Aggressive/fundamentalist atheism

PoleStar

Self pitying modern Christians are oftern seen spouting nonsense about their "persecution" from intolerent agressive or fundamentalist atheists. The likes of David Quinn etc.

Has anyone ever thought about what this means? I find it quite an ironic use of the word.

If we were to pair the word fundamentalist or agressive with either Christian or Muslim, most people would think immediately of those who use religion to justify and commit acts such as suicide bombings or murder doctors who commit abortion because when hear of it in the media, its usually in this context.

The equivalent "atheist" (eg Richard Dawkins who is frequently referred to as such) is an individual who rights books and appears on the tv and radio to advertise what he believes to be true. We dont hear on the news headline such as "Fundamentalist atheist blows up Church".

What do people think?

old hippy

PoleStar wrote: »

Self pitying modern Christians are oftern seen spouting nonsense about their "persecution" from intolerent agressive or fundamentalist atheists. The likes of David Quinn etc.

Has anyone ever thought about what this means? I find it quite an ironic use of the word.

If we were to pair the word fundamentalist or agressive with either Christian or Muslim, most people would think immediately of those who use religion to justify and commit acts such as suicide bombings or murder doctors who commit abortion because when hear of it in the media, its usually in this context.

The equivalent "atheist" (eg Richard Dawkins who is frequently referred to as such) is an individual who rights books and appears on the tv and radio to advertise what he believes to be true. We dont hear on the news headline such as "Fundamentalist atheist blows up Church".

What do people think?

I think you've hit the nail on the head and we're both going to hell

Zillah

"Militant Muslims" fly planes into buildings.
"Militant Christians" bomb abortion clinics.
"Militant atheists" write books.

None of these terrorists can be tolerated.

billybigunz

Zillah wrote: »

"Militant atheists" write books.

I've kicked the **** out of a few people for believing in god so not quite true.

old hippy

billybigunz wrote: »

I've kicked the **** out of a few people for believing in god so not quite true.

Ah but that only makes them stronger, don't it?

TheIrishGrover

Zillah wrote: »

"Militant Muslims" fly planes into buildings.
"Militant Christians" bomb abortion clinics.
"Militant atheists" write books.

None of these terrorists can be tolerated.

Yes.... Because that's all this world needs.... people who write books. What's the world coming to? If only there was some way of not reading these books if we choose so........

Flamed Diving

The 'NO' camp are finally having their say and they don't like it.

bnt

mil·i·tant /ˈmɪlɪtənt/ [mil-i-tuhnt]
–adjective

1. vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2. engaged in warfare; fighting.

Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant (accessed: May 01, 2010).

We can't fairly blame theists for bringing out the word "militant", since at least one atheist used it deliberately: Richard Dawkins in his 2002 TED Talk.

Unfortunately, there seem to be some differences, between the UK and the USA, in the way it's used. Dawkins, being English*, was in the UK in the 70s and 80s, when militant trade unions were going on strike at various times. That's meaning (1) as above, and I think that's the spirit in which he used it. (His TED Talk goes in this in more detail.)

However, if you think the word refers to actual fighting, as in (2) above,. I can see why you might have a problem with it. Personally, the word doesn't bother me, since it's just a word, and actions speak louder than words. I would say "don't believe everything you read", but we're dealing with people who do believe everything they read, as long as it's got the "scripture" stamp of approval.

*yes, I know he was born in colonial Kenya, but he's no less English for that.

GLaDOS

Has to be done

kiffer

I wrote a bit of a ranty devil's advocate post...
Then I got annoyed at it and deleted it.
Now I'm regretting that.

There are nasty people in all walks of life...
People that go on killing sprees are mentally disturbed regardless of their beliefs...
Whether they are Christians, Muslims or Non-religious they are still crazys...
and not all crazies are going to be violent...
even if we lived in some sort of wonderful utopia of secular rationality these people would still be dangerous...

The question is ... how do you tell the dangerous crazies from the safe crazies, from the people that seem sane until they snap?

