African-American religion

[curiousGuy]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=270562

Taking off from this thread, I thought I'd post about something I've always wondered about regarding the African-American community.

Why do the overwhelming majority of them today follow Christianity even though it was the religion practised and handed down to them by the enslavers of their ancestors?

Was there deliberate suppression of any original African belief systems/religions that their ancestors must have surely brought to the Americas with them as slaves?

I'm neither American nor Christian, but this issue has always amazed me.

[Shagnasty]

Their ancestors were converted but, then again, that isn't much different than the way the white population became Christian as well. The traditional African religions were suppressed but not completely. In some areas like Southern Louisiana and the Caribbean, you can still find elements of traditional African religion mixed with Christianity. Traditional black churches, especially in the South usually have a unique character to them and in the style of worship that is ultimately influenced by their ancestry.

A big reason that American blacks don't practice African religions is that their ancestors came from different tribes and were mixed. There wasn't one that could be chosen as the religion of record. Aside from the intentional conversion to Christianity, the vast majority of slaves had no first-hand knowledge of Africa and the religions there because they were born in America.

[Electric Warrior]

Because during the time of slavery, Christianity as practiced by black slaves was a major source of hope. The story of Christ resonates with anyone who feels that their suffering on Earth will ultimately be paid off when they are rewarded in Heaven. Slaves were sometimes forced to attend church sermons with the families that owned them, and in those sermons they would be told that good slaves are obedient and so on and so forth. Either that or they would not be allowed in white churches.

However slaves had their own congregations and practiced a form of Christianity that belonged to their culture. As Shagnasty said there were a lot of elements of various African religions as well as emphasis on the idea that there was freedom for them in Heaven, and that God was on their side.

My guess as to why black slaves embraced the religion of the people who enslaved them is because, well, Africa's a big continent. These people were coming from vastly different nations and ethnic groups. But because all of them were united under Christianity they had something in common from which to form a community. Aaand, I just realized that's exactly what Shagnasty's post said, so - I second Shagnasty.

[thelurkinghorror]

I speak English even though it was the religion practised and handed down to me by the murderers of my ancestors? And I wasn't raised to worship Lugh, Jupiter, or Wotan.

Some black folks do leave Christianity. Some become Muslim (both the normal kind and NoI crazy kind), a religion their ancestors were unlikely to practice. Otherwise, their ancestors are dead, their ancestor's slavers are dead, so the closest link is immediate family, who happen to have the same religion as you.

[Electric Warrior]

I speak English even though it was the religion practised and handed down to me by the murderers of my ancestors? And I wasn't raised to worship Lugh, Jupiter, or Wotan.

Some black folks do leave Christianity. Some become Muslim (both the normal kind and NoI crazy kind), a religion their ancestors were unlikely to practice. Otherwise, their ancestors are dead, their ancestor's slavers are dead, so the closest link is immediate family, who happen to have the same religion as you.

I didn't know speaking English was a religion. ;)

I am not sure why you seem to think that practicing Islam is unusual for people of African descent, when a large portion of Africa is Muslim, and has been since long before North America was set foot on by a single person of European descent, much less African descent.

[Dr. Drake]

I speak English even though it was the religion practised and handed down to me by the murderers of my ancestors? And I wasn't raised to worship Lugh, Jupiter, or Wotan.

Some black folks do leave Christianity. Some become Muslim (both the normal kind and NoI crazy kind), a religion their ancestors were unlikely to practice. Otherwise, their ancestors are dead, their ancestor's slavers are dead, so the closest link is immediate family, who happen to have the same religion as you.Bolding mine. You do realize that the Muslim presence in West Africa predates American slavery, don't you? Yes, Islam has expanded at the expense of indigenous religions, but it's not inconceivable that enslaved Africans were Muslim at the time.

[panache45]

Because during the time of slavery, Christianity as practiced by black slaves was a major source of hope. The story of Christ resonates with anyone who feels that their suffering on Earth will ultimately be paid off when they are rewarded in Heaven.
This. The life of a slave was brutal and dehumanizing. The only hope they could cling to was the promise of a better existence in their next life. Christianity gave them that hope. This is what many "negro spirituals" are about. And like most religions, once Christianity was embraced by a few generations, it was passed on, often uncritically.

