what is the role of education in religion

Religion in Public Schools, Explained

• Share article

Under the U.S. Constitution, public schools cannot promote or advance any particular religion, and they must respect the individual religious beliefs of students and staff.

What that looks like in practice raises complex questions and spirited debate about topics like prayer, and freedom of speech—and how those dovetail with larger issues of curriculum and school climate.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about religion in school, the separation of church and state, and school prayer.

Is prayer allowed in schools?

Yes. Students of all religious backgrounds can pray at school when not engaged in school activities or instruction, and teachers and administrators can neither sanction nor discourage such prayers.

Students’ rights to pray at school are protected by both the Constitution and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which requires districts to certify in writing that they have “no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools” as a condition of receiving federal funds.

Schools cannot coerce students to pray , the U.S. Department of Education said in guidance on the matter last updated in May 2023. “Nothing in the First Amendment, however, converts the public schools into religion-free zones, or requires students, teachers, or other school officials to leave their private religious expression behind at the schoolhouse door,” that guidance said.

Students of all faiths have the right to organize prayers on campus, the federal guidance says, as long as those activities don’t disrupt school activities. Any limitations schools set must be applied consistently to religious and nonreligious speech, and they must not favor a particular religion.

What has the U.S. Supreme Court said about prayer in schools?

In the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a New York school could not require daily recitations of a prayer composed by the state’s Board of Regents.

In the 1963 case Abington School District v. Schempp , the court struck down a Pennsylvania state law that required school-led recitations of Bible verses and the Lord’s Prayer. That case involved a Unitarian family who who did not believe in the Holy Trinity or in an anthropomorphic God as conveyed in the King James Bible, Education Week wrote in a 2011 story. Their son protested mandated school prayers by leaving an open Quran on his desk. The court overturned the state law even after Pennsylvania lawmakers amended it to allow students to opt out.

“While the Free Exercise Clause [of the First Amendment] clearly prohibits the use of state action to deny the rights of free exercise to anyone, it has never meant that a majority could use the machinery of the State to practice its beliefs,” the court’s opinion said.

Schools may also run afoul of the Constitution if they sanction prayers at student events. In a 1992 decision in Lee v. Weisman , the court held that Rabbi-led prayers at a public school graduation ceremony amounted to unconstitutional state-sponsored religion. In a 2000 decision in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe , the court ruled that a school’s practice of having a student lead prayers over a public address system before high school football games could be considered public speech and, therefore, a violation of the First Amendment.

The composition of the Supreme Court has changed notably since then, and some critics of those decisions have suggested conservative justices now may rule differently on such issues.

Can teachers pray at school?

Yes, in some cases.

Like students, teachers can pray independently and voluntarily during non-instructional hours, but they may not require students to pray as part of class or school-sponsored extracurricular activities.

But determining the line between private religious expression and sanctioned religious activities can be tricky.

The 2022 Supreme Court case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District centered on Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach who sued the Bremerton, Wash., school district after administrators told him to discontinue his practice of praying on the 50-yard line immediately following each game after students, players, and even coaches began to join him.

Concerned about the safety of crowds, that the highly visible practice would appear to be school-sponsored, and that students would feel a sense of implicit coercion, the school board asked Kennedy to move his prayers to an alternate location. When the coach continued his prayers on the field, the school board placed him on administrative leave and declined to renew his contract.

In a landmark decision, the high court sided with the coach, ruling that his prayers were private speech protected by the First Amendment and that the Constitution neither requires nor permits schools to suppress such religious expression by employees to avoid the appearance of sanctioned religious practices.

The decision by the court’s conservative majority effectively overruled the long-held view that public policies and practices violated the establishment clause if they aren’t primarily secular in purpose, if they promote or inhibit religion, and if they represent an “excessive entanglement” between church and state.

Critics of the Kennedy decision have argued that it created a confusing legal landscape for school districts. The opinion also alarmed some representatives of religions that are a minority in the United States, like Islam.

Can schools require students with religious objections to say the Pledge of Allegiance?

No. In the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a school would violate the free speech rights of a student who was a Jehovah’s Witness if it forced him to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

“To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds,” the opinion said.

Students who do not wish to say the pledge, for religious or ideological reasons, stand silently and abstain.

Are students allowed to form religious clubs and organizations at school?

Yes. Students may form religious groups under the same school rules that govern non-religious student organizations, the 2023 federal guidance says.

Schools must give student religious clubs and organizations the same access to facilities and rights to publicize their activities that they give nonreligious groups.

Can schools require students to read the Bible and other religious texts?

Yes, but only for academic purposes. Courts have held that, while academic lessons on the Bible and other religious texts, like the Quran, are permissible, devotional readings in public schools violate the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

In June 2024, Oklahoma state Superintendent Ryan Walters directed schools to put a Bible in every classroom and to require teachers incorporate the Bible into classes for 5th through 12th grades .

Walters has predicted success with former President Donald Trump’s conservative nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court if the state faces a legal challenge over the directive.

Supporters of calls to incorporate scripture into classwork argue students need a basic level of biblical literacy to understand common references in literature, stories depicted in significant works of art, and the perspectives and beliefs of historical figures. But critics say directives like Walters’ are an effort to insert Christianity into public life as the country becomes more religiously diverse. Walters’ new rule requires only the Bible, not the primary text for any other religion.

Efforts to teach about the Bible can be fraught with challenges, Mark A. Chancey, a professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University, told Education Week . Teachers must navigate differing views, even among Christian students, about how the text should be interpreted and applied, he said. Christian sects vary on which translation of scripture is most reliable and which books should be included, and teachers may not recognize the personal biases they carry about reading scripture.

What protections should schools provide Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, and Sikh students?

Federal civil rights officials expect schools to protect students of all religious backgrounds from discrimination or harassment based on their faith.

Under the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, schools must protect students who are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, or of any other faith associated with a specific nationality or ethnic identity from bullying and harassment. Title VI protects people from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. According to 2023 federal guidance , Title VI violations include harassment or bullying that is:

• is based on racial or ethnic stereotypes
• relates to skin color, physical features, or dress that “reflects both ethnic and religious traditions,” or
• targets a foreign accent or name, including names “commonly associated with particular shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics”

Can churches and religious groups run charter schools?

No. But supporters of a proposed Catholic-run charter school in Oklahoma continue to press the issue in court.

The state’s Supreme Court ruled in June that plans for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would receive public funds and be operated by two Roman Catholic dioceses, violated the Oklahoma and U.S. constitutions. The court held that the charter school would be considered “a state actor” and not a private entity contracting with the state.

School law experts expect the school’s supporters to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

Can students use vouchers and tax-credit scholarships to attend religious schools?

In the 2020 case Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue , the Supreme Court held that Montana committed discrimination when it refused to allow families to use state tax-credit scholarships to pay tuition to private Christian schools.

“A state need not subsidize private education,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

The court built on that decision in 2022, when it said Maine couldn’t exclude religious schools from a state program that pays for students to attend private school if their town does not have a public high school.

Since these rulings, many Republican-led states have passed new or expanded private school choice programs that provide public funds for students to attend private schools, a majority of which are religious.

Can schools display the Ten Commandments?

Courts have said schools cannot display the Ten Commandments, but officials in Louisiana plan to challenge the issue.

A Louisiana law, signed in June 2024, requires schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Supporters of the displays are emboldened by the Bremerton decision, in which the Supreme Court sided with a coach who prayed after football games. They see that decision as cracking open the door to more religious displays and texts in schools.

Teachers could display the text alongside classroom rules, historical quotes, cartoon jokes, and pop culture references to add context without promoting a specific religion, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill argued at an August press conference.