Maybe in an our wonderful utopia they would get help before it's too late...maybe they wouldn't...

PeterIanStaker

David Quinn, as I've said before, is a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists have no time for the opinions of others, and if someone disagree with him he'll happily call them militant in a "oh pity me" way.

Xluna

Aggresive atheist just means you call theists out on their bull**** and want to live in a secular country.

Einhard

It's brilliant that so many Christians get their knickers in such a twist over a few critical books and articles and tv shows, accuse Dawkins and Hitchens of fundamentalism, and the media of anti-religious sentiment, when they have an entire state, tens of thousands of churches, millions of clergy, two thousand years of history and persecution, and approx 2 billion adherents to deploy on their behalf. It's like Goliath ****ting himself when faced with David, and demanding his slingshot be taken off him. Although, given what happened Goliath, maybe they have reason to be worried...

PDN

PoleStar wrote: »

If we were to pair the word fundamentalist or agressive with either Christian or Muslim, most people would think immediately of those who use religion to justify and commit acts such as suicide bombings or murder doctors who commit abortion because when hear of it in the media, its usually in this context.

So, you reckon that, according to most people's definition, 99.999999% of Christians are neither fundamentalist or aggressive?

Then why do many regular posters in this forum refer to Christians as 'fundamentalists' when they are evidently not talking about the 0.000001% of professing Christians who murder abortionists?

Blackhorse Slim

There are many christian fundamentalists, particularly in the areas of the US that have sub-standard education, but fortunately not many are murderous. There is a difference between "fundamentalist" and "violently agressive militant fundamentalist".

PDN

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

There are many christian fundamentalists, particularly in the areas of the US that have sub-standard education, but fortunately not many are murderous. There is a difference between "fundamentalist" and "violently agressive militant fundamentalist".

So Fundamentalist Atheists write books whereas Fundamentalist Christians don't read books?

Blackhorse Slim

Nope, they just burn 'em

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1735623.stm

PDN

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

Nope, they just burn 'em

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1735623.stm

Ah, so we're back to the 0.000001% again? OK.

Blackhorse Slim

There is obviously a sliding scale of "crazy" within christian fundamentalism, from merely believing in creationism all the way down to this kind of behaviour (and beyond). I wouldn't like to put a figure on the percentage of fundies who are psychologically disturbed, how many are ignorant and uneducated, and how many are otherwise rational, intelligent members of society.

But I think you are underestimating the figure for seriously messed up.

iUseVi

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

But I think you are underestimating the figure for seriously messed up.

Highly underestimating.

kiffer

PDN wrote: »

Ah, so we're back to the 0.000001% again? OK.

1 in a million eh?
So... There are only 4 in Ireland?
Wait... Not everyone in the country is a Christian... Lets round it down to 3...
Oh yeah, not that many people that report to be Christian "really" are, so we can lets say half that number?
1.5! Can't have half a crazy person so that's 1!

edit: needlessly pedantic? Yes. but when making up statistics you shouldn't go too far.

ISAW

kiffer wrote: »

1 in a million eh?
So... There are only 4 in Ireland?
Wait... Not everyone in the country is a Christian... Lets round it down to 3...
Oh yeah, not that many people that report to be Christian "really" are, so we can lets say half that number?
1.5! Can't have half a crazy person so that's 1!

edit: needlessly pedantic? Yes. but when making up statistics you shouldn't go too far.

im happy to make a similar definition with respect to Muslims but for christians i have already offered one for "mainstream" which covers the Catholic (in the Universal sense) Church i.e. Orthodox Roman and Anglican and some other smaller denominations such as Syriac. the three alone are about 80 to 90 per cent of all christians. If you add in Lutheran you probably do go sell into the ninties. Of the ten per cent left scarcely one tenth would be fundamentalist as in fringe Biblical creationists.

Now when it comes to atheists ( and i mean atheists not agnostics) they are a vanishingly small per centage of people but it woudl seem many of the fundamentalists i.e. who make fun of religion oand attack it as harmfull e.g. those subscribing to Dawkins I would think they are a larger percentage.