[thelurkinghorror]

Bolding mine. You do realize that the Muslim presence in West Africa predates American slavery, don't you? Yes, Islam has expanded at the expense of indigenous religions, but it's not inconceivable that enslaved Africans were Muslim at the time.

Nation of Islam and such claim that it is their ancestral religion. I am going to guess that the proportion of Sub-Saharan captured slaves who were Muslim was much, much, much smaller than those practicing various indigenous religions.

[Shodan]

Nation of Islam and such claim that it is their ancestral religion. I am going to guess that the proportion of Sub-Saharan captured slaves who were Muslim was much, much, much smaller than those practicing various indigenous religions.Actually a good many of the people who kidnapped native Africans were Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade). So if you want to argue that a slave population shouldn't adopt the religion of whoever enslaved them, American blacks shouldn't be Muslim either.

Another factor might be that the rise of the abolition movement in the US coincided with and was largely driven by the Great Awakening (http://www.teachushistory.org/second-great-awakening-age-reform) of Christianity in America. Another might be the leading role played by the Christian Church in the civil rights movement of the sixties(even apart from MLK - cite (http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/iml04.soc.ush.civil.acmhr/)).

Regards,
Shodan

[Sampiro]

Actually a good many of the people who kidnapped native Africans were Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade). So if you want to argue that a slave population shouldn't adopt the religion of whoever enslaved them, American blacks shouldn't be Muslim either.

Most African-Americans are probably descendants of African Muslims, African pantheists, Euro-American Christians, and perhaps some wildcards (Native Americans being probably the biggest) so their ancestral religion is all over the map. As with the Brer Rabbit tales and the similarities in some West African choirs and black Baptist choirs who until the 20th century had no contact with each other it's to me far more amazing how much of their ancestral cultures (plural) survived than how much was destroyed.

As with Christianity in Europe and the U.S., there was little uniform about how Islam was practiced in Africa; what this area considers extremely important could be a big "Meh" to the village down the road a few miles just as how the Irish Catholics seemingly practice a completely different religion from Scottish Presbyterians. In all places- Africa and Europe and everywhere else- there was a lot of bleedthrough from what came before as well (palimpsest is the technical term) which led to ancient more pagan rituals still being preserved in various forms (not unlike the veneration of Mary in places that had mother goddesses or the fact every solstice/equinox has a Christian holiday on top of it). This happened in America as well.

Because church was the place where African-Americans could meet in large numbers and stand the least chance of being bothered by whites in the Jim Crow south it also took on major social and political empowerment attributes in the black community. I think this too would explain why it continues to be such a major force.

[Electric Warrior]

I'll add to what I said that if you look at the story of Christ, this is the story of someone from a very poor background, where he and other Jews were treated badly by the people in power. The early Christians also had to go underground with their beliefs. There is an idea of rebellion and the victory of the underdog in the story of the New Testament, and I think this story could be very inspirational if you were part of a group of people who were enslaved and treated like animals, because the eventual victory goes to the faithful.

This. The life of a slave was brutal and dehumanizing. The only hope they could cling to was the promise of a better existence in their next life. Christianity gave them that hope. This is what many "negro spirituals" are about. And like most religions, once Christianity was embraced by a few generations, it was passed on, often uncritically.

I'm glad you mentioned spirituals, because singing spiritual songs helped me understand how powerful and vital belief was and has been to African-Americans. I also recall a couple of songs that suggested that oppressors and cruel masters were bound for Hell, which has a satisfying sense of justice.

[Nzinga, Seated]

Some become Muslim (both the normal kind and NoI crazy kind),

If you'll be so kind as to tell me what makes the "normal" kind of Islam less crazy than the NOI?

If I had magic powers, black folks in this country would not be under the spell of Christianity like so many of them are. NOI may not be much better, but at least they (along with the Nation of Gods and Earths, another black 'religion') taught me to stop bowing down to a white God and Jesus and to find 'god' in myself. So there's that to be said for them.

[Tamerlane]

If you'll be so kind as to tell me what makes the "normal" kind of Islam less crazy than the NOI?

Depends what you mean by NOI. The original NOI ( which no longer uses that name ) has largely embraced mainstream Sunni Islam and isn't substantially different.

The splinter group that calls itself NOI today ( i.e. Farrakhan et al ) rejects mainstream modern Islam's racial universalism, which IMHO puts them a bit farther out there.

