British Poll: Religion Does More Harm than Good
by: Rev. DanFascinating… the British are pretty down on religion (and perhaps quite rightfully so). From the Guardian (which conducted a poll involving ~ 1,000 random people):
Religion does more harm than good - poll
82% say faith causes tension in a country where two thirds are not religious
More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension - greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good.
The poll also reveals that non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one. It paints a picture of a sceptical nation with massive doubts about the effect religion has on society: 82% of those questioned say they see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Only 16% disagree. The findings are at odds with attempts by some religious leaders to define the country as one made up of many faith communities.
Most people have no personal faith, the poll shows, with only 33% of those questioned describing themselves as “a religious person”. A clear majority, 63%, say that they are not religious - including more than half of those who describe themselves as Christian.
If this is the case (and the sampling is actually representative of Britian’s population), then I find it beyond fascinating that the country our (American) ancestors ran away from to allegedly avoid religious persecution is a country we might want to now run towards to avoid religious persecution.
Do any of our British internet friends have thoughts on this?
I think I have vaguely mentioned this here before. It seems to be one of the paradoxes of religion that establishing a state religion can sometimes actually lead to freedom from religion.
In the UK the state religion is officially Christianity, and more particularly Anglican Christianity (usually referred to here as “Church of England”). The Head of State is also the head of the Church and has been since the time of Henry VIII. The country is divided into “parishes” and everyone has a “parish church” to which they implicitly belong simply because of where they live.
Although in the past this has led to conflict, this has typically been between Christian factions (protestant Anglicans vs Catholics, for example). In a wider world where each culture commonly identifies itself with a religion, the UK is easy to understand and easy to deal with. It is the USA that appears to stand out as refusing to admit that it is a country founded on a Christian moral code and just get over it.
Within the UK it has traditionally been easy. When I was growing up it was common practice that most application forms would have a box for “religion”, but it was also accepted that if you have no strong views you would just put “CofE” - as the state religion this was equivalent to saying “use the default”, i.e. no special treatment.
Most significantly, though, the assumption that everyone is “CofE” removes the pressure for evangelism. Most people only go to a church for weddings and funerals (if that), but there is still the assumption that they are already Christian. Traditionally we have not suffered the plagues of TV evangelists or travelling conversion circuses. The closest we have had is very occasional door-to-door evangelism from Jehova’s Witnesses.
Religion usually only becomes an issue when some person or group takes a stand against local or national laws. Classic examples are Sikh people refusing motorcycle helmets because of a religious requirement to wear a turban, and Rastafarian claims of “ganja” as a vital practice of their religion.
In general the UK has taken a tolerant attitude to such issues. These religions are, after all, guests in our explicitly Anglican country, so we can afford to make exceptions in order to be polite. Such concessions do not affect the status quo.
I recently heard from an American friend that some of these effects can be observed in the USA, too. She lives in Salt Lake City. Even though she is not Mormon, there is virtually no religious pressure. Local Mormons assume everyone around is Mormon, so focus their evangelical activities outside. Other religions assume everyone in Salt Lake City already holds string religious views, so focus their activities on the “un churched” elsewhere.
Sady, though, there are signs that our pleasant tolerance is under pressure, from the American evangelistic assumption that anyone who is not explitly and actively part of a (particular) church needs to be brought into the fold. Polls such as the one you refer to above, will probably only add fuel to that. I can easily imagine it being the topic of sermons in evangelical churches here and abroad.