This article takes a look at current demographic trends and predicts that Europe, like the United States, will end up becoming more religious and conservative over the coming decades, not less so. And the author is not just talking about Muslim religious identity — he believes Christianity will rebound as well.
Here is the nut graph of the attached article:
The pivotal question is where the balance lies between religious fertility and religious abandonment in the secular cutting-edge societies of France and Protestant Europe. The population balance in these countries stands at roughly 53 per cent non-religious to 47 per cent religious. My projections, based on demographic differences between the populations and current patterns of religious abandonment, suggest that the secular population will continue to grow at a decelerating rate for three or four more decades, to peak at around 55 per cent. The proportion of secular people will then begin to decline between 2035 and 2045. The momentum behind secularisation in the most secular countries is a reflection of the religious abandonment of the pre-1945 generations, which overwhelmed the fertility advantage of the faithful. The end of apostasy in more recent generations means a population more religious at the end of the 21st century than at its beginning. As in the case of the Mormons or early Christians, demography rather than mass conversion will be the main agent of change.
For those new to such fertility discussions, it is worth pointing out that a society needs to have 2.1 babies per woman to sustain itself (absent immigration). Most of Europe has fertility far under that level, so populations are decreasing. In general, conservative religious people are much more likely to have children than liberal secular people. This is true in the United States and Europe. This has cause many demographers to predict that the United States is likely to be much more conservative in coming years because all of the liberals are failing to produce children.
Later on in the article, we get this:
Western Europe will initially emerge as a more religious society, but not a fundamentalist one. Even so, religiosity—as belief rather than attendance—significantly predicts a more conservative ideological orientation. Though we are unlikely to see the rise of evangelical Christian politics in Europe, we may find a long-term drift towards more conservative social values. Europeans will become more “traditional” on moral issues like abortion, family values, religious education and gay marriage.
I would encourage you to read the entire article. There are of course many potential objections, including the valid point that it is impossible to predict whether all of these children raised in religious households will stay religious. I’d also make the argument that as society becomes more secular, the acceptable middle of discourse is likely to change. For example, 40 years ago there would have been widespread consensus that sodomy should be illegal. Now, almost nobody makes that argument. There may be an unrecognizable societal concensus on other “family values” issues 40 years from now, so the “religious conservative fall-back position” may be something that seems very liberal to us today.
Nonetheless, an interesting article and worth reading.
The obvious caveat is that in an overwhelmingly secular culture that tends to indoctrinate such secularism in its young there is no reason to assume that the religious will remain religious.
Of course the religious are more apt to remain religious than the non-religious, so this might make for a slight increase. But I think those expecting major increases are neglecting the effects of society.
I agree with Clark and wanted to add that the issue may not be the religion of the parents, as much as it is the religion of the college professors, high school teachers, etc.
I would be the first one to point out that the effect of the greater culture on children, and especially their teachers, is significant and important. However, I would argue, and many studies have backed this up, that the influence of parents is much, much greater in the long run.
Matt,
Besides, as Geoff has pointed out, that parents do in fact have a great influence on their children–home schooling is on the rise big time, because of the very reason that educators are often so very liberal. It may be possible that education as we know it will be very different in the future.
Geoff,
My wife and I are liberal, and we’re producing children. I’d be careful of generalizations like this. The straw man amongst conservatives are that liberals don’t believe in families, nor in having children. It’s a pretty bad straw man, and like all, are not a sense of reality.
Dan,
Geoff isn’t making this up off the top of his head. It’s been shown around the country demographically. Liberals are less likely to have children–and if they do, have fewer. He is hardly saying “Democrats never have children.” Conservative Catholics, and other groups who do not use birth control are much more likely to have many, many children.
Miami,
Geoff said specifically “all of the liberals“. That is factually false and buys into the straw man produced by right-wingers. I’m just saying be careful with generalizations like that. Not “all” liberals are against families, nor against having children. Nor are “all” liberals against God.
The Washington Post had an interesting article today on a rebound in French fertility. France, as a nation, wants more children and is promoting motherhood in a French way. Mothers are guaranteed they can return to their jobs after a three year maternity leave. You can argue that protections like that stifle production and employment, but that’s the way they do things in France, and in motherhood, they have picked a worthy target to protect. Direct money from the government is pretty substantial also, $960 per month for the first year after birth of a third child, twice the allowance for a second child.