It is also arguably heretical, since among other things it embraces a prophet post-Muhammed in Wallace Fard, which means it can be plausibly argued to be a seperate Muslim-origined religion rather like the Druze or Baha'i. Which doesn't make them "crazier" per se, but is a dividing line definitionally between them and the mainline faith.

ETA: Excuse me, I meant Fard, not Elijah Muhammed.

[Sampiro]

If you'll be so kind as to tell me what makes the "normal" kind of Islam less crazy than the NOI?

If I had magic powers, black folks in this country would not be under the spell of Christianity like so many of them are. NOI may not be much better, but at least they (along with the Nation of Gods and Earths, another black 'religion') taught me to stop bowing down to a white God and Jesus and to find 'god' in myself. So there's that to be said for them.

Butterfly McQueen made similar statements. She was best known as Prissy in Gone With the Wind but was pretty much nothing like the simple silly stupid characters she often played other than she had a high voice. She was a very outspoken atheist in real life.

Butterfly McQueen (1911-1995)
As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion.

When she died she left a chunk of her considerable estate to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist think tank.

[ITR champion]

Taking off from this thread, I thought I'd post about something I've always wondered about regarding the African-American community.

Why do the overwhelming majority of them today follow Christianity even though it was the religion practised and handed down to them by the enslavers of their ancestors?
Presumably because a typically African American looks looks at the life and teaching of Jesus Christ and decides that it is worth devoting his or her life to following Jesus. In other words, African Americans become Christians for the same reason that Christians of all races become Christians.

A side note not directed at you or anyone else in this thread, but I can't help being struck by the way that some people can pride themselves on not being racist and yet automatically assume that black people never think about their religious life but instead just blindly follow tradition. Such an attitude is as much racist as anything else.

[thelurkinghorror]

If you'll be so kind as to tell me what makes the "normal" kind of Islam less crazy than the NOI?

If I had magic powers, black folks in this country would not be under the spell of Christianity like so many of them are. NOI may not be much better, but at least they (along with the Nation of Gods and Earths, another black 'religion') taught me to stop bowing down to a white God and Jesus and to find 'god' in myself. So there's that to be said for them.

Islam is similar to the Bible, there are some weird things in it that are unprovable, but the historic record corresponds with some things. I don't know if they found sacred scrolls in the ancient city of Detroit or what, but the whole Yakub doctrine is a bit off. And just because a religion has some crazy beliefs doesn't make it all off, but rather what they choose to do in the present day. Some branches are better than others.

I am glad that they helped you find what you're looking for though.

A side note not directed at you or anyone else in this thread, but I can't help being struck by the way that some people can pride themselves on not being racist and yet automatically assume that black people never think about their religious life but instead just blindly follow tradition. Such an attitude is as much racist as anything else.

Black and white and everyone else typically rarely think about their religious life but instead just blindly follow tradition. People switching religions from what their parents practice is actually pretty rare. This is not a statement against religion, I think it goes the same for the nonreligious. There are environmental and possible genetic links to preferring the same things as your parents.

[JThunder]

Black and white and everyone else typically rarely think about their religious life but instead just blindly follow tradition. People switching religions from what their parents practice is actually pretty rare.That's a standard anti-religious diatribe around these parts. It's also abundantly false.

In my own high school class, for example, at least 10% of the graduates (probably more like 20%) switched from the religions of their birth to something else. And in my own church, about half of the attendees came from other religions. Based on my own casual interactions with people, I routinely encounter folks whose religious beliefs do not match what their parents taught them.

Do most people grow up with the same old beliefs that their parents taught them? Possibly so, in the same way that many atheists put only cursory thought into the reasons for their atheism. It is not true that changes in religious beliefs are "pretty rare," though. They are quite common. When one starts with the conviction (frequently expressed on the SDMB) that the religious are just unthinking sheep, then they naturally tend to assume that such conversions must be rare indeed.

[Electric Warrior]

That's a standard anti-religious diatribe around these parts. It's also abundantly false.

In my own high school class, for example, at least 10% of the graduates (probably more like 20%) switched from the religions of their birth to something else. And in my own church, about half of the attendees came from other religions. Based on my own casual interactions with people, I routinely encounter folks whose religious beliefs do not match what their parents taught them.

