Houston is getting less religious, Pew finds
Why it matters: A growing number of people in the state — and nationwide — don't identify with any religion.
The shift is largely driven by Gen Z and younger Millennials, according to the Pew Research Center.
The big picture: Fewer than half of 18- to 29-year-olds nationwide identify as Christian (45%), and nearly the same portion have no religious affiliation (44%), according to Pew's Religious Landscape Study, which surveyed more than 35,000 Americans.
Meanwhile, 78% of those 65 and older identify as Christian.
State of prayer: More Houston residents identify as non-Christian or religiously unaffiliated now than in 2014.
67% of Houston residents identify as Christian, down from 73% in 2014.
7% identify as another religion — the same from a decade ago. 3% are Muslim, when a decade ago, only 1% were.
25% are religiously unaffiliated, up from 20% in 2014.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Nanny state, for real: Feds won't even trust parents with a baby pillow
Imagine a new parent, soothing her baby at home, grateful for a moment of peace while her infant reclines in a cozy, contoured lounger beside her: It's soft and portable, designed specifically for a baby's supervised awake time — a helping hand amid the chaos of early parenthood. Now imagine the federal government declaring this item to be too dangerous to exist. That's exactly what happened with the Podster, a baby lounger made by Leachco, a small family-owned business in Oklahoma. Advertisement Designed to cradle infants while they're awake and with an adult, the Podster is not a sleeper, not a car seat, not a crib. It's a contoured cushion, a glorified baby pillow, meant to keep infants comfortably propped up while under a parent's watchful eye. Since its release in 2009 Leachco has sold over 180,000 Podsters. When used as intended, it has a perfect safety record. Advertisement But after three infant deaths linked to serious misuse of the lounger were reported, the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission labeled the Podster a 'substantial product hazard' and demanded a full recall. In one case, the infant was left unsupervised in a crib with the Podster for over an hour. In another, it was used in an adult bed, surrounded by pillows and bedding. In every case, the lounger was not being used according to its clear safety instructions. Advertisement There was no suggestion the Podster failed or malfunctioned. But the CPSC argued it was 'reasonably foreseeable' that some parents might ignore the warnings — making the product itself defective. That reasoning reveals a deeper problem. The CPSC was created in 1972 to protect Americans from dangerous products — items with clear, physical risks, like a too-small toy that poses a choking hazard or a battery-operated mobile that could overheat and catch fire. Advertisement It sets safety standards and can recall or even ban items it deems inherently hazardous. But the agency has drifted into overreach, defining 'risk' in increasingly abstract and paternalistic ways. Picture applying the Podster standard more broadly. Should we ban grapes because they're a choking hazard? Should we make backyard pools illegal because children can drown, or outlaw cars because some people don't wear seat belts? Obviously not — but that's the logic at play when the CPSC targets products like the Podster or the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play, a once-popular baby sleeper. The CPSC linked over 30 infant deaths to that product — all in situations where babies weren't restrained or were placed in unsafe sleep environments, despite manufacturer warnings. These are devastating tragedies, but they're not necessarily evidence of a defective product. They're examples of what happens when products are misused. Advertisement Instead of educating parents about safe practices, the CPSC has leaned on the idea that any possible misuse is enough to justify a recall. That sets an impossible standard, and one that disproportionately hurts small businesses. Complying with federal safety regulations comes at a high cost. Big companies might absorb it. But small firms like Leachco, run by a husband-and-wife team, often can't. Advertisement Even a 10% increase in regulation can shrink the number of firms and reduce small-business employment, analysts have found. And when smaller players are pushed out, competition suffers — leaving us fewer options, higher prices and less innovation. Regulatory overreach has another cost, too: the products that are never created. 'Trying to preemptively plan for every hypothetical worst-case scenario means that many best-case scenarios will never come about,' says policy analyst Adam Thierer. Advertisement In the quest to prevent all harm, we paralyze progress. And for what? The CPSC's own data shows that most injuries linked to nursery products don't stem from defects. They happen when caregivers misuse them. High chairs, for example, consistently top the injury charts. But kids get hurt because they're climbing, wiggling or not strapped in properly, not because the chairs themselves are dangerous. Worse, eliminating products like the Podster doesn't eliminate risk — it just shifts it. Advertisement Parents still need somewhere to put the baby. Banning safe loungers leads caregivers to improvise with regular pillows or folded blankets, introducing new hazards in the name of safety. A zero-risk world doesn't exist. The Podster is the poster child for bureaucratic overreach: A well-intentioned agency attacking a safe, helpful product because someone misused it. Congress should step in. Lawmakers can direct the CPSC to define what counts as a 'product defect,' and can require the agency to distinguish between genuine hazards and issues of misuse. Clear, objective standards will protect consumers without punishing responsible parents or businesses. Parents deserve safe products, but they also deserve the freedom to make their own choices — without a nanny-state government treating them like they can't be trusted with a baby pillow. Bethany Mandel writes and podcasts at The Mom Wars and is a homeschooling mother of six in greater Washington, DC.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Statistics Say Parents No Longer Read To Their Kids. Here's Why I Still Do
