5 takeaways from a major new report on religion around the world
This article was first published in the State of Faith newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each Monday night.
When people hear that researching religion is part of my job, they often ask me very specific questions about faith-related issues that have been in the news.
After I disappoint them by not immediately knowing the answers, I turn to Google for help. My job has made me a search engine expert, not a religion expert.
The questions that still trip me up even when I've got a strong internet connection are about the religious makeup of faraway countries.
It's hard for me to quickly find info about religious life in the Czech Republic or New Zealand and then talk about what that info means for the athlete or politician who's grabbing headlines in the U.S.
But now, I've got an exciting new tool in my trivia tool belt.
On Monday, Pew Research Center released an interactive website that shows the religious makeup of nearly every country in the world in a single (very large) table.
Once you're on the page, it takes only a few seconds to confirm that New Zealand was 40.3% Christian in 2020 or that the Czech Republic is dominated by religious 'nones.'
Pew's interactive table was released alongside a new report discussing how the global religious landscape changed from 2010 to 2020.
Based on more than 2,700 censuses and surveys, the report provides an in-depth look at 201 countries and territories — and plenty of fodder for conversations with your friends.
Here are five key takeaways from Pew's new analysis of the global religious landscape.
Christianity is the world's largest faith group, but it's not keeping pace with global population growth. In 2010, 30.6% of the world identified as Christian. By 2020, that figure had fallen to 28.8%.
Islam is the fastest growing religious group. 'The number of Muslims increased by 347 million (from 2010 to 2020) — more than all other religions combined,' researchers wrote.
Sub-Saharan Africa is now the region of the world where most Christians live. In 2010, Europe held that title.
As of 2020, the United States has the second-largest number of religiously unaffiliated residents. China has the most.
The growth of Islam from 2010 to 2020 was mostly due to natural population growth, while the decline of Christianity stemmed, in large part, from religious switching. 'Religious 'switching' — especially people shedding their religious identity after having been raised as Christians — explains much of the unaffiliated population's growth between 2010 and 2020," Pew reported.
Americans are divided over religious freedom. The Supreme Court? Not as much
How 'Jeopardy!' can save us all, according to Ken Jennings
The Supreme Court's surprising decision day
This top running back says he believes in God, not the so-called 'Madden curse'
A religious school is facing pushback for its partnership with U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Hidden Christianity is a unique form of Christianity practiced on some of Japan's rural islands.
It gets its name from the fact that its earliest practitioners really were hiding their faith to avoid persecution.
'Hidden Christians were forced to hide all visible signs of their religion after the 1614 ban on Christianity and the expulsion of foreign missionaries. Households took turns hiding precious ritual objects and hosting the secret services that celebrated both faith and persistence,' according to The Associated Press.
Early practitioners disguised their Christian icons by making them appear to be Buddhist. Even after it was safe to be openly Christian again, many families continued these secretive practices, in part because they wanted to honor loved ones who'd risked their lives and in part because they didn't fit in with mainstream Christians, the AP reported.
'Many Hidden Christians rejected Catholicism after the persecution ended because Catholic priests refused to recognize them as real Christians unless they agreed to be rebaptized and abandon the Buddhist altars that their ancestors used,' the article said.
Hidden Christianity may soon be just a memory in Japan, since most current practitioners are quite old and most young people who grew up with the traditions have moved to cities and either don't want to or can't access the gatherings.
A controversial research project featuring faith leaders using psychedelic drugs was released last month after a long delay. The report showed that nearly all of the members of the clergy who took part described their experiences with psilocybin as some of the most spiritually significant of their lives, but health and religion experts don't agree on what type of additional research or policy proposals that finding should inspire, according to Religion News Service.
Which groups face the most discrimination in the United States? Pew Research Center recently asked Americans to weigh in, and the survey report offers an in-depth look at how people's political views influence their thoughts about discrimination.
My Deseret News colleague Krysyan Edler recently wrote about the inspiring life of Caroline Klein, the chief communications officer for Smith Entertainment Group. After being diagnosed with cancer in her thirties, Klein committed to living every day like there might not be a tomorrow. 'Nothing about my situation is sad to me, but I want to make sure that when I'm gone, I've left people with a lot of great memories that bring them joy, too,' she said.