Parents suing to stop Louisiana’s law, who include nonreligious families and include clergy from a variety of faith backgrounds, have argued the law violates the Supreme Court precedent established in the 1980 case Stone v. Graham. In that decision, the court held that a similar Kentucky law that required a display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment because the display “had no secular legislative purpose” and was “plainly religious in nature.”

State officials in Louisiana believe today’s court may rule differently following the Bremerton decision. Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, has said he welcomes the legal challenge.

“I think this is one of the cases where the (Supreme) Court has it wrong,” Landry told NewsNation July 18 . “And so here is the question: If the Supreme Court has something wrong, why would you not want that to be corrected? What is the price you would pay to correct that?”

Education Issues, Explained

Sign up for the savvy principal, edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Humanists UK

Get involved.

Get an email that automatically logs you in:

Or, log in via social media (if you have a role at Humanists UK, click 'Log in with Google')

Or, log in with a password:

Need some help?

American Christians spending millions to push religious conservatism in the UK

8 April, 2024

Humanists UK has raised alarms over the growing influence of ‘dark money’ and other funding from American sources in UK politics, particularly influencing debates on abortion, LGBT rights, assisted dying, and faith schools. 

Following the overturning of Roe v Wade in the United States, the shift of American capital for Christian fundamentalist campaigning to the United Kingdom is intended to import the highly divisive and polarising political tactics of the American religious right into UK political discourse. 

Due to the US laws governing not-for-profit organisations, American donors can send millions anonymously to outfits which can then spend this money internationally in their own names. Due to the lack of transparency, it is difficult or impossible to challenge their influence or hold political actors accountable. In 2020, openDemocracy reported that a variety of American evangelical groups had spent over $280 million on European advocacy. Their total spending is understood to have increased considerably since.

More recent investigations have highlighted the activities of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a US-based Christian advocacy group, which has doubled its spending in the UK to focus more on undermining abortion rights.

In November, Humanists UK reported on an unprecedented ‘triple assault’ on abortion rights in Parliament. In a Lords debate on one of these bills, Baroness Kennedy linked the uptick in anti-abortion activism in the UK since Roe v Wade to the influence of foreign dark money. She commented:

‘It is quite clear that the purpose of the Bill is to seek to roll back advances that have been made in relation to abortion, and to try to reduce the time limits we currently have… ‘We are seeing, I am afraid, an effort to weaponise the issue of abortion and women’s freedom in order to create divisions in our society.’ Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws

At the weekend, the Observer reported that Fiona Bruce MP, the UK’s Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief had some of her expenses covered by the ADF. She also spoke at an ADF event in March focused on ‘religious freedom’, a phrase which is different from the standard human rights wording of ‘freedom of religion or belief’ and is being increasingly twisted in modern political discourse to undermine the human rights of children, of women, especially in relation to their reproductive freedom, and of LGBT people.

Commenting in the Observer , Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson said: 

‘The Christian nationalist movement is increasingly investing in the UK on a number of fronts, and all supporters of freedom and choice should take seriously the threat to human rights that this represents.’

For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Kathy Riddick at  [email protected]  or phone 07534 248 596.

Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.

Sign up to Humanists UK emails

Sign up as a supporter and we'll keep you up to date by email about all of our work for a fair and equal society. See our Privacy Policy.

Postcode is optional but will help us send you information relevant to your local area.

Oklahoma teachers told to use Bible, there's resistance from schools as students return

by SEAN MURPHY, Associated Press

BIXBY, Okla. (AP) — Oklahoma's Bixby school district has lots to show off for a fast-growing Tulsa suburb: a state-of-the-art new high school set to open by 2025, a new ninth grade gymnasium and plans for a $12 million upgrade to a football complex that already rivals that of many small colleges.

But, what the district does not have as students returned this week is a Bible in every classroom — despite a statewide mandate from Oklahoma's education chief to incorporate Bible lessons and promises of repercussions for those that don't comply. Other large school districts have also publicly indicated they aren't making changes either.

The resistance follows a summer order that propelled Oklahoma to the center of a growing push by conservatives to give religion a bigger role in public schools across the U.S. Still, the fight may be far from over while other states, including neighboring Texas, are seeing Republicans advance similar efforts to incorporate the Bible into classrooms.

"If there is no curricular standard that ties with that particular classroom, what would be the purpose of a Bible if not for pure indoctrination?" said Bixby Superintendent Rob Miller, a former Marine Corps artilleryman whose office walls are adorned with medals from some of the 18 marathons he's run and a sign that reads: "Positive Vibes Only."

Miller said it's not uncommon to see students carrying a Bible or praying during a moment of silence at the start of each school day. Two copies of the Bible are available for checkout in the high school library's reference section, along with a book titled "The History of the Bible" that includes maps and other historical details about the holy lands featured in scripture.

But he said a Bible simply doesn't make sense for a seventh grade math classroom or a high school chemistry class.

"As a Christian myself, I am a little offended by diminishing the word of God to a mere classroom prop," he said.

It is unclear how many, if any, Oklahoma school districts are resuming schools this month with a Bible in every classroom. A spokesperson for the state education department, Dan Isett, said the mandate is not optional and that the superintendent has "a wide range of tools to deal with rogue districts" that do not comply.

Under the mandate, Oklahoma schools must incorporate the Bible into lesson plans for all public school students in grades five through 12 in Oklahoma.

School districts also have been offered guidance from law firms that represent them and the state's largest teachers union, the Oklahoma Education Association, that the superintendent doesn't have the unilateral authority to issue such a requirement and that the edict is unenforceable.

The decision by many Oklahoma school districts to disregard state Superintendent Ryan Walters' directive didn't sit well with the first-term Republican, who chastised those districts at the start of a recent board meeting.

"These are the districts that want pornography in front of kids under the name of inclusivity, but don't want the historical context of the Bible," Walters said, referring to a failed effort by his education department to force a local district to remove the books "The Kite Runner" and "The Glass Castle" from library shelves because of sexual content.

"It's outrageous. We will not allow it. Just because they don't like it, just because they're offended by it, just because they don't want to do it doesn't mean that they won't do it. They will be held accountable."

The directive from Walters is the latest salvo in an effort by conservative-led states to target public schools: Louisiana has required them to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms, while others are under pressure to teach the Bible and ban books and lessons about race, sexual orientation and gender identity. Earlier this summer the Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked an attempt by the state to have the first publicly funded religious charter school in the country.

Walters, himself a former public school teacher who was elected to his post in 2022, ran on a platform of fighting "woke ideology," banning books from school libraries and getting rid of "radical leftists" who he claims are indoctrinating children in classrooms.

Among his Republican colleagues in the Legislature, patience with Walters appears to be wearing thin. State Rep. Mark McBride, a Republican from Moore who chairs the subcommittee that funds public schools, earlier this month sought an investigation into Walters over what McBride says are failures by the department to comply with legislative directives on funding and provide requested documents on expenditures. More than two dozen GOP House members signed on to McBride's request, prompting Speaker of the House Charles McCall to request an independent investigation of the education department.

For his part, Walters dismissed the inquiry as a "political attack" from House leaders and hinted toward the 2026 governor's election, where both McCall and Walters have been mentioned as possible candidates for the seat being vacated by term-limited Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt.

Grant Sullivan, who owns Scott's Hamburgers in downtown Bixby and delivers a sermon every Sunday at a small church in the nearby town of Morris, said he questions whether the Bible mandate is a good idea.

"Have we thought this through?" asked Sullivan, who has a master's degree in theology from Oklahoma Christian University and two children in Bixby schools. "What if you happen to have an atheistic teacher? Are they going to teach it in a way that may be more problematic than helpful?

