Mods: If you feel answers to this question are too anecdotal and that it should be in IMHO, please do move it.
My personal experience (primarily in the mid-Atlantic US) has been that devout Protestant Christians tend not to smoke (tobacco) as much as random people in the community. Specifically, the percentage of devout folk that smoke compared to the total amount of devout folk appears to be smaller than the percentage of smokers in the general public.. This observation applies both to conservative/Evangelical/Fundamentalist people as well as people in mainline/liberal traditions. I see no indication that devout smokers smoke fewer packs per day than non-believing smokers. At the church I currently attend (and have attended for years), the percentage of members and regular attendees who are smokers appears to be zero. If I saw someone smoking outside I would almost instantly guess that they were a visitor and would probably be right.
To what extent is this really true? Are devout Protestants less likely to start smoking or more likely to quit? Is there a causation either way, or is there a third factor that contributes both to smoking and devoutness? Anecdotes are welcome, as well as formal studies. Are there differences in different regions or countries? For example, do devout German Lutherans smoke less than the general German population (which also includes devout Catholics, devout “others”, and unbelievers). Is there really no difference in terms of addicted nicotine users, and the truth is that a proportional number of those devout “nonsmokers” are using snuff or nicotine patches?
To what extent is this true outside of the Protestant world? Do observant Jews smoke less than the general public or compared to non-observant (ethnic) Jews? If I take a trip to Moscow, will I find that people who devoutly go to Russian Orthodox services every week smoke less than people who stay home and advocate atheism on online message boards?
This question should not be taken to imply that a religion where few followers smoke is necessarily true or divinely sanctioned.
I think it is regional. More folks smoke in the South, including many conservative Christians.
I don’t have citations, but that has been my observation. However, I agree with you that less conservative Christians smoke up here in Michigan than non-religious folks.
Then again, I hardly know anyone who smokes at all.
According to my Psych of Religion textbook, yes. On average, religious people of all religions smoke less than people of no religion. ETA: Also drink alcohol and use recreational drugs.
…Although one does have to wonder if the Rastas were interviewed for those studies.
Interesting. Is there any viewpoint on causation? Does being religious motivate people to not smoke because they come to see smoking as not only unhealthy, but a sin? Does nicotine affect some part of the brain that is associated with religious belief, meaning that smoking a cigarette literally turns you off to the divine, and that if they quit, they would be more likely to believe that they feel God’s presence? Is there an underlying factor that influences both, such as caring parents (e.g. having caring parents contributes to children not smoking and also being devout)
I was under the impression that people with more education were less likely to smoke and also less likely to be religious, so it doesn’t seem as simple as it might.
I think there is a fair amount of peer pressure in churches here - there are so few devout smokers that a smoker at a church event will stick out like a sore thumb.
Are there any populations where devout people are more likely to smoke?
seems to be in direct contradiction to the rest of what you claim in your post. (And I am at a loss to see how this could be the result of a minor typo.)
ETA: OK, maybe I get it now. You are saying the devout who do smoke, smoke just as heavily as the non-devout, but there are fewer of them proportionately, and proportionately more devout complete non-smokers. Is that it?
I do believe that for alcohol, there are a fair number of believers who drink in moderation, in addition to many who abstain completely and a small number of serious problem drinkers.
I think it depends on whether their local religious figure makes it into an issue. In general I find that religious folks (folks in general) compensate for whatever vices they avoid by making up for it in the vices that are allowed. Cite: chain smoking at AA meetings, old church ladies playing bingo
I seem to have read many rabbinic discussions on smoking, and was ready to cite a few of them; luckily I remembered that “Jewish Rabbinic Law” and “citation” are words that can lead to infinities and Herculean resources to limit cognitive interaction.
Wiki’s “Smoking in Jewish Law” entry is a good starting off point. The banner insert is unnecessarily alarmist about the validity of the article.
This passage is generally taken to mean that anything that unnecessarily damages the body is immoral. (The word translated as “defile” is also translated as “destroy”.) We KNOW that smoking causes damage to the body; therefore, most Christians regard smoking as a sin.
The same reasoning goes for excessive drinking (or drinking any alcohol, for that matter), and some people also include any activity that is judged to carry an unnecessary amount of danger of injury or death.
I’ve certainly heard the argument in the past that it’s because religion (as in “religious ecstasy”) is their “drug” of choice, and that the brain chemicals released by such religious experiences serve in place of externally administered drugs for many believers.
Well, in the Orthodox Jewish community, it’s generally accepted that doing anything to hurt yourself is forbidden, and smoking definitely would fall into this category. Then again, what about all them high-sugar f& high-fat foods? I’m unaware of any rabbinical injunction against them so far (and of course, the cynics say there’ll never be a formal proclamation of sin against smoking, since some rabbis smoke). Interesting can o’ worms tho: if anything that hurts u is forbidden, does it cover negligence like failing to exercise? How about driving without a seatbelt? I would venture that the fatality rates for non-seatbelt-wearing drivers in accidents is even higher than those of smokers. Where do we draw the line?
This is what they told us at pretty much every church I’ve been a part of. Your body is a temple for the holy spirit, etc.
I once got reprimanded by a child for bringing out a lighter in a church to light a candle. I didn’t smoke, I just carried one because, well, portable fire is a useful thing. But they were quite judgmental about it, telling me that god says I shouldn’t smoke. Very strange!
Another data-twister on your observation might be a simple social pressure. When folks go to church, regardless of the denomination, there are generally multiple motivators; namely, genuine religious belief, sense of duty, and desire to be SEEN going to church. There are going to be sub-motiviations, as well (such as why one wants to be seen going to church).
To most people, smoking on the front steps of the church would just seem tacky. And they’re trying to demonstrate how “good” they are to the rest of the community. Not to mention the conundrum of figuring out where to throw the butt when they’re done… littering on God’s lawn probably carries a steep fine - maybe even a tithe!
Not just the damage, but also the addictiveness, is problematic for at least some Christians.
Still, I think it’s overstating things to say that most Christians regard smoking as a sin, unless you mean sin in a weak sense of “something it’s really preferable not to do.” Plenty of famous Christians have been smokers: see here.
Growing up in religious subcultures in several parts of the country, I can say that calling it a “sin” might be strong – no one thought anyone was going to hell for smoking – but it was frowned upon, because your body is a temple of God and so forth.
Likewise, in most Christian traditions, drinking alchohol is not a sin (we Episcopalians have a rep for being pretty free with our liquor in fact) but getting drunk is looked down upon (Ephesians 5:18 “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.”)
I bet you you could drown in Biblical, Talmudic, later Rabbinic, current medical-Torah discussions, and what have you cites and debates/case histories in pronouncements (Poskim) on precisely these topics.
I leave their unearthing to someone else, but actually wouldn’t mind reading them.
Whe only thing that springs to mind is the commandment (Mizvah) to build a parapet around your rooftop. From this is derived a number of requirements in Talmud and later, one of which, IIRC is to teach your child to swim, and, I believe nowadays, to justify teaching/learning martial arts. Wouldn’t be a leap, so to speak.
It’s nothing new or surprising to hear that religious people are less likely to smoke–self denial from sins of the flesh and all. But I detect a little bit of a countervailing trend insofar as anti-smoking campaigns are often seen as part of the “liberal nanny state”. Liberals are stereotyped as people who smoke marijuana and drink herbal tea while “traditional Americans” smoke tobacco and drink alcohol.
(And I am at a loss to see how this could be the result of a minor typo.)