After years of daydreaming about getting back into tennis, I finally started a summer tennis class on Saturday. It felt so good! Take this as the nudge you need to do that thing you've been dreaming about.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Descendant of Man Whose Case Enshrined Birthright Citizenship Reacts to New Ruling - First Of All with Victor Blackwell - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
One family's legacy is closely tied to the Supreme Court ruling that just gave President Trump more power by restricting lower courts. Victor speaks with Norman Wong, the great-grandson of the man whose case led to a landmark decision on birthright citizenship more than 100 years ago, Wong Kim Ark. Plus, Florida's tribes are speaking out against construction of a migrant detention facility dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz". The Chairman of the Miccosukee Tribe, Talbert Cypress, joins Victor to explain why they're so alarmed. Legal expert Monique Pressley shares her analysis on the Sean 'Diddy' Combs trial as it heads to a jury, along with her prediction on what the verdict may be. And Victor speaks with U.S. Army Veteran Sae Joon Park on his decision to leave the country as President Trump's immigration crackdown ramps up. Later, Victor speaks with a family demanding answers from police in Alabama after the death of 18-year-old Jabari Peoples. They want to see video showing the officer-involved shooting. Jabari's mother, sister and the family's attorney speak out. And in this week's 'Art is Life,' Victor shares how Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive is highlighting Black history with a showcase of African American quilts despite federal funding cuts.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Descendant of Man Whose Case Enshrined Birthright Citizenship Reacts to New Ruling - First Of All with Victor Blackwell - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
One family's legacy is closely tied to the Supreme Court ruling that just gave President Trump more power by restricting lower courts. Victor speaks with Norman Wong, the great-grandson of the man whose case led to a landmark decision on birthright citizenship more than 100 years ago, Wong Kim Ark. Plus, Florida's tribes are speaking out against construction of a migrant detention facility dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz". The Chairman of the Miccosukee Tribe, Talbert Cypress, joins Victor to explain why they're so alarmed. Legal expert Monique Pressley shares her analysis on the Sean 'Diddy' Combs trial as it heads to a jury, along with her prediction on what the verdict may be. And Victor speaks with U.S. Army Veteran Sae Joon Park on his decision to leave the country as President Trump's immigration crackdown ramps up. Later, Victor speaks with a family demanding answers from police in Alabama after the death of 18-year-old Jabari Peoples. They want to see video showing the officer-involved shooting. Jabari's mother, sister and the family's attorney speak out. And in this week's 'Art is Life,' Victor shares how Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive is highlighting Black history with a showcase of African American quilts despite federal funding cuts.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
JOHN YOO: Trump scores historic win as Supreme Court reins in lower courts' overreach
In Trump v. Casa, the United States Supreme Court finally put an end to the universal injunctions that trial judges had invented to block presidents from pushing their agendas nationwide. These orders, which courts applied with special vigor against President Donald Trump, "exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts," the 6-3 majority declared. Even though Casa resolved a question of technical legal procedure, it struck a balance between the Executive and Judicial branches of government that bore greater constitutional importance. Casa represented an undeniable victory for the Trump administration. In ruling against many of Trump's executive orders, district courts had used nationwide injunctions to halt such major initiatives as Trump's suspension of foreign aid, removal of illegal aliens from Venezuela, layoffs of federal bureaucrats, a bar on transgender soldiers, ending racially discriminatory programs in higher education, and cuts and freezes in federal spending. Trump is now free to enforce those policies in states where the courts have not enjoined them. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to resolve the conflict between the federal courts that have enjoined Trump's policies and those in other states that have not. But the legal, rather than the political, issue asks more narrowly how far a federal trial judge – of which there are almost 700 – may go in stopping government action he or she concludes violates the law. All agree that the trial court can grant relief to the parties in the courtroom. In Casa itself, federal judges in several cities ruled unconstitutional Trump's executive order denying citizenship to children born on American territory whose parents were in the U.S. illegally. But rather than simply order the recognition of the citizenship of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits, the courts forbade the Trump administration from pursuing the new policy throughout the entire nation. These lower court judges claimed a sweeping power that had never existed before in American history. Nationwide injunctions were virtually unknown until the 21st Century. As Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion made clear, the Framers would not have understood the Constitution's grant of power to the federal courts to resolve "cases or controversies" under federal law to include