It's "abundantly false" because you have anecdotes to the contrary? I'd like to believe it false myself (I want to think that people are capable of thinking for themselves), but I want some data other than your perception of people you know, which is subject to confirmation bias.

Apologies for the hijack.

[thelurkinghorror]

That's a standard anti-religious diatribe around these parts. It's also abundantly false.

In my own high school class, for example, at least 10% of the graduates (probably more like 20%) switched from the religions of their birth to something else. And in my own church, about half of the attendees came from other religions. Based on my own casual interactions with people, I routinely encounter folks whose religious beliefs do not match what their parents taught them.

Do most people grow up with the same old beliefs that their parents taught them? Possibly so, in the same way that many atheists put only cursory thought into the reasons for their atheism. It is not true that changes in religious beliefs are "pretty rare," though. They are quite common. When one starts with the conviction (frequently expressed on the SDMB) that the religious are just unthinking sheep, then they naturally tend to assume that such conversions must be rare indeed.

You anecdote is not data indeed. Additionally, I would consider 10% to be a rather low number; that means 90% are accepting of this. I am not speaking from "anti-religious diatribe" but scientifically, preferences are passed down.

I imagine that these numbers are for North America and Western Europe, elsewhere the "apostasy" rate probably is much lower.

As far as data, here (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=272042). It's high for most religions, except perhaps Presbyterian and UMC. Given, I would guess that for religions like Catholicism and Judaism, being an adherent does not mean that you necessarily follow all the doctrine. Those religions are tied up into ethnic and cultural identity more than the others.

[JThunder]

It's "abundantly false" because you have anecdotes to the contrary?
And how much hard data did thelurkinghorror present for his claim that conversions are rare? Oh, that's right. None.

That's par for the course around here, though. Skeptics can present all sorts of damning claims against religion without any substantiation, but if somebody takes issue with those claims, they suddenly demand hard facts.

FTR, I won't claim to have any indisputable statistical evidence regarding the number of people who do adopt religious beliefs that differ from those of their parents. Frankly, I seriously doubt that you can find any such data. I can say that I've encountered plenty of people who did abandon the beliefs they were taught, enough to realize that such conversions are hardly "rare."

You anecdote is not data indeed. Additionally, I would consider 10% to be a rather low number; that means 90% are accepting of this. I am not speaking from "anti-religious diatribe" but scientifically, preferences are passed down.You claim to speak "scientifically," but you haven't provided any data to this effect. Indeed, you had the perfect opportunity to do so in your response to me, but you failed to do so. (I'll address your singular cite in a subsequent posting.)

I do agree that 10% is a relatively low number. In fact, if you had read my post carefully, you would have known that I specifically acknowledged that most people probably do grow up with the same beliefs that their parents taught. It is not so low as to warrant being "rare" though; after all, if 10% of all Americans had AIDS, would you logically conclude that AIDS is a "rare" disease? I would hope not!

"But it's still a low number!" you'd doubtlessly protest -- and again, I agree with that. Again, I acknowledged that the number of religious conversions is probably low. The point is that these conversions are not rare, as you insist they must surely be.

(Additionally, I'd like to point out that 10% only covers the number of conversions that I'm aware of in my high school graduating class. I think it's fair to say that the actual number is higher than that -- and that would be utterly consistent with my experiences in other social milieus as well.)

"But your experiences are still anecdotal!" you're probably going to protest. "You haven't provided any statistically valid data to back it up!" I agree, but by the same token, neither have you --- even though you had the perfect opportunity to do so. Even though you insisted that your claim was (ahem) "scientific." You can't have it both ways, fella, which is why I don't doubt that your claim is borne out of anti-religious condescension and prejudice rather than any scientific methodology.

[JThunder]

As far as data, here (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=272042). It's high for most religions, except perhaps Presbyterian and UMC.First of all, let's remember which claim we're addressing. We are talking about your adamant claim that religious conversions are rare. We are not talking about whether the majority of believers experience conversions or not. We are not talking about whether the percentage of conversions exceeds 50%, or even 25%. Rather, we are addressing your specific claim that "People switching religions from what their parents practice is actually pretty rare" (emphasis added). It isn't, and your own cite demonstrates this.

First, let's look at your cite. No offense, but it's pretty obvious that you didn't take a good close look at those numbers. Your own cite says that 71.8% of Southern Baptists, for example, remain within that denomination. This means that nearly 29.2% of them decide to adopt different religious beliefs. 29.2% is admittedly less than a 50% majority, but it's hardly "rare."