They are not in the tens of thousands in Ireland and may not ever be in the thousands. That IS less than one tenth of one per cent. in the US it would seem it varies but could be as high as five per cent. But the fundamentalist atheists I would think are a tiny minoroty of people.

Nevertheless fundamentalist Christians or quasi Christians I am not a big fan of either.

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

Now when it comes to atheists ( and i mean atheists not agnostics) they are a vanishingly small per centage of people

Depends who you hang with, I would suggest. A quick poll in AH would suggest the next generation will be a lot more irreligious than the last.

kiffer

you mean atheist and not agnostics, eh?

Just so we're on the same page...
What do you mean by each of those?
Before the thread gets going and it becomes apparent that we're all talking cross purposes.
Also, what do you consider to be the 'fundimentals' of atheism?

PDN

kiffer wrote: »

1 in a million eh?
So... There are only 4 in Ireland?
Wait... Not everyone in the country is a Christian... Lets round it down to 3...
Oh yeah, not that many people that report to be Christian "really" are, so we can lets say half that number?
1.5! Can't have half a crazy person so that's 1!

edit: needlessly pedantic? Yes. but when making up statistics you shouldn't go too far.

If you want to be needlessly pedantic then feel free to do so. If you define fundamentalist Christians as being the kind of people who publicly burn books on bonfires, then I actually don't know any Christians in Ireland who do that.

That book-burning group in the US attracted a lot of media attention because their actions were so extreme and unusual - but they only have 20 members. So, in fact, one in a million would be a very generous estimate indeed.

However, if fundamentalists burning books is your thing: http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue458.html

robindch

PDN wrote: »

However, if fundamentalists burning books is your thing: [...] http://www.christiantelegraph.com/

Hey, that website is great! They have entire section devoted to stories about persecution!(*)

(*) Wish there was a blinking attribute on boards.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

If you want to be needlessly pedantic then feel free to do so. If you define fundamentalist Christians as being the kind of people who publicly burn books on bonfires, then I actually don't know any Christians in Ireland who do that.

That book-burning group in the US attracted a lot of media attention because their actions were so extreme and unusual - but they only have 20 members. So, in fact, one in a million would be a very generous estimate indeed.

However, if fundamentalists burning books is your thing: http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue458.html

Oh great. So instead of being man enough to admit that the 1 in a million figure was ridiculous, you choose to focus on "Christians who book burn" which was only brought up as a specific example of fundiness. There are many crazy things they do. How about we use creationism as a fundy indicator. That's half (at least) the Christian's in my church.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kiffer

Bravo PDN! I get the joke even if the others don't :-D

ISAW

Dades wrote: »

Depends who you hang with, I would suggest. A quick poll in AH would suggest the next generation will be a lot more irreligious than the last.

This is supposition. The fact is that worldwide atheism is a tiny proportion. It is a bit like saying Sinn Féin or the Commmunist party will be the main political party in Ireland.

In the old forced atheist countries like China or Russia where atheism was enforced by law there is now growing religious adherence.

ISAW

iUseVi wrote: »

Oh great. So instead of being man enough to admit that the 1 in a million figure was ridiculous,

Yes to be fair it is closer to one in a hundred.

you choose to focus on "Christians who book burn" which was only brought up as a specific example of fundiness. There are many crazy things they do.

No there isnt! Mainstream christians? Nah! What do you define as fundamentalist? Ive told you what i mean by fundamentalist atheist. The sort of people who caused the deaths of at least 70 MILLION people in the 20th Century.

How about we use creationism as a fundy indicator. That's half (at least) the Christian's in my church.

Do you mean "God created the Universe" creationism or do you mean "the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so" creationism?

The latter are again a TINY minority of Christians. A much much smaller proportion then atheists who claim religion is harmful and should be countered by the State.

ISAW

kiffer wrote: »

you mean atheist and not agnostics, eh?

Just so we're on the same page...
What do you mean by each of those?
Before the thread gets going and it becomes apparent that we're all talking cross purposes.
Also, what do you consider to be the 'fundimentals' of atheism?