nationwide injunctions. As late as President Barack Obama's administration, it appears the lower courts had only issued about 19 such injunctions. In 2019, Attorney General William Barr stated that the federal courts had issued only 27 in the twentieth century. But by April 2024, 127 nationwide injunctions had been issued since 1963, with 96 packed into 2001 to 2023. There were six nationwide injunctions under the second Bush administration, 12 under Obama, a staggering 64 under the first Trump administration, and 14 from the first three years of Biden. As of the end of March, just 10 weeks into Trump's second term, federal judges had issued 17 such injunctions. The very fact that nationwide injunctions were little known to the lower federal courts until the present century undercuts the notion that they were understood by the Framers to fall with the "judicial power" of Article III of the Constitution. Nationwide injunctions violated not just the text, but also the structure of the Constitution. As the majority in Casa concluded, district judges were claiming a supremacy that ignored the equal role of the other branches of government in interpreting the Constitution. They threatened to transform the power of the federal courts to decide "cases or controversies" into a supervisory power to manage the workings of the government nationwide. In its deepest constitutional failure, the use of nationwide injunctions prevented the president from advancing his own reading of the Constitution. The Constitution does not establish any branch of the federal government as supreme in its interpretation. Instead, each of the branches must give meaning to our nation's highest law when they carry out their unique constitutional responsibilities. Judicial review, for example, emerges from the court's sole authority to decide "cases or controversies" arising under federal law. Congress interprets the Constitution when it decides whether to enact bills into law. Presidents give meaning to the Constitution when they veto legislation or "take care that the laws are faithfully executed." In the very first year of the Constitution, for example, President George Washington decided that the national bank was constitutional when he signed the legislation creating it. He interpreted the Constitution to vest the power over foreign policy in the executive branch when he decided to issue the Neutrality Proclamation. Later, President Andrew Jackson vetoed a re-authorization of the very same bank, even though Congress believed the law constitutional by passing it, two past presidents had signed earlier versions of the law, and the Supreme Court had upheld the law in McCullough v. Maryland. Jackson correctly argued that the Supreme Court could not force him to sign the law. He declared that "The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution." In fulfilling its constitutional functions, Jackson believed, each branch has an equal and independent duty to decide upon the constitutionality of legislation. "The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges," Jackson declared. And, he emphasized, "on that point the President is independent of both." Abraham Lincoln went furthest in claiming that presidents had the right to pursue their own interpretation of the Constitution at odds with the view of the Judiciary. In his famous debates with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln argued that the Dred Scott decision applied only to the parties in the case. The president had to obey the decision of the Court – which party won or lost the case. But the Court's logic and reasoning could not bind the president or Congress, which both had the right to interpret the Constitution too, or, ultimately, the people. "I do not deny that such decisions may be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit," Lincoln said in his first inaugural address. Decisions of the Court should receive "very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of government," he continued. But "if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court," Lincoln argued, "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." Casa honors Lincoln's understanding of the balance of power between the president and the Court. Under Lincoln's view, the president has the right to advance his reading of the Constitution even if a court has enjoined it elsewhere. While Lincoln conceded that he would obey judicial decisions, he argued that he could continue to enforce his policies against individuals outside the parties in Dred Scott. And Lincoln believed he had no constitutional obligation to apply Dred Scott to new cases. Judges would have to issue orders in each future case ordering him to return free blacks to slavery under Dred Scott. Casa rejects the notion that a single district court could force a president to obey its reading of the Constitution throughout the nation, even in cases not yet brought. A president may accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, but in order to reach the Court, the president will test his reading of the Constitution in other courts. Armed with a nationwide injunction, a single judge who first decides an important constitutional issue effectively short-circuits the ability of other courts to examine the issue. But a president should have the right to go to the federal courts in other states; should the courts disagree, the Supreme Court can resolve the conflict. Nationwide injunctions prevented presidents from advancing their reading of the Constitution in other courts and ultimately bringing their policies to the Supreme Court quickly. Trump now has the opportunity to test the constitutionality of birthright citizenship (where I happen to think he is wrong) before the Justices, as is his right.