"It just feels like that's for the home and the church is how I feel about that."

Samantha Putterman, PolitiFact Samantha Putterman, PolitiFact

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-warnings-from-democrats-about-project-2025-and-donald-trump

Fact-checking warnings from Democrats about Project 2025 and Donald Trump

This fact check originally appeared on PolitiFact .

Project 2025 has a starring role in this week’s Democratic National Convention.

And it was front and center on Night 1.

WATCH: Hauling large copy of Project 2025, Michigan state Sen. McMorrow speaks at 2024 DNC

“This is Project 2025,” Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, said as she laid a hardbound copy of the 900-page document on the lectern. “Over the next four nights, you are going to hear a lot about what is in this 900-page document. Why? Because this is the Republican blueprint for a second Trump term.”

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has warned Americans about “Trump’s Project 2025” agenda — even though former President Donald Trump doesn’t claim the conservative presidential transition document.

“Donald Trump wants to take our country backward,” Harris said July 23 in Milwaukee. “He and his extreme Project 2025 agenda will weaken the middle class. Like, we know we got to take this seriously, and can you believe they put that thing in writing?”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Harris’ running mate, has joined in on the talking point.

“Don’t believe (Trump) when he’s playing dumb about this Project 2025. He knows exactly what it’ll do,” Walz said Aug. 9 in Glendale, Arizona.

Trump’s campaign has worked to build distance from the project, which the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, led with contributions from dozens of conservative groups.

Much of the plan calls for extensive executive-branch overhauls and draws on both long-standing conservative principles, such as tax cuts, and more recent culture war issues. It lays out recommendations for disbanding the Commerce and Education departments, eliminating certain climate protections and consolidating more power to the president.

Project 2025 offers a sweeping vision for a Republican-led executive branch, and some of its policies mirror Trump’s 2024 agenda, But Harris and her presidential campaign have at times gone too far in describing what the project calls for and how closely the plans overlap with Trump’s campaign.

PolitiFact researched Harris’ warnings about how the plan would affect reproductive rights, federal entitlement programs and education, just as we did for President Joe Biden’s Project 2025 rhetoric. Here’s what the project does and doesn’t call for, and how it squares with Trump’s positions.

Are Trump and Project 2025 connected?

To distance himself from Project 2025 amid the Democratic attacks, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he “knows nothing” about it and has “no idea” who is in charge of it. (CNN identified at least 140 former advisers from the Trump administration who have been involved.)

The Heritage Foundation sought contributions from more than 100 conservative organizations for its policy vision for the next Republican presidency, which was published in 2023.

Project 2025 is now winding down some of its policy operations, and director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, is stepping down, The Washington Post reported July 30. Trump campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita denounced the document.

WATCH: A look at the Project 2025 plan to reshape government and Trump’s links to its authors

However, Project 2025 contributors include a number of high-ranking officials from Trump’s first administration, including former White House adviser Peter Navarro and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson.

A recently released recording of Russell Vought, a Project 2025 author and the former director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget, showed Vought saying Trump’s “very supportive of what we do.” He said Trump was only distancing himself because Democrats were making a bogeyman out of the document.

Project 2025 wouldn’t ban abortion outright, but would curtail access

The Harris campaign shared a graphic on X that claimed “Trump’s Project 2025 plan for workers” would “go after birth control and ban abortion nationwide.”

The plan doesn’t call to ban abortion nationwide, though its recommendations could curtail some contraceptives and limit abortion access.

What’s known about Trump’s abortion agenda neither lines up with Harris’ description nor Project 2025’s wish list.

Project 2025 says the Department of Health and Human Services Department should “return to being known as the Department of Life by explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care.”

It recommends that the Food and Drug Administration reverse its 2000 approval of mifepristone, the first pill taken in a two-drug regimen for a medication abortion. Medication is the most common form of abortion in the U.S. — accounting for around 63 percent in 2023.

If mifepristone were to remain approved, Project 2025 recommends new rules, such as cutting its use from 10 weeks into pregnancy to seven. It would have to be provided to patients in person — part of the group’s efforts to limit access to the drug by mail. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge to mifepristone’s FDA approval over procedural grounds.

WATCH: Trump’s plans for health care and reproductive rights if he returns to White House The manual also calls for the Justice Department to enforce the 1873 Comstock Act on mifepristone, which bans the mailing of “obscene” materials. Abortion access supporters fear that a strict interpretation of the law could go further to ban mailing the materials used in procedural abortions, such as surgical instruments and equipment.

The plan proposes withholding federal money from states that don’t report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention how many abortions take place within their borders. The plan also would prohibit abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, from receiving Medicaid funds. It also calls for the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that the training of medical professionals, including doctors and nurses, omits abortion training.

The document says some forms of emergency contraception — particularly Ella, a pill that can be taken within five days of unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy — should be excluded from no-cost coverage. The Affordable Care Act requires most private health insurers to cover recommended preventive services, which involves a range of birth control methods, including emergency contraception.

Trump has recently said states should decide abortion regulations and that he wouldn’t block access to contraceptives. Trump said during his June 27 debate with Biden that he wouldn’t ban mifepristone after the Supreme Court “approved” it. But the court rejected the lawsuit based on standing, not the case’s merits. He has not weighed in on the Comstock Act or said whether he supports it being used to block abortion medication, or other kinds of abortions.

Project 2025 doesn’t call for cutting Social Security, but proposes some changes to Medicare

“When you read (Project 2025),” Harris told a crowd July 23 in Wisconsin, “you will see, Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security and Medicare.”

The Project 2025 document does not call for Social Security cuts. None of its 10 references to Social Security addresses plans for cutting the program.

Harris also misleads about Trump’s Social Security views.

In his earlier campaigns and before he was a politician, Trump said about a half-dozen times that he’s open to major overhauls of Social Security, including cuts and privatization. More recently, in a March 2024 CNBC interview, Trump said of entitlement programs such as Social Security, “There’s a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.” However, he quickly walked that statement back, and his CNBC comment stands at odds with essentially everything else Trump has said during the 2024 presidential campaign.

Trump’s campaign website says that not “a single penny” should be cut from Social Security. We rated Harris’ claim that Trump intends to cut Social Security Mostly False.

Project 2025 does propose changes to Medicare, including making Medicare Advantage, the private insurance offering in Medicare, the “default” enrollment option. Unlike Original Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans have provider networks and can also require prior authorization, meaning that the plan can approve or deny certain services. Original Medicare plans don’t have prior authorization requirements.

The manual also calls for repealing health policies enacted under Biden, such as the Inflation Reduction Act. The law enabled Medicare to negotiate with drugmakers for the first time in history, and recently resulted in an agreement with drug companies to lower the prices of 10 expensive prescriptions for Medicare enrollees.

Trump, however, has said repeatedly during the 2024 presidential campaign that he will not cut Medicare.

Project 2025 would eliminate the Education Department, which Trump supports

The Harris campaign said Project 2025 would “eliminate the U.S. Department of Education” — and that’s accurate. Project 2025 says federal education policy “should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” The plan scales back the federal government’s role in education policy and devolves the functions that remain to other agencies.

Aside from eliminating the department, the project also proposes scrapping the Biden administration’s Title IX revision, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It also would let states opt out of federal education programs and calls for passing a federal parents’ bill of rights similar to ones passed in some Republican-led state legislatures.

Republicans, including Trump, have pledged to close the department, which gained its status in 1979 within Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s presidential Cabinet.

In one of his Agenda 47 policy videos, Trump promised to close the department and “to send all education work and needs back to the states.” Eliminating the department would have to go through Congress.