The French fertility rate has come back to 1.94 children per woman, compared with 2.01 for the U.S. The article doesn’t mention religion or ethnicity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701652.html
John,
France is far from the first country to do this, and besides hurting the economy, I doubt it is really protecting motherhood. Mothers are seen as a commodity for mere population growth. Mothers are then viewed as 1. a good value in the first three years 2. not a good value after that–the child should be in day care so the woman can go back to work in her job that was held for her.It may be good for the kids in the short term, and good for the mothers who want to be with their children. But in the end, it really demeans women and their power to reproduce.
It is interesting to note that both mothers and fathers are given these long leaves in Sweden (although not simultaneously)with job security when they return
Dan, I meant “all of the liberals” in the same sense that you would say colloquially, “all of those people.” You don’t mean 100 percent, you mean “that group of people.” I am well aware that there are plenty of liberals who have children.
But, as an olive branch, I would admit I probably should have written “so many liberals” instead of “all of the liberals” because it is certainly clearer.
Sweden’s birth rate is about 1.5 children per woman, right? I doubt you can show that those programs increase the birth rate. Doesn’t the best evidence suggest that birth rates decline as affluence increases. Now that would be an interesting question: Do richer Mormons (and Catholics) have less children???
MikeInWeHo–
Or an even better question, do birth rates among highly educated Mormons and Catholics (particularly women)–since that seems to be the end all for lowering birth rates world wide.
that should say–do birth rates decline…
The writer of the article seems to believe that the growth of Mormonism is mostly or entirely due to high fertility. That overlooks the fact that, in recent decades, numbers of convert baptisms have been several times higher than baptisms of children of record. Of course, converts probably leave at a higher rate, too, but I’d still say that the growth of the church in the last 50 years is due more to missionary work than to fertility.
I meant “all of the liberals” in the same sense that you would say colloquially, “all of those people.”
Geoff: Are you calling liberals “those people” ? Faux pas mon frere, faux pas!
Geoff and Mami, (3 & 4)
My concern with calling on the parent solutin would be the large number of single parents. If this article is suggesting that Europe is going to get more religious because people are going to abort their babies rather than be single parents, well, I’m not sure I can take an appropriate ethical stance on that.
Ed, while convert baptisms are higher than children of record, many go inactive as do children. As I recall the majority (but obviously not all) growth is actually by birth. Conversion makes up for a lot of losses by children who go inactive or leave the church plus a bit more. The self-identification survey which has been often discussed shows a relatively low growth rate that as I recall is roughly on par with a high birth rate.
Geoff, there’s no doubt the influence of parents is important. But important in what ways. That’s the question. Overall people tend to accept the beliefs of society. Look at say racial beliefs or acceptance of various changes in sexuality. What are new generations closer to, society or their parents beliefs?
Some here seem to confuse social conservatives with economic/political conservatives. Some commenters are obviuosly the former while being otherwise politically liberal. I’ll also note that a 2.1 kids for replacement rate has only been true for a few seconds of mankind’s existance at best. It’s likely that low number won’t hold and population declines will accelerate. Remember, we poke fun a Malthus today because his preditions were based on a static model in a dynamic world.
Clark, just because the growth rate is similar in size to the birth rate does not mean tha is caused by the birth rate.
I believe convert baptisms have been on the order of 3 o 4 times the number of children of record baptisms, and some of those children are necessary just to replace the previous generation, and do not represent growth. Even if converts go inactive at a rate 5 times children of record, that still makes missionary work roughly as important as fertility. (I’m not sure what the actual inactivity-ratio is between converts and BIC, though…maybe it’s higher than 5. Also, most of these converts are probably outside North America.)
That’s not what I said Ed. Rather I said that there were loses of children born into Mormonism and that some were made up by converts. Various studies suggest most of our growth comes not from conversions (most of whom fall away) but from children.
Clark, what studies are you talking about?
There’s a page that covers the statistics of LDS growth including the infamous religious self-identification survey that was done a few years ago. It includes a few suggestions on possible missionary program changes as well. I can’t see to find the link right now. But these things have been discussed on and off in the blogsphere. I seem to recall a study on retention of children but can’t recall the exact statistic off the top of my head.
I think you mean Dave Stewart’s “Church Growth Today” which used to be at cumorah.com, but has apparently been pulled and published in dead-tree form:
http://www.cumorah.com/report.html
I also asume you mean the ARIS surveys from 1990 and 2001. Why are they “infamous?” I also don’t see how those surveys support the point that conversion is an unimportant source of growth compared to fertility.
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm
(P.S….why can’t I put hyperlinks in comments any more?)