You get comparable results for other denominations. For example, by your own statistics, the United Methodists and the Presbyterians change their beliefs with greater frequency. Heck, among interdenominational Christians, the actual conversion rate is 52.9%! In fact, the lowest conversion rate occurred among Mormons, and even then, fully 9.2% of them abandoned the teachings of their parents -- a relatively small number, but far from rare!

Moreover, this study would still underestimate the frequency with which people adopt beliefs that differ from the ones with which they grew up. There are multiple varieties of Presbyterianism, for example, yet this study treats them as a monolithic block. Similarly, there are a great many interdenominational churches with varied beliefs, yet this study fails to account for people switching from one church to another. Heck, it doesn't even account for people who choose to remain within a given denomination, yet whose beliefs have nevertheless changed.

As I said, I doubt that you can find any strictly scientific data for the frequency with which people change their beliefs. One thing is for sure though -- the data which you cited doesn't prove your point. Quite the contrary; it demonstrates that these conversions are NOT rare -- and that's even without accounting for the fact that it doubtlessly undermeasures the number of these conversions.

[Nzinga, Seated]

Islam is similar to the Bible, there are some weird things in it that are unprovable, but the historic record corresponds with some things. I don't know if they found sacred scrolls in the ancient city of Detroit or what, but the whole Yakub doctrine is a bit off. And just because a religion has some crazy beliefs doesn't make it all off, but rather what they choose to do in the present day. Some branches are better than others.

I am glad that they helped you find what you're looking for though.



Eh. If it weren't them, it would have been someone else. I had quite a few people battling to free me from my backward nonsense (thanks dad and hubby).

I'm afraid I'm not impressed with your reason for finding traditional Islam less crazy than the Nation of Islam. They both seem to me to be religions based on other religions but totally switched up and flipped. They both just made up tons of shit and it doesn't matter to me that traditional Islam shit is older than NOI bullshit. "The historic record corresponds" with some things is just vague smoke that I can't grasp. The fact that "Islam is closer to the Bible" doesn't make it less crazy to me either. Maybe makes it more crazy.

For instance, you mention Yakub. As nutty as that story is (and it's chock full o' nuts) I admired that they made at least some effort to pretend they give a damn about science*. Him grafting white folks over hundreds of years sounds less crazy to me than God making the Universe in 6 days, or Adam from a clump of clay or Eve from Adam's rib or talking snakes or whatever else.

So yeah, I just think they are equally crazy. Difference is I can at least point to one thing the NOI did for me, which pushes me to give them a tiny amount of support when they are bashed harder than Islam (no problem with them being bashed in general. That's cool with me.)

To Tamerlane: I mean the Farrakhan NOI.

ETA: I cannot stress enough that the story is obviously nonsense with zero basis in anything close to science. But still...the fact that they even attempt to pretend to dabble in science makes them a smidge less crazy than other religions, IMO.
To Sampiro: That is interesting! I never knew that.

[thelurkinghorror]

You're quibbling over one word. Sorry I said rare, would you prefer uncommon? That more often then not, people stick with their religious upbringing? Is the fact that you think skeptics and perhaps atheists "present all sorts of damning claims" (I'm not one, by the way) really working you up that much?

As far as cites, I will point out wikipedia's page on religiosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity#Genes_and_environment), and you can look at the papers offered or disregard it. It looks like there is some environmental and some genetic influence, although Koenig et al seem to go towards the former as their research progresses. Otherwise, if you want to quibble over what constitutes a significant amount. That cite is not intended to be definitive. You can definitely not find "indisputable" statistical data because such a thing does not by definition exist.

Now, I believe this was about religion amongst African Americans?

[thelurkinghorror]

Eh. If it weren't them, it would have been someone else. I had quite a few people battling to free me from my backward nonsense (thanks dad and hubby).

I'm afraid I'm not impressed with your reason for finding traditional Islam less crazy than the Nation of Islam. They both seem to me to be religions based on other religions but totally switched up and flipped. They both just made up tons of shit and it doesn't matter to me that traditional Islam shit is older than NOI bullshit. "The historic record corresponds" with some things is just vague smoke that I can't grasp. The fact that "Islam is closer to the Bible" doesn't make it less crazy to me either. Maybe makes it more crazy.