What Project 2025, Trump would do on overtime pay

In the graphic, the Harris campaign says Project 2025 allows “employers to stop paying workers for overtime work.”

The plan doesn’t call for banning overtime wages. It recommends changes to some Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, regulations and to overtime rules. Some changes, if enacted, could result in some people losing overtime protections, experts told us.

The document proposes that the Labor Department maintain an overtime threshold “that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States).” This threshold is the amount of money executive, administrative or professional employees need to make for an employer to exempt them from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In 2019, the Trump’s administration finalized a rule that expanded overtime pay eligibility to most salaried workers earning less than about $35,568, which it said made about 1.3 million more workers eligible for overtime pay. The Trump-era threshold is high enough to cover most line workers in lower-cost regions, Project 2025 said.

The Biden administration raised that threshold to $43,888 beginning July 1, and that will rise to $58,656 on Jan. 1, 2025. That would grant overtime eligibility to about 4 million workers, the Labor Department said.

It’s unclear how many workers Project 2025’s proposal to return to the Trump-era overtime threshold in some parts of the country would affect, but experts said some would presumably lose the right to overtime wages.

Other overtime proposals in Project 2025’s plan include allowing some workers to choose to accumulate paid time off instead of overtime pay, or to work more hours in one week and fewer in the next, rather than receive overtime.

Trump’s past with overtime pay is complicated. In 2016, the Obama administration said it would raise the overtime to salaried workers earning less than $47,476 a year, about double the exemption level set in 2004 of $23,660 a year.

But when a judge blocked the Obama rule, the Trump administration didn’t challenge the court ruling. Instead it set its own overtime threshold, which raised the amount, but by less than Obama.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

What Role Does Religion Play in Your Life?

Did you attend religious services or observe religious traditions as a child? How has religion shaped who you are today?

By Nicole Daniels and Michael Gonchar

When you were younger, did you attend religious services or participate in religious observations with your family? Did you belong to any kind of religious community? What about now, as a teenager?

Has religion played an important role in your life? If so, in what ways?

In her recent Opinion essay, “ I Followed the Lives of 3,290 Teenagers. This Is What I Learned About Religion and Education ,” Ilana M. Horwitz discusses the effects of a religious upbringing on academic success:

American men are dropping out of college in alarming numbers. A slew of articles over the past year depict a generation of men who feel lost , detached and lacking in male role models . This sense of despair is especially acute among working-class men, fewer than one in five of whom completes college. Yet one group is defying the odds: boys from working-class families who grow up religious. As a sociologist of education and religion, I followed the lives of 3,290 teenagers from 2003 to 2012 using survey and interview data from the National Study of Youth and Religion , and then linking those data to the National Student Clearinghouse in 2016. I studied the relationship between teenagers’ religious upbringing and its influence on their education: their school grades, which colleges they attend and how much higher education they complete. My research focused on Christian denominations because they are the most prevalent in the United States. I found that what religion offers teenagers varies by social class. Those raised by professional-class parents, for example, do not experience much in the way of an educational advantage from being religious. In some ways, religion even constrains teenagers’ educational opportunities (especially girls’) by shaping their academic ambitions after graduation; they are less likely to consider a selective college as they prioritize life goals such as parenthood, altruism and service to God rather than a prestigious career. However, teenage boys from working-class families, regardless of race, who were regularly involved in their church and strongly believed in God were twice as likely to earn bachelor’s degrees as moderately religious or nonreligious boys. Religious boys are not any smarter , so why are they doing better in school? The answer lies in how religious belief and religious involvement can buffer working-class Americans — males in particular — from despair.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement

The Effects of Education on Americans’ Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations

• Original Paper
• Published: 28 July 2011
• Volume 53 , pages 161–182, ( 2011 )

Cite this article

• Philip Schwadel 1  

1898 Accesses

71 Citations

30 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

I challenge the scholarly contention that increases in education uniformly lead to declines in religious participation, belief, and affiliation. I argue that education influences strategies of action, and these strategies of action are relevant to some religious beliefs and activities but not others. Analysis of survey data shows that (1) education negatively affects exclusivist religious viewpoints and biblical literalism but not belief in God or the afterlife; (2) education positively affects religious participation, devotional activities, and emphasizing the importance of religion in daily life; (3) education positively affects switching religious affiliations, particularly to a mainline Protestant denomination, but not disaffiliation; (4) education is positively associated with questioning the role of religion in secular society but not with support for curbing the public opinions of religious leaders; and (5) the effects of education on religious beliefs and participation vary across religious traditions. Education does influence Americans’ religious beliefs and activities, but the effects of education on religion are complex.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Education, religious commitment, and religious tolerance in contemporary china.

Introduction: Changing Perspectives and Themes of the Landscape of Religious Education

Income, Education, and Three Dimensions of Religiosity in the USA

Response rate based on Response Rate 5 as defined by the American Association for Public Opinion Research ( 2008 ). See GSS Appendix A for more information on sampling and response rates.

The Jewish and other religion categories are combined in the multinomial regression models to ensure a sufficient number of respondents from each religious tradition within the response categories of the dependent variables. Models of switching traditions control for religious tradition at age 16.

Income is coded as follows: less than $1,000, $1,000–2,999, $3,000–3,999, $4,000–4,999, $5,000–5,999, $6,000–6,999, $7,000–7,999, $8,000–9,999, $10,000–12,499, $12,500–14,999, $15,000–17,499, $17,500–19,999, $20,000–22,499, $22,500–24,999, $25,000–29,999, $30,000–34,999, $35,000–39,999, $40,000–49,999, $50,000–59,999, $60,000–74,999, $75,000–89,999, $90,000–109,999, and $110,000 or more.

Urban–rural is coded as follows: central city of the 12 largest SMSAs, central city of the remainder of the 100 largest SMSAs, suburb of the 12 largest SMSAs, suburb of the remaining 100 largest SMSAs, other urban, and other rural.

To ensure there are enough cases in each response category and for ease of presentation, I condense the original six response categories for both prayer and reading the Bible into four response categories.

I condense the original seven-category variable measuring whether respondents think of themselves as religious people into five categories.

Since I am unable to determine religious affiliation between youth and the time of the survey, it is possible that some cases I code as non-switchers switched denominations or traditions and then switched back by the time of the survey.

With multiple denominations subsumed under the mainline Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, and “other” religion categories, it is possible for respondents to switch denominations yet remain within one of these three categories. I code any change in denomination as a switch, even if the respondent switches to a denomination within the same tradition.

The results are similar when frequency of religious service attendance is used as a dependent variable (using OLS regression) instead of the dichotomous measure of attendance in the last week.

Alternative analyses using dummy variables for highest degree earned suggest that the continuous years of education variable employed in this article is a better predictor of religious beliefs and activities than are measures of highest degree earned. When the years of education variable has a meaningful effect, the degree dummy variables generally indicate a continuous effect of education. There are two notable exceptions: the positive effect of education on strongly agreeing that one tries to carry religious beliefs into other dealings and the negative effect of education on agreeing that religious leaders should not try to influence people’s vote primarily reflect differences between the college educated and those without a college degree. Additionally, respondents with a high school degree are particularly unlikely to report that the Bible is an ancient book recorded by men, compared to those with either more or less education.

American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2008. Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys , 5th ed. Lenexa, KS: AAPOR.

Google Scholar  

Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen, and Lene Arnett Jensen. 2002. A congregation of one: Individualized religious beliefs among emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research 17: 451–467.

Article   Google Scholar  

Balswick, Jack, Dawn McN. Ward, and David E. Carlson. 1975. Theological and socio-political belief change among religiously conservative students. Review of Religious Research 17: 61–67.

