religiosity in 14 Western European Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About