Subject: Re: US religious now at 85% - It's GOD in a LANDSLIDE!!!
# -Atheists wallow at 2.3% worldwide, 0.7% in the USA! -a pitiful
# fraction of the minority of non-believers! B^D
#
# From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups:
# alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.religion,au…
# alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.democrats,uk.politics.misc
# Message-ID: <8QNtl.26734$cu.16...@news-server.bigpon…
# Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:07:32 GMT
#
# American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:
#
# "Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition
#
# 2001 2008
#
# Non- religious 29,481,000 (14.1%) 34,169,000 (15%)
#
# Religious 167,254,000 (80%) 182,198,000 (80%)
#
# Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%) 1,985,000 (0.9%)
#
# Atheists 902,000 (0.4%) 1,621,00

As for fundamentalists I already gave a definition those who view it as a beet way and view religion as threathening backward or harmful - you know like the "militant" Dawkins?

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

Oh great. So instead of being man enough to admit that the 1 in a million figure was ridiculous, you choose to focus on "Christians who book burn" which was only brought up as a specific example of fundiness. There are many crazy things they do. How about we use creationism as a fundy indicator. That's half (at least) the Christian's in my church.

No, I'm in agreement with you all the way on this. Let's keep on mellowing our definition of 'fundamentalist'.

So far in this thread we've gone from killing doctors, to burning books, to believing a particular theory. Cool! A few more posts and we'll be defining a Christian fundamentalist as "someone who suggests, however, tentatively, that God might exist".

See how things change once we all start having to reason through and defend our positions?

iUseVi

ISAW wrote: »

Do you mean "God created the Universe" creationism or do you mean "the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so" creationism?

The latter are again a TINY minority of Christians. A much much smaller proportion then atheists who claim religion is harmful and should be countered by the State.

Not as tiny as you think. I'm too lazy to look for the polls but they make for depressing reading.

PDN

Then again, we only need to look at the burka thread in this forum to see some rather scary totalitarian and illiberal leanings among a high percentage of the atheists that frequent these parts.

strobe

ISAW wrote: »

In the old forced atheist countries like China or Russia where atheism was enforced by law there is now growing religious adherence.

And in wealthy democratic western nations where people have the freedom of choice, and quality of life and education are at a high standard it's pretty obvious that this generation is a lot less religious than our parents one, I don't think anyone here, yourself included, will dispute that. Organised religion is in a slow but terminal decline in first world nations.

I don't see any reason to think that trend won't continue and every reason to think it will.

kiffer

PDN wrote: »

Then again, we only need to look at the burka thread in this forum to see some rather scary totalitarian and illiberal leanings among a high percentage of the atheists that frequent these parts.

...
What? the thread with the 50:50 split between pro ban and anti ban?
In which a number of people expressed a they should be able to wear it if they choose to but no one should force them, and since we can't tell who's being forced ban it?
As well as some more hard line responces?

edit: going to party now, will respond to other points/people later.

PDN

kiffer wrote: »

...
What? the thread with the 50:50 split between pro ban and anti ban?
In which a number of people expressed a they should be able to wear it if they choose to but no one should force them, and since we can't tell who's being forced ban it?
As well as some more hard line responces?

edit: going to party now, will respond to other points/people later.

Yes, 50% is frighteningly high IMHO. But I guess that's for the other thread.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Yes, 50% is frighteningly high IMHO.

I agree.

I'd have thought that we'd be riding at ten to one in favour of prohibiting religious men from coercing "their" women into wearing what are effectively refuse sacks about their heads. However, with the ~50:50 figure, I stand corrected.

Clearly, there's a lot of work still to be done to help people fully appreciate the baleful power of religious manipulation and coercion.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I'd have thought that we'd be riding at ten to one in favour of prohibiting religious men from coercing "their" women into wearing what are effectively refuse sacks about their heads.