Beckford, James A. 1985. Religious organizations. In The sacred in a secular age: Toward revision in the scientific study of religion , ed. Phillip E. Hammond, 125–138. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Beckwith, Burnham P. 1985. The decline of U.S. religious faith, 1912–1984 . Palo Alto, CA: B.P. Beckwith.

Beyerlein, Kraig. 2004. Specifying the impact of conservative Protestantism on educational attainment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 43: 505–518.

Campbell, Robert A. 2005. Students’ views on the relationship between religion and science: Analyses of results from a comparative study. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 42: 249–265.

Casanova, José. 1994. Public religions in the modern world . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Chaves, Mark. 1994. Secularization as declining religious authority. Social Forces 72: 749–774.

Cherry, Conrad, Betty A. DeBerg, and Amanda Porterfield. 2001. Religion on campus . Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Citrin, Jack, Beth Reingold, and Donald P. Green. 1990. American identity and the politics of ethnic change. The Journal of Politics 52: 1124–1154.

Clydesdale, Tim. 2007. The first year out: Understanding American teens after high school . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Collins, Randall. 1979. The credential society . Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.

Comte, Auguste. 1865. A general view of positivism . London: Trübner and Co.

Davis, James Allan, Tom W. Smith, and Peter V. Marsden. 2000. General social survey 1998 . (UNITED STATES) (computer file). Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center (produce); Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut (distributer).

Demerath III, N. J. 1965. Social class in American Protestantism . Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.

DiMaggio, Paul. 1997. Culture and cognition. American Sociological Review 23: 263–287.

Djupe, Paul A., and Christopher P. Gilbert. 2006. The resourceful believer: Generating civic skills in church. Journal of Politics 68: 116–127.

Durkheim, Emile. [1915]1965. The elementary forms of the religious life . New York: The Free Press.

Ecklund, Elaine Howard, and Jerry Z. Park. 2009. Conflict between religion and science among academic scientists? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48: 276–292.

Ecklund, Elaine Howard, and Christopher Scheitle. 2007. Religion among academic scientists: distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems 54: 289–307.

Evans, John H. 2009. Religious opposition to science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, October 23–25, Denver, CO.

Feldman, Kenneth A. 1969. Change and stability of religious orientations during college: Part I. Freshman-senior comparisons. Review of Religious Research 11: 40–60.

Finney, John M. 1978. A theory of religious commitment. Sociological Analysis 39: 19–35.

Finney, John M., and Gary R. Lee. 1977. Age differences on five dimensions of religious involvement. Review of Religious Research 18: 173–179.

Fischer, Claude S. 1982. To dwell among friends . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fox, William S., David E. Payne, Thomas B. Priest, and William W. Philliber. 1977. Authority position, legitimacy of authority structure, and acquiescence to authority. Social Forces 55: 966–973.

Fukuyama, Yoshio. 1961. The major dimensions of church membership. Review of Religious Research 2: 154–161.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures . New York: Basic Books.

Goode, Erich. 1966. Social class and church participation. American Journal of Sociology 72: 102–111.

Gould, Stephen Jay. 1999. Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life . New York: The Ballantine Publishing Group.

Greeley, Andrew M., and Michael Hout. 1999. Americans’ increasing belief in life after death: Religious competition and acculturation. American Sociological Review 64: 813–835.

Hadaway, C. Kirk, and Penny Long Marler. 2005. How many Americans attend worship each week? An alternative approach to measurement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44: 307–322.

Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Mark R. Joslyn. 2008. Pulpits versus ivory towers: Socializing agents and evolution attitudes. Social Science Quarterly 89: 665–683.

Hall, Robert, Mark Rodeghier, and Bert Useem. 1986. Effects of education on attitude to protest. American Sociological Review 51: 564–573.

Hammond, Phillip E., and James Davidson Hunter. 1984. On maintaining plausibility: The worldview of evangelical college students. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 23: 221–238.

Herberg, Will. 1955. Protestant, Catholic, Jew: An essay in American religious sociology . New York: Doubleday.

Herbert, David. 2003. Religion and civil society: Rethinking public religion in the contemporary world . Hampshire: Ashgate.

Hout, Michael, and Claude S. Fischer. 2002. Why more Americans have no religious preference: Politics and generations. American Sociological Review 67: 165–190.

Johnson, Daniel Carson. 1997. Formal education vs. religious belief: Soliciting new evidence with multinomial logit modeling. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36: 231–246.

Lawton, Leora E., and Regina Bures. 2001. Parental divorce and the “switching” of religious identity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40: 99–111.

Lee, Jenny L. 2002. Religion and college attendance: Change among students. The Review of Higher Education 25: 369–384.

Madsen, Gary E., and Glenn M. Vernon. 1983. Maintaining the faith during college: A study of campus religious group participation. Review of Religious Research 25: 127–141.

Marsden, Peter. 1987. Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review 52: 122–131.

Mayrl, Damon, and Freeden Oeur. 2009. Religion and higher education: Current knowledge and directions for future research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48: 260–275.

Meier, Robert F. 1982. Perspectives on the concept of social control. Annual Review of Sociology 8: 35–55.

Menard, Scott. 1995. Applied logistic regression analysis . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, Samuel H. 1967. Oppositions between religion and education. In Religion and public education , ed. Theodore R. Sizer, 112–124. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Moiseyenko, Olena. 2005. Education and social cohesion: Higher education. Peabody Journal of Education 80: 89–104.

Neal, Marie Augusta. 1970. Part I. The relation between religious belief and structural change in religious orders: Developing an effective measuring instrument. Review of Religious Research 12: 2–16.

Niebuhr, H. Richard. 1929. The social sources of denominationalism . Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.

Poloma, Margaret M. 1989. The assemblies of god at the crossroads: Charisma and institutional dilemmas . Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.

Putnam, Robert D. 1995. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Current 373: 3–9.

Regnerus, Mark, and Christian Smith. 1998. Selective deprivatization among American religious traditions: The reversal of the great reversal. Social Forces 76: 1347–1372.

Roof, Wade Clark. 1976. Traditional religion in contemporary society: A theory of local-cosmopolitan plausibility. American Sociological Review 41: 195–208.

Roof, Wade Clark. 1989. Multiple religious switching: A research note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28: 530–535.

Roof, Wade Clark, and William McKinney. 1987. American mainline religion . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Roozen, David A., Jackson W. Carroll, and Wade Clark Roof. 1995. Fifty years of religious change in the United States. In The post-war generation establishment religion: Cross-cultural perspectives , ed. Wade Clark Roof, Jackson W. Carroll, and David A. Roozen, 59–85. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Schwadel, Philip. 2002. Testing the promise of the churches: income inequality in the opportunity to learn civic skills in church. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41: 563–573.

Schwadel, Philip. 2005. Education and churchgoing Protestants’ views of highly politicized Christianity. Review of Religious Research 47: 150–161.

Schwadel, Philip. 2009. Neighbors in the pews: Social status diversity in religious congregations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 5 (article 2): 1–24. http://www.religjournal.com .

Smith, Christian. 1998. American evangelicalism: Embattled and thriving . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Stark, Rodney. 1999. Secularization R.I.P. Sociology of Religion 60: 249–273.

Stark, Rodney, and Roger Finke. 2000. Acts of faith: Explaining the human side of religion . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Steensland, Brian, Jerry Z. Park, Mark D. Regnerus, Lynn D. Robinson, W.Bradford Wilcox, and Robert D. Woodberry. 2000. The measure of American religion: Improving the state of the art. Social Forces 79: 291–318.