I remember reading Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, by Roald Dahl, to my two oldest kids — maybe they were 5 and 7 at the time. The younger of the two could easily be overwhelmed by empathy, and I could see him straining with the desire to go get a chocolate bar and give it to this child, this fictional character. To an avid reader like myself, it felt like an utter miracle to share this book and this feeling with my babies. It still does. The statistics show that parents don't read to their kids as much these days, and I can understand it — life is busy. However, this particular miracle is one we need to keep sharing. Earlier this year, The Guardian reported on a Nielsen survey in which only 40% of parents said that reading to their kids was an enjoyable activity. A similar percentage of children aged four or under are being read to regularly, with girls being read to more frequently than boys. There's a generation gap here, too — 'Gen Z parents are more likely than millennial or Gen X parents' to consider reading a chore or subject than a fun activity for kids. Parents who think of reading as a skill to master are also more likely to stop reading to their kids once the kids can read for themselves. Still, about a third of parents say they wish they had more time to read to their kids, and 44% say that reading together makes them feel closer to their kids. I still read to my kids regularly. Not quite as regularly during the summer as during the school year, and never quite as consistently as I'd like, but I still aim for at least 20 minutes several times a week for the older ones (9, 11, and 13) and multiple books daily for the 5-year-old. Sometimes my 19-year-old will join us, and once recently, my 23-year-old was visiting and even sat in! That was when we were reading Bruce Coville's My Teacher Is An Alien series. We had just finished the first three Wayside School books, by Louis Sachar, and I wanted to switch from short stories to a novel, and introduce another series I loved as a kid myself. I was so anxious about them enjoying it, and for the first couple of chapters, my kids weren't very interested — then all of a sudden it clicked, and we found that magic space where they ask for 'one more chapter' when I think we're done for the night! Then, after we'd closed the book for the night, my oldest said, 'I remember this story from when you read it to us [the two oldest kids],' and with that simple statement comes a moment of knowing that something made an impact. I didn't read to my oldest kids as much as I wish I had, but my child unknowingly just told me that the times I did read to them made an impact! It mattered! Reading kids' books can be like playing Candyland — you remember enjoying it when you were little, but now maybe it feels trite and saccharine. It doesn't have to, though! There is a near-infinite variety of books for little kids, whether you want to make them laugh by reading about canine flatulence (Walter the Farting Dog, by William Kotzwinkle), or introduce them to philosophical thinking (Big Ideas for Young Thinkers, by Jamia Wilson). If you absolutely can't stand reading another book about talking dogs and hardworking anthropomorphic trains, maybe try diving into classics like Ellen Raskin's The Westing Game and The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster. (Okay, The Phantom Tollbooth does have a talking dog, but if you like wordplay, you'll love it. My younger son, 8 at the time, and not a huge fan of reading, actually took it out of my hands and demanded a turn reading aloud.) Even for younger kids, some books are engaging enough that parents can love them too. When The Gruffalo, by Julia Donaldson, arrived in our mailbox (thank you, Dolly Parton's Imagination Library), my husband and I, along with all the big kids (probably 10, 13, and 15 at the time), took turns reading it to the little boys. We immediately had to get a copy of the sequel, because honestly, the book is just so much fun. Even if you dislike every book I've listed above, there is something out there that your kids will enjoy, and that meets your interests, too! One great thing about reading to kids is that you can choose books above their reading level, as long as the subject matter is appropriate. When I was little, I'd beg my mom to read aloud when she read from her Bible at night. I certainly didn't understand much of it at the time, but being read to still feels cozy and loving. I've noticed the same with my kids. Even when I'm reading a book targeted at older readers, the kids who are too young for that particular book will still cuddle in to listen. Reading on a kid's level is important and good for them, but if you genuinely can't tolerate another read of Goodnight Moon, by Margaret Wise Brown, reading to your kid from William Golding's The Princess Bride, or Lucy Maude Montgomery's Anne of Green Gables series, or A Wrinkle In Time, by Madeleine L'Engle, is also wonderful. The target, according to the Children's Reading Foundation, is 20 minutes a day. However, if you aren't hitting that