Prohibit coercion all you want - but that is most certainly not what you were supporting in that thread.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Prohibit coercion all you want

Not quite sure you understand the subtly of my position yet, since coercion -- as you know -- cannot, effectively, be prohibited

The best one can do is to render one of its more unpleasant, and obvious, results illegal, by stepping in to assert the rights those who've been rendered powerless by organized religion.

ISAW

iUseVi wrote: »

Not as tiny as you think. I'm too lazy to look for the polls but they make for depressing reading.

So OPINION polls which you have fleeting knowledge of but you think say something that you agree with you propose as having some sort of objective measurement of fundamentalism?
Look! Would you please at least try to supply some rational objective facts and not your opinion based on your personal beliefs? Otherwise how is your opinion any better than any of the other atheistic religious kooks?

ISAW

strobe wrote: »

And in wealthy democratic western nations where people have the freedom of choice, and quality of life and education are at a high standard it's pretty obvious that this generation is a lot less religious than our parents one,

Well then! If it is so "obvious" as you claim it should be no problem for you to produce actual evidence to support your unsupported opinion shoule it not?

So where is your evidence?

I don't think anyone here, yourself included, will dispute that.

I dispute it! Wher is your evidence?

Organised religion is in a slow but terminal decline in first world nations.

what is the difference according to you between "religion" and "organised religion"?
And what is a "first world" nation?
And how should what the "first world" as defined by you do be any guide as to what is better for mankind?

I don't see any reason to think that trend won't continue and every reason to think it will.

so you believe something which you can't even establish based on faith?

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

Not quite sure you understand the subtly of my position yet, since coercion -- as you know -- cannot, effectively, be prohibited

Now robin are you referring to something you stated earlier in another thread?
Please do enlighten us all on your "subtly".
and in doing so you are aware you will be referring to what you stated earlier?

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

[...] are you referring to something you stated earlier in another thread? Please do enlighten us all on your "subtly".

The usage was ironic and the burka discussion lives here, where it would be best to keep it.

iUseVi

ISAW wrote: »

So OPINION polls which you have fleeting knowledge of but you think say something that you agree with you propose as having some sort of objective measurement of fundamentalism?
Look! Would you please at least try to supply some rational objective facts and not your opinion based on your personal beliefs? Otherwise how is your opinion any better than any of the other atheistic religious kooks?

Umm. WTF? Where did you supply "rational objective facts" in support of your view that "The latter are again a TINY minority of Christians. A much much smaller proportion then atheists who claim religion is harmful and should be countered by the State."

I agree that opinion polls are not the best data, but they are a good start and better than anything you have suggested.

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

This is supposition. The fact is that worldwide atheism is a tiny proportion. It is a bit like saying Sinn Féin or the Commmunist party will be the main political party in Ireland.

No. It's not at all like saying that. I don't know if you've been in a catholic church recently, but have a look about one on a Sunday and count how many are likely to be standing there in 50 years.

Besides, what matters if someone is atheist, agnostic, deist, humanist or simply non-religious. They are all friends of reason, and the truth isn't decided by democracy.

strobe

ISAW wrote: »

Well then! If it is so "obvious" as you claim it should be no problem for you to produce actual evidence to support your unsupported opinion shoule it not?

So where is your evidence?

I dispute it! Wher is your evidence?

Are you fukking serious? Are you honestly saying that the populations of Ireland, England, France, ect aren't less religious than they were 50 years ago?

what is the difference according to you between "religion" and "organised religion"?
And what is a "first world" nation?
And how should what the "first world" as defined by you do be any guide as to what is better for mankind?

Religion in it's loosest terms can be described as :a belief in supernatural powers that effect the destiny of man. Organised religion, again a lose defintion, is :a religion in which rules exist to govern the means by which adherents participate in the religion.
First world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
I said nothing about anything being better for mankind but yes I do believe that people not blindly believing in "magic" is better for mankind, untill someone shows that magic exists.

Jesus Christ man, buy an encyclopedia or something, or even just google it. Phrases like, "organised religion" or "first world" are hardly excessively technical.....

so you believe something which you can't even establish based on faith?

I don't even have the slightest clue what point you are trying to make with this last bit. Can you rephrase it or explain it better?