Stevens, Mitchell L. 2008. Culture and education. The ANNALS of the Americans Academy of Political and Social Science 619: 97–113.

Swatos, William H., and Kevin J. Christiano. 1999. Secularization theory: The course of a concept. Sociology of Religion 60: 209–228.

Swidler, Ann. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review 51: 273–286.

Tiryakian, Edward. 1993. American exceptionalism: A reconsideration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 527: 40–54.

Trinitapoli, Jenny. 2007. ‘I know this isn’t PC, but…’: Religious exclusivism among U.S. adolescents. The Sociological Quarterly 48: 451–483.

Uecker, Jeremy E., Mark D. Regnerus, and Margaret L. Vaaler. 2007. Losing my religion: The social sources of religious decline in early adulthood. Social Forces 85: 1667–1692.

Vaisey, Stephen. 2008. Socrates, Skinner, and Aristotle: Three ways of thinking about culture in action. Sociological Forum 23: 603–613.

Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Warner, Stephen R. 1993. Work in progress toward a new paradigm for the sociological study of religion in the United States. American Journal of Sociology 98: 1044–1093.

Weber, Max. [1922]1993. The sociology of religion . Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Whitt, Hugh P., and Hart Nelsen. 1975. Residence, moral traditionalism, and tolerance of atheists. Social Forces 54: 328–340.

Wilson, Bryan. 1982. Religion in sociological perspective . New York: Oxford University Press.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1988. The restructuring of American religion: Society and faith since World War II . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Philip Schwadel would like to thank Elaine Howard Ecklund, Roger Finke, Phil Jenkins, John McCarthy, Julia McQuillan, Helen Moore, Kristen Olson, Alan Sica, and the editor and reviewers of Review of Religious Research for their comments and advice.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, The University of Nebraska—Lincoln, 740 Oldfather Hall, P.O. Box 880324, Lincoln, NE, 68588-0324, USA

Philip Schwadel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip Schwadel .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Schwadel, P. The Effects of Education on Americans’ Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations. Rev Relig Res 53 , 161–182 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-011-0007-4

Download citation

Received : 07 May 2010

Accepted : 26 August 2010

Published : 28 July 2011

Issue Date : November 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-011-0007-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social class
• Religious tradition
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Importance of Religious Teachings in Education

Religion is a strong belief in power or powers that control human destiny. Religion and Education are seemingly two different roads in the present day scenario. But religion is as much a part of education as education is a part of religion. Yet both are distant from each other when it comes to the modern-day system of education. The fact is that Religion itself is an education and education has been influenced by Religion in more than one way. Today, there are very few institutions which actually utilise religious teaching in education or impart religious education as a part of school curriculum. What we see in our schools is that educational institutions have become a spectrum of movement including the annual event to the daily round. Kids have become like sheep's which are kept for a particular moment and then herded from one place to another for lessons inside locked doors until the time to go outside again arrives. Such an exercise is hardly likely to become trustworthy or become delightful in the mindset of students. Religion seems to be lost in such a sphere. The importance of the schools is evident in the architectural marvel of the buildings and the advanced facilities like computers, refreshment during the school day which lay more emphasis on materialistic gains but what about spiritual growth. In all kinds of schools, whether simple schools or schools with a religious character be it Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Sikh, religious teachings are the important component of education and as such schools have a prime obligation to promote the understanding of religion and its fundamentally important place in human attitudes and contribution to human flourishing. It is important to introduce it at the right stage of development for a proper understanding of different religious traditions. It is only out of this understanding that a respect will grow for different faith and traditions amongst the students. Importance of Religious Teachings in Education/Why Religious Education is Important?

• One of the most common importance of Religious teachings is that it helps students understand the place of various religions in our society. It helps them resolve the important questions of their own inner self and this understanding contributes to a more just and cohesive society.
• Religious education in any school should not simply be a subject making up a proportion of the taught curriculum. It needs to pervade ta congenial environment in the school. Such an environment is not just good for the school but also for the society as a whole as well primarily because students are themselves the propagators of moral values and these are the values that are the most valued and cherished for the quality of relationships amongst the whole humanity.
• By listening and responding to stories from religious traditions, students are assimilating it as part of their personal, social and emotional development. They have opportunities to take part in celebrations and special events whilst using their understanding in communication, language and literacy. Utilising artefacts, music, stories and art from varying cultures helps them in increasing their knowledge and understanding of the world increases as they ask questions about religion, culture and worship and develop attitudes of curiosity and respect. 
• It introduces students to different cultures and religions through various learnings about stories, people, places and times of special importance, and artefacts and beliefs that are part of modern life and society. Students are encouraged to respond sensitively to all religions, traditions and cultures, using their imagination and sense of wonder. Their study of faiths develops appropriate, secular view of the world and a religious community with a significant local presence.
• Students continue to learn about the faiths and cultures included in the syllabus through more systematic and thematic work. They investigate beliefs and practices in various principal religions, considering different forms of religious expression and learning about similarities and differences within and between religions and beliefs and the importance of dialogue between them.
• Students understanding of religions, cultures and beliefs in a local, national and global context deepens their understanding of various religions. Pupils develop an understanding of rights and responsibilities and consider the importance of interfaith dialogue as a response to tensions within and between religions and beliefs.
• Students deepen their analysis of religions and beliefs and of diversity, including the impact of beliefs on individuals, communities and societies at local, national and global levels. 
• Religious teaching makes one a person who values diversity and who promotes multicultural understanding and respect. It enhances pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development'. This further makes them capable of applying the teachings of religious traditions and leaders to real-life situations and the study of human rights.
• Religious principles help in promoting a multicultural and anti-racist environment thereby valuing diversity.
• Every religion has diverse traditions of belief and practice. Each religion is multicultural, its forms (and followers) vary in ethnicity, language, customs and practices in different communities, countries and continents. It clears certain myths and false notions regarding various religions. Sikhs are often identified as Taliban's whereas the fact is that there's is a vast sea of difference amongst them excluding certain characteristics like beard and turban which look similar.
• The study of a range of faith traditions can be made an interactive experience. Schools should hold certain events where they can meet people of different faiths and cultures to develop a respect for people with different beliefs and practices without feeling that their own identity or views are threatened.
• Students explore the historical and current relationship between faiths and cultures, the ways in which one religion has influenced the development of another religion and how religions influence each other in contemporary society. 
• Religion is itself an important contributor to life. Schools need to have at least 5% of curriculum time, have its own guaranteed place in the timetable and be offered to all throughout the school from the foundation stage to secondary school 
• Schools should ensure extra merit to all pupils and should have no less reward than the head of English or Maths. 
• Religion has far-reaching positive results as it teaches equality, cooperation, peace, happiness etc. Moreover, the belief in God keeps the moral fabric of the society intact which is a big contributor to preventing crime and anti-social activities. Teachers can relate their own experiences as well as on the experiences of others in developing a deep respect of the spiritual aspect of religion.
• Most importantly it promotes self-awareness, respect, open-mindedness, appreciation, communication, working with others and problem-solving.

Articles on Education

Page Views: 44088

Updated On: 19-Sep-2018

Education India, Colleges, Universities, Courses, Exams, Schools

Don't have an account? Sign Up .

New to Target Study? Sign Up to get started.

Already have an account? Sign In .

Forgot password? Submit your email address and we'll send you a link to reset your password.

Already registered? Sign In

Modal title

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Communication and Culture
• Communication and Social Change
• Communication and Technology
• Communication Theory
• Critical/Cultural Studies
• Gender (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies)
• Health and Risk Communication
• Intergroup Communication
• International/Global Communication
• Interpersonal Communication
• Journalism Studies
• Language and Social Interaction
• Mass Communication
• Media and Communication Policy
• Organizational Communication
• Political Communication
• Rhetorical Theory
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Religion, culture, and communication.