For instance, you mention Yakub. As nutty as that story is (and it's chock full o' nuts) I admired that they made at least some effort to pretend they give a damn about science*. Him grafting white folks over hundreds of years sounds less crazy to me than God making the Universe in 6 days, or Adam from a clump of clay or Eve from Adam's rib or talking snakes or whatever else.

So yeah, I just think they are equally crazy. Difference is I can at least point to one thing the NOI did for me, which pushes me to give them a tiny amount of support when they are bashed harder than Islam (no problem with them being bashed in general. That's cool with me.)

To Tamerlane: I mean the Farrakhan NOI.

ETA: I cannot stress enough that the story is obviously nonsense with zero basis in anything close to science. But still...the fact that they even attempt to pretend to dabble in science makes them a smidge less crazy than other religions, IMO.
To Sampiro: That is interesting! I never knew that.

Yeah, perhaps there was some guy in 70 AD who thought that that Christianity thing was crazy bullshit, and thought that Zoroastrianism made more sense because it was given by the ancients. I admit that Joseph Smith seeing the scripture through a hat (yes, I learned about Mormonism from South Park) seems weirder than non-fundamentalist Christian scripture, because I see it as intended to be more mythical. Maybe this isn't the most consistent position and I should look into it. Otherwise, I give shorter shift to a religion if it's more "culty" and especially if it's a bit negative. Farrakhan is still a scumbag, as is Miscavige, and it makes their followers seem less credible to follow them.

[ITR champion]

Now, I believe this was about religion amongst African Americans?
Well, yes, it was. And here's what you said:
Black and white and everyone else typically rarely think about their religious life but instead just blindly follow tradition. People switching religions from what their parents practice is actually pretty rare.
So what I (and presumably JThunder as well) am wondering about is how exactly you know that most folks "rarely think about their religious life". There's only one person on the planet whose thoughts you know entirely, and that's yourself. Perhaps you could accurately testify that you've rarely thought about your own religious life, but how could you know enough to make that statement for anyone else, much less for humanity at large? Isn't mind-reading one of those things that the scientifically-oriented generally don't believe in?

(Any discussion about how often people switch religions is really off the topic. There's no justification for saying that someone who practices his or her parents' religion has never thought about religion.)

[JThunder]

You're quibbling over one word. Sorry I said rare, would you prefer uncommon?
Fella, you're the one who used that word, treating it as though it meant "not in the majority." I'm pointing out that this is NOT what that word means. That's common sense, not "quibbling."

Moreover, "uncommon" is hardly appropriate either. As I already pointed out, your own statistics show that conversions among Protestant denominations occur anywhere from about 20% to 50% -- probably higher, for reasons that I already emphasized. Even in the Mormon church (which was incorrectly identified as Protetant), the figures cited were nearly 10%. Under no circumstances would such figures be considered "uncommon" either.

Fella, you don't get to make a ridiculously exaggerated claim and then accuse your critics of "quibbling" when its inaccuracy is pointed out -- ESPECIALLY since you insisted that your claim was (ahem) "scientific."

Moreover, as ITR Champion correctly stated, even if we were to grant your insistent claim that changes of religious belief are "rare," that still doesn't justify the claim "rarely think about their religious life but instead just blindly follow tradition." In the absence of some world-spanning brain-reading instrument, how can you possibly defend this claim? (Before you ask, remember that just a few posts ago, you used the phrase "Your anecdote is not data indeed." Remember that, then measure your words carefully.)

[JThunder]

As far as cites, I will point out wikipedia's page on religiosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity#Genes_and_environment), and you can look at the papers offered or disregard it. It looks like there is some environmental and some genetic influence, although Koenig et al seem to go towards the former as their research progresses.
Again, irrelevant. We can fully acknowledge the possibility of an environmental or genetic influence. That does absolutely nothing to justify your claim that changes in religious belief are rare (or even "uncommon"). Nor does it justify your claim that people rarely consider their own religious beliefs. You're shifting the goalposts and you know it.

[thelurkinghorror]

Fella, you're the one who used that word, treating it as though it meant "not in the majority." I'm pointing out that this is NOT what that word means. That's common sense, not "quibbling."