target, don't consider it a failure. Reading to your kids the amount you are able is better than skipping it altogether. As I mentioned earlier, the current target in my household is 20 minutes at a time, at least 3 times a week, for my older kids. My 5-year-old is learning to read for herself right now (and I cannot laud Hooked On Phonics enough; the app is fantastic and the books they send are perfect) so we read together much more frequently. Still, even if all you can squeeze in is 20 minutes at a time on weekends, that's great too. (One of Barbara Park's Junie B. Jones' books can typically be finished in two 20-minute sessions.) The important part is that you are making reading time into a fun and bonding experience. Reading to your kids is incredibly valuable in many ways. I've raved about the connection, the joy when you and your child are both on the edge of your seat waiting to hear whether this bar of chocolate is the one with the golden ticket, or rooting for three kids to help their alien teachers save planet Earth successfully. That is an indescribable bonding sensation. However, there is also tangible evidence that reading to your children improves their language skills and sets them up for academic success. A study from the University of Ohio concluded: 'Young children whose parents read them five books a day enter kindergarten having heard about 1.4 million more words than kids who were never read to…Even kids who are read only one book a day will hear about 290,000 more words by age 5 than those who don't regularly read books with a parent or caregiver.' Experts say this prepares kids to encounter those and other words in print and build bigger and more adaptive vocabularies. These kids are also more likely to pick up reading for fun, which has further benefits. Forbes reported in 2023 on a study comparing kids who read for fun to those who do not. 'Children who start to read for fun early in life get better test scores by the time they reach adolescence…Reading for pleasure by the age of nine is also linked to better mental health, less screen time and better sleep, compared to children who start later or not at all, researchers found.' All of this is a gift we can give our kids, just by finding the time to read to them regularly!
New York Post
21 hours ago
- New York Post
Couples are choosing to give up sex — and they insist it's saving their marriages: ‘We learned to communicate better'
The lights are off, and nobody's home — and apparently, that's a good thing. Turns out, a little less action in the bedroom might be the very thing keeping some couples together. While sexless marriages are usually viewed as a one-way ticket to splitsville, more couples are sharing that their love lives — minus the actual lovemaking — are happier than ever. Advertisement Take Corey, who told Popsugar in a recent interview that after 13 years with her partner, their relationship reached a whole new high… without going low. 'During the time we weren't having sex, we were growing closer than ever,' Corey said. 'Sex is not the reason we are together; it's just a nice bonus.' The couple, who got together as hormone-fueled teens, hit a dry patch post-COVID — between chronic fatigue, body image issues and plain ol' burnout. Eventually, they just stopped prioritizing sex. Advertisement 'We just kind of weren't in the mood,' Corey explained. 'We learned to communicate even better and genuinely didn't fight at all.' Instead of calling it quits, they cuddled, kissed, went on dates — and realized their connection didn't hinge on bedroom gymnastics. 'Our relationship is strong, and it's built on mutual respect and genuinely liking one another,' Corey told the outlet. For some couples, less bedroom action is actually keeping the love alive. terovesalainen – Advertisement Corey isn't alone. In a related Reddit post, one man raved about his six-year sexless marriage: 'The decision to stay has been the best of my life, by far. For the past few years, I wake up every day feeling so lucky to be next to such a wonderful partner.' And these couples may be more on-trend than they think. As previously reported by The Post, according to a government study analyzed by the Institute of Family Studies, Americans are doing it less — or not at all. Advertisement Sexlessness is soaring among 22- to 34-year-olds, with 24% of men and 13% of women saying they hadn't had sex in the last year. 'In sum, for young adult males, sexlessness has roughly doubled across all measures over the last 10 years,' the IFS noted. 'For young adult females, it has risen by roughly 50 percent.' One major factor? Fewer folks are getting hitched — and those who are, aren't necessarily getting busy. A sexless marriage just might be the key to a healthy relationship. elnariz – Even inside marriages, some months are notoriously dry. Post-holiday stress, credit card bills and family drama all contribute to a nationwide libido nosedive. 'It's incredibly common for couples to experience a decline in intimacy during January,' relationship counselor Simone Jobson told The Post. 'The holidays create a lot of external pressure… most people just need time to rest and recover.' But a cold winter doesn't always mean a cold relationship. Advertisement As Corey proves, sometimes stepping back from sex helps couples find new ways to connect — and even make their way back to the bedroom. After two years of no sex, she and her beau recently started getting frisky again — but not out of guilt. 'Sex is a wonderful way to connect and feels great, but it doesn't have to be the basis of a marriage,' she said. Forget the seven-year itch — some couples are scratching their way to marital bliss by skipping the sheets altogether.