• Stephen M. Croucher , Stephen M. Croucher School of Communication, Journalism, and Marketing, Massey Business School, Massey University
• Cheng Zeng , Cheng Zeng Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä
• Diyako Rahmani Diyako Rahmani Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä
•  and  Mélodine Sommier Mélodine Sommier School of History, Culture, and Communication, Eramus University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.166
• Published online: 25 January 2017

Religion is an essential element of the human condition. Hundreds of studies have examined how religious beliefs mold an individual’s sociology and psychology. In particular, research has explored how an individual’s religion (religious beliefs, religious denomination, strength of religious devotion, etc.) is linked to their cultural beliefs and background. While some researchers have asserted that religion is an essential part of an individual’s culture, other researchers have focused more on how religion is a culture in itself. The key difference is how researchers conceptualize and operationalize both of these terms. Moreover, the influence of communication in how individuals and communities understand, conceptualize, and pass on religious and cultural beliefs and practices is integral to understanding exactly what religion and culture are.

It is through exploring the relationships among religion, culture, and communication that we can best understand how they shape the world in which we live and have shaped the communication discipline itself. Furthermore, as we grapple with these relationships and terms, we can look to the future and realize that the study of religion, culture, and communication is vast and open to expansion. Researchers are beginning to explore the influence of mediation on religion and culture, how our globalized world affects the communication of religions and cultures, and how interreligious communication is misunderstood; and researchers are recognizing the need to extend studies into non-Christian religious cultures.

• communication
• intercultural communication

Intricate Relationships among Religion, Communication, and Culture

Compiling an entry on the relationships among religion, culture, and communication is not an easy task. There is not one accepted definition for any of these three terms, and research suggests that the connections among these concepts are complex, to say the least. Thus, this article attempts to synthesize the various approaches to these three terms and integrate them. In such an endeavor, it is impossible to discuss all philosophical and paradigmatic debates or include all disciplines.

It is difficult to define religion from one perspective and with one encompassing definition. “Religion” is often defined as the belief in or the worship of a god or gods. Geertz ( 1973 ) defined a religion as

(1) a system which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic. (p. 90)

It is essential to recognize that religion cannot be understood apart from the world in which it takes place (Marx & Engels, 1975 ). To better understand how religion relates to and affects culture and communication, we should first explore key definitions, philosophies, and perspectives that have informed how we currently look at religion. In particular, the influences of Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, and Georg Simmel are discussed to further understand the complexity of religion.

Karl Marx ( 1818–1883 ) saw religion as descriptive and evaluative. First, from a descriptive point of view, Marx believed that social and economic situations shape how we form and regard religions and what is religious. For Marx, the fact that people tend to turn to religion more when they are facing economic hardships or that the same religious denomination is practiced differently in different communities would seem perfectly logical. Second, Marx saw religion as a form of alienation (Marx & Engels, 1975 ). For Marx, the notion that the Catholic Church, for example, had the ability or right to excommunicate an individual, and thus essentially exclude them from the spiritual community, was a classic example of exploitation and domination. Such alienation and exploitation was later echoed in the works of Friedrich Nietzsche ( 1844–1900 ), who viewed organized religion as society and culture controlling man (Nietzsche, 1996 ).

Building on Marxist thinking, Weber ( 1864–1920 ) stressed the multicausality of religion. Weber ( 1963 ) emphasized three arguments regarding religion and society: (1) how a religion relates to a society is contingent (it varies); (2) the relationship between religion and society can only be examined in its cultural and historical context; and (3) the relationship between society and religion is slowly eroding. Weber’s arguments can be applied to Catholicism in Europe. Until the Protestant Reformation of the 15th and 16th centuries, Catholicism was the dominant religious ideology on the European continent. However, since the Reformation, Europe has increasingly become more Protestant and less Catholic. To fully grasp why many Europeans gravitate toward Protestantism and not Catholicism, we must consider the historical and cultural reasons: the Reformation, economics, immigration, politics, etc., that have all led to the majority of Europeans identifying as Protestant (Davie, 2008 ). Finally, even though the majority of Europeans identify as Protestant, secularism (separation of church and state) is becoming more prominent in Europe. In nations like France, laws are in place that officially separate the church and state, while in Northern Europe, church attendance is low, and many Europeans who identify as Protestant have very low religiosity (strength of religious devotion), focusing instead on being secularly religious individuals. From a Weberian point of view, the links among religion, history, and culture in Europe explain the decline of Catholicism, the rise of Protestantism, and now the rise of secularism.

Emile Durkheim ( 1858–1917 ) focused more on how religion performs a necessary function; it brings people and society together. Durkheim ( 1976 ) thus defined a religion as

a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things which are set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them. (p. 47)

From this perspective, religion and culture are inseparable, as beliefs and practices are uniquely cultural. For example, religious rituals (one type of practice) unite believers in a religion and separate nonbelievers. The act of communion, or the sharing of the Eucharist by partaking in consecrated bread and wine, is practiced by most Christian denominations. However, the frequency of communion differs extensively, and the ritual is practiced differently based on historical and theological differences among denominations.

Georg Simmel ( 1858–1918 ) focused more on the fluidity and permanence of religion and religious life. Simmel ( 1950 ) believed that religious and cultural beliefs develop from one another. Moreover, he asserted that religiosity is an essential element to understand when examining religious institutions and religion. While individuals may claim to be part of a religious group, Simmel asserted that it was important to consider just how religious the individuals were. In much of Europe, religiosity is low: Germany 34%, Sweden 19%, Denmark 42%, the United Kingdom 30%, the Czech Republic 23%, and The Netherlands 26%, while religiosity is relatively higher in the United States (56%), which is now considered the most religious industrialized nation in the world ( Telegraph Online , 2015 ). The decline of religiosity in parts of Europe and its rise in the U.S. is linked to various cultural, historical, and communicative developments that will be further discussed.

Combining Simmel’s ( 1950 ) notion of religion with Geertz’s ( 1973 ) concept of religion and a more basic definition (belief in or the worship of a god or gods through rituals), it is clear that the relationship between religion and culture is integral and symbiotic. As Clark and Hoover ( 1997 ) noted, “culture and religion are inseparable” and “religion is an important consideration in theories of culture and society” (p. 17).

Outside of the Western/Christian perception of religion, Buddhist scholars such as Nagarajuna present a relativist framework to understand concepts like time and causality. This framework is distinct from the more Western way of thinking, in that notions of present, past, and future are perceived to be chronologically distorted, and the relationship between cause and effect is paradoxical (Wimal, 2007 ). Nagarajuna’s philosophy provides Buddhism with a relativist, non-solid dependent, and non-static understanding of reality (Kohl, 2007 ). Mulla Sadra’s philosophy explored the metaphysical relationship between the created universe and its singular creator. In his philosophy, existence takes precedence over essence, and any existing object reflects a part of the creator. Therefore, every devoted person is obliged to know themselves as the first step to knowing the creator, which is the ultimate reason for existence. This Eastern perception of religion is similar to that of Nagarajuna and Buddhism, as they both include the paradoxical elements that are not easily explained by the rationality of Western philosophy. For example, the god, as Mulla Sadra defines it, is beyond definition, description, and delamination, yet it is absolutely simple and unique (Burrell, 2013 ).