... grant your insistent claim that changes of religious belief are "rare,"
Insistent means dwelling upon, persistent, etc. I said it once and acknowledged it was hyperbole. You seem content to make a big deal about one word. Looks like the insistent one is you.

that still doesn't justify the claim "rarely think about their religious life but instead just blindly follow tradition." It was a restructured paraphrase. I was using the word given, and wasn't literally serious here.

In the absence of some world-spanning brain-reading instrument, how can you possibly defend this claim? (Before you ask, remember that just a few posts ago, you used the phrase "Your anecdote is not data indeed." Remember that, then measure your words carefully.)
You need a magical device in order to evaluate opinions? I find self-report surveys are much more accessible. Again, see above. You seem to think that I'm religion-bashing or something. There's plenty of that elsewhere here, I won't get into that.

Again, irrelevant. We can fully acknowledge the possibility of an environmental or genetic influence. That does absolutely nothing to justify your claim that changes in religious belief are rare (or even "uncommon"). Nor does it justify your claim that people rarely consider their own religious beliefs. You're shifting the goalposts and you know it.
Heritable behaviors put a strong hurdle in front of someone to change their opinion. It means that more often than not they will take after their genes/upbringing and are less likely to change. Again, you can worry about what "rare" means, or you can see that there's a tendency, even if my one word was misused.

[JThunder]

Insistent means dwelling upon, persistent, etc. I said it once and acknowledged it was hyperbole. You seem content to make a big deal about one word. Looks like the insistent one is you.
That is also untrue. Here is your actual response. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12690520&postcount=19) While your subsequent posting did not specifically contain the word "rare," you continued to insist on the correctness of your claim. In fact, you went far beyond that. You dismissed my objections are being "anecdotal" and declared that your own claim was established (ahem) "scientifically." Not once, in your entire response, did you say that you were speaking hyperbolically.

But even if you had said so, it's still hugely inaccurate to say that a 30% conversion rate (for example) means that conversions are "rare" or even "uncommon." That's not hyperbole, that's gross exaggeration. So much for speaking scientifically, eh?

Face it, fella. You were caught making a gross and unsubstantiated exaggeration. When called on this matter, you introduced some statistics that defend a far weaker claim -- and when that failed, you pulled up some irrelevant claims about possible environmental and genetic component. I can be patient when it comes to mere error, but in this case, you have no leg to stand on and you know it.

[thelurkinghorror]

You've obviously made up your mind, fella, and are not going to believe that my argument is the same, fella, and has been since before you made it into an argument, fella. Enjoy your ire, I just can't care.

Fella.

[Thudlow Boink]

Other points worth noting:

The Exodus story—the story of the deliverance of the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt—had a natural appeal to the African-American slaves.

Much of the Abolitionist movement was explicitly Christian. Christianity wasn't just associated with slaveowners.


If the OP (or anyone else) really wants to investigate the issue in depth, there are resources out there. I did a little googling, and here are just the first few articles that turned up:
http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twelve.html
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/aareligion.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2narr2.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536600634.html

[JThunder]

You've obviously made up your mind, fella, and are not going to believe that my argument is the same, fella, and has been since before you made it into an argument, fella. Enjoy your ire, I just can't care.

Fella.
And that is where you are wrong. I fully understand that you have refused to back down from your position, even when your own statistics prove you wrong. You may shift strategies in defending that position, ultimately offering irrelevant citations, but your contention remains the same. In fact, if you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that this was one of my primary objections to your line of argumentation. (Does the word "insist" ring a bell, for example?)

Look, you found yourself defending a foolish and unsubstantiated position. I'm sure that most of us are guilty of that now and then. A wise man is willing to acknowledge error though, whereas a foolish man defends the indefensible to the death.

[Sampiro]

I hadn't really thought about it before, but African-Americans are almost an allegory to the original spread of Christianity:

- Appeal to the dispossessed by promises of divine justice
- Give a sense of community to those who have little or none
- Appeal to a mostly illiterate base (the enslaved and the generation after slavery) with stories tailored to their own desires
- Music (may sound trivial but I've always thought it was a major factor in the appeal of Christianity)
- A sense of mysticism and empowerment
- Tangible proof of what powerless people can accomplish (e.g. lovely churches in poor areas, ministers who are courted by people in the white community, etc.)

All of these have parallels to the spread of Christianity in the first and second century.