ISAW

iUseVi wrote: »

Umm. WTF? Where did you supply "rational objective facts" in support of your view that "The latter are again a TINY minority of Christians. A much much smaller proportion then atheists who claim religion is harmful and should be countered by the State."

Duh! In message 32 of this thread where I offered:

American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:

"Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition

2001 2008

Non- religious 29,481,000 (14.1%) 34,169,000 (15%)

Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%) 1,985,000 (0.9%)

Atheists 902,000 (0.4%) 1,621,000 (0.7%)

Catholics 50,873,000 (24.5%) 57,199,000 (25.1%)
Baptist 33,820,000 (16.3%) 36,148,000 (15.8%)
Mainline Christian* 35,788,000 (17.2%) 29.375,000 (12.9%)
Generic Christian 22,546,000 (10.8%) 32,441,000 (14.2%)
Pentecostal** 7,831,000 (3.8%) 7,948,000 (3.5%)
Other Protestant*** 5,949,000 (2.9%) 7,131,000 (3.1%)
Mormon 2,697,000 (1.3%) 3,158,000 (1.4%)
Jewish**** 2,837,000 (1.4%) 2,680,000 (1.2%)
Eastern Religions 2,020,000 (1.0%) 1,961,000 (0.9%)
Muslim 1,104,000 (0.5%) 1,349,000 (0.6%)
Other Religion 1,770,000 (0.9%) 2,804,000 (1.2%)

DK/Refused 11,300,000 (5.4%) 11,815,000 (5.2%)

Total 207,983,000 100 228,182,000 100%

* Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian/Anglican,
United Church of Christ
** AOG, Church of God
*** Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists
**** Jews by religion, not ethnicity

As for fundamentalists I already gave a definition those who view it as a beet way and view religion as threathening backward or harmful - you know like the "militant" Dawkins?

Here is more from same thread on march 9 2009
[fasgnadh]
"A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica finds that the
non-religious make up about 11.9% of the world's population, and
atheists about 2.3%."
- "Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas,
Mid-2005". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005.
http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620. Retrieved on 2007-04-15.

* 2.3% Atheists: Persons professing atheism, skepticism,
disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly
antireligious (opposed to all religion).
* 11.9% Nonreligious: Persons professing no religion,
nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested,
or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion
but not militantly so.

The Agnostics and humanists are always the substantial
majority with the indifferent, the crack heads.
the Donkey Vote and the atheists forming tiny minority groups.

No wonder the desperate Atheists, INSIGNIFICANT in the scientific,
cultural, or broader community try to claim EVERY BABY born is an
Atheist!! (because, like lamposts, 'they have no belief in god' ;-)

Of course this means that 85% of all humans have such a dreadful
experience of Atheism that they become believers in later life! B^D

And then most of the remaining 15% also abandon Atheism for superior
belief systems like agnosticism, astrology, hedonism, watching TV
and stamp collecting! B^D

Leaving only 2.3% worldwide to become perennial adolescent ********
who call themselves Atheists!
[/Fasgnadh]

I agree that opinion polls are not the best data, but they are a good start and better than anything you have suggested.

Wrong! I already gave you a published source. Now i have added to it!

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

The usage was ironic and the burka discussion lives here, where it would be best to keep it.

Ha! My attention disorder is impervious to your irony! Thanks for the interesting link I was unaware of though.

Ickle Magoo

It's weird...I just googled "American Religious Identification Survey" & it just comes up with loads of articles about how america is loosing religion & the only "denomination" not loosing ground is the non-religious which has doubled in the past 10yrs alone...

Are you arguing that because those who cite no religion are not citing atheism that somehow religious popularity isn't diminishing? The amount of debates on here regarding terminology; theistic agnostics, anti-theistic atheists, etc would lead me to believe that "non-religious" is the most popular title to claim until the terms agnostic and atheist are better defined...but don't let that get in the way of a good exclamation marked, capitalised rant.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm

http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2009/03/american-religious-identification.html

http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2009/03/fewer-religious.html