I also realize that assimilation is a touchy subject, and at risk of offending more people, when me explain my thoughts on how assimilation is connected to religion. I believe that geography is the single most important factor in determining one’s religion. Assuming this is true (and I know many would disagree), and assuming assimilation does indeed occur, then it follows that religions will change as part of the assimilation process.

Of course, there will be a personal story behind every statistic; no one is denying that. For that matter, everyone should be free to choose their own religion, and being forced or pressured to assimilate only for the sake of conformity is horrible. But I’ll add that assimilation is not inherently good or bad: sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s bad, but overall, it’s going to be a bit of both.

Remember that Hemant doesn’t make all the posts here. He’s the Friendly Atheist, while I’m more of the “occasionally friendly atheist.” Trust me though, I try to be friendly!

Alright, hope I didn’t ramble to much. Cheers!

Of course, there is no data here showing how much of the (actually quadruple, in population terms) increase in “non-religiousness” is attributable to freshly-arrived immigrants versus long-term transplants versus U.S.-born Latinos. No data that indicates on what soil the conversion (if any) is taking place. No margin of error correcting for any of the factors which leave Latinos particularly underreported in the U.S. census (issues of language proficiency, legal status, doubts about the census’ efficacy or purpose, etc).

Perhaps most importantly, and as Hrag points out, there is no information which would indicate how the very personal process of moving away from religion is taking place. Having been raised in a (Protestant) Christian tradition, I certainly do not conceive of my own decision to identify as an atheist as “assimilation” and can scarcely believe that someone who doesn’t even know me could have the gall to blanketly describe it as such. Couching this trend in terms like assimilation and “enlightenment” cuts eerily close to the patronizing language the Spaniards used in their justification for dominating the belief systems my indigenous and African ancestors.

It’s tacky, off-the-mark, not especially “friendly,” and not appreciated.

Get with the times, that’s how, but then, of course, it wouldn’t be Catholicism; now would it?

It does seem that, although the percentage of Catholics has decreased, the actual number seems to have increased from 9.6 million to 18.3 million. Still, the percentages are encouraging and maybe this will make the Church realize that they can’t just act any which way they want and still expect their members to stay.

From the article:

“The biggest challenge the Catholic Church faces is the movement of Latino people not to other religions but rather to a secular way of life in which religion is no longer very important,” he [Allan Figueroa Deck, a Catholic priest and executive director of the Secretariat of Cultural Diversity in the Church, a program of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops] says. “We really need to ask ourselves why that is and what response the church can develop for this challenge.”

As usual, the Church is afraid of secularism. I don’t understand how the Church can expect to look like a better alternative to secular life given its various problems. Their “response” to secularism too often seems very negative and discriminatory.

All the best to those who have left the Church!
-Sharmin