How researchers define and study culture varies extensively. For example, Hall ( 1989 ) defined culture as “a series of situational models for behavior and thought” (p. 13). Geertz ( 1973 ), building on the work of Kluckhohn ( 1949 ), defined culture in terms of 11 different aspects:

(1) the total way of life of a people; (2) the social legacy the individual acquires from his group; (3) a way of thinking, feeling, and believing; (4) an abstraction from behavior; (5) a theory on the part of the anthropologist about the way in which a group of people in fact behave; (6) a storehouse of pooled learning; (7) a set of standardized orientations to recurrent problems; (8) learned behavior; (9) a mechanism for the normative regulation of behavior; (10) a set of techniques for adjusting both to the external environment and to other men; (11) a precipitate of history. (Geertz, 1973 , p. 5)

Research on culture is divided between an essentialist camp and a constructivist camp. The essentialist view regards culture as a concrete and fixed system of symbols and meanings (Holiday, 1999 ). An essentialist approach is most prevalent in linguistic studies, in which national culture is closely linked to national language. Regarding culture as a fluid concept, constructionist views of culture focus on how it is performed and negotiated by individuals (Piller, 2011 ). In this sense, “culture” is a verb rather than a noun. In principle, a non-essentialist approach rejects predefined national cultures and uses culture as a tool to interpret social behavior in certain contexts.

Different approaches to culture influence significantly how it is incorporated into communication studies. Cultural communication views communication as a resource for individuals to produce and regulate culture (Philipsen, 2002 ). Constructivists tend to perceive culture as a part of the communication process (Applegate & Sypher, 1988 ). Cross-cultural communication typically uses culture as a national boundary. Hofstede ( 1991 ) is probably the most popular scholar in this line of research. Culture is thus treated as a theoretical construct to explain communication variations across cultures. This is also evident in intercultural communication studies, which focus on misunderstandings between individuals from different cultures.

Religion, Community, and Culture

There is an interplay among religion, community, and culture. Community is essentially formed by a group of people who share common activities or beliefs based on their mutual affect, loyalty, and personal concerns. Participation in religious institutions is one of the most dominant community engagements worldwide. Religious institutions are widely known for creating a sense of community by offering various material and social supports for individual followers. In addition, the role that religious organizations play in communal conflicts is also crucial. As religion deals with the ultimate matters of life, the differences among different religious beliefs are virtually impossible to settle. Although a direct causal relationship between religion and violence is not well supported, religion is, nevertheless, commonly accepted as a potential escalating factor in conflicts. Currently, religious conflicts are on the rise, and they are typically more violent, long-lasting, and difficult to resolve. In such cases, local religious organizations, places facilitating collective actions in the community, are extremely vital, as they can either preach peace or stir up hatred and violence. The peace impact of local religious institutions has been largely witnessed in India and Indonesia where conflicts are solved at the local level before developing into communal violence (De Juan, Pierskalla, & Vüllers, 2015 ).

While religion affects cultures (Beckford & Demerath, 2007 ), it itself is also affected by culture, as religion is an essential layer of culture. For example, the growth of individualism in the latter half of the 20th century has been coincident with the decline in the authority of Judeo-Christian institutions and the emergence of “parachurches” and more personal forms of prayer (Hoover & Lundby, 1997 ). However, this decline in the authority of the religious institutions in modernized society has not reduced the important role of religion and spirituality as one of the main sources of calm when facing painful experiences such as death, suffering, and loss.

When cultural specifications, such as individualism and collectivism, have been attributed to religion, the proposed definitions and functions of religion overlap with definitions of culture. For example, researchers often combine religious identification (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc.) with cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1991 ) like individualism/collectivism to understand and compare cultural differences. Such combinations for comparison and analytical purposes demonstrate how religion and religious identification in particular are often relegated to a micro-level variable, when in fact the true relationship between an individual’s religion and culture is inseparable.

Religion as Part of Culture in Communication Studies

Religion as a part of culture has been linked to numerous communication traits and behaviors. Specifically, religion has been linked with media use and preferences (e.g., Stout & Buddenbaum, 1996 ), health/medical decisions and communication about health-related issues (Croucher & Harris, 2012 ), interpersonal communication (e.g., Croucher, Faulkner, Oommen, & Long, 2012b ), organizational behaviors (e.g., Garner & Wargo, 2009 ), and intercultural communication traits and behaviors (e.g., Croucher, Braziunaite, & Oommen, 2012a ). In media and religion scholarship, researchers have shown how religion as a cultural variable has powerful effects on media use, preferences, and gratifications. The research linking media and religion is vast (Stout & Buddenbaum, 1996 ). This body of research has shown how “religious worldviews are created and sustained in ongoing social processes in which information is shared” (Stout & Buddenbaum, 1996 , pp. 7–8). For example, religious Christians are more likely to read newspapers, while religious individuals are less likely to have a favorable opinion of the internet (Croucher & Harris, 2012 ), and religious individuals (who typically attend religious services and are thus integrated into a religious community) are more likely to read media produced by the religious community (Davie, 2008 ).

Research into health/medical decisions and communication about health-related issues is also robust. Research shows how religion, specifically religiosity, promotes healthier living and better decision-making regarding health and wellbeing (Harris & Worley, 2012 ). For example, a religious (or spiritual) approach to cancer treatment can be more effective than a secular approach (Croucher & Harris, 2012 ), religious attendance promotes healthier living, and people with HIV/AIDS often turn to religion for comfort as well. These studies suggest the significance of religion in health communication and in our health.

Research specifically examining the links between religion and interpersonal communication is not as vast as the research into media, health, and religion. However, this slowly growing body of research has explored areas such as rituals, self-disclosure (Croucher et al., 2012b ), and family dynamics (Davie, 2008 ), to name a few.

The role of religion in organizations is well studied. Overall, researchers have shown how religious identification and religiosity influence an individual’s organizational behavior. For example, research has shown that an individual’s religious identification affects levels of organizational dissent (Croucher et al., 2012a ). Garner and Wargo ( 2009 ) further showed that organizational dissent functions differently in churches than in nonreligious organizations. Kennedy and Lawton ( 1998 ) explored the relationships between religious beliefs and perceptions about business/corporate ethics and found that individuals with stronger religious beliefs have stricter ethical beliefs.

Researchers are increasingly looking at the relationships between religion and intercultural communication. Researchers have explored how religion affects numerous communication traits and behaviors and have shown how religious communities perceive and enact religious beliefs. Antony ( 2010 ), for example, analyzed the bindi in India and how the interplay between religion and culture affects people’s acceptance of it. Karniel and Lavie-Dinur ( 2011 ) showed how religion and culture influence how Palestinian Arabs are represented on Israeli television. Collectively, the intercultural work examining religion demonstrates the increasing importance of the intersection between religion and culture in communication studies.

Collectively, communication studies discourse about religion has focused on how religion is an integral part of an individual’s culture. Croucher et al. ( 2016 ), in a content analysis of communication journal coverage of religion and spirituality from 2002 to 2012 , argued that the discourse largely focuses on religion as a cultural variable by identifying religious groups as variables for comparative analysis, exploring “religious” or “spiritual” as adjectives to describe entities (religious organizations), and analyzing the relationships between religious groups in different contexts. Croucher and Harris ( 2012 ) asserted that the discourse about religion, culture, and communication is still in its infancy, though it continues to grow at a steady pace.

Future Lines of Inquiry

Research into the links among religion, culture, and communication has shown the vast complexities of these terms. With this in mind, there are various directions for future research/exploration that researchers could take to expand and benefit our practical understanding of these concepts and how they relate to one another. Work should continue to define these terms with a particular emphasis on mediation, closely consider these terms in a global context, focus on how intergroup dynamics influence this relationship, and expand research into non-Christian religious cultures.

Additional definitional work still needs to be done to clarify exactly what is meant by “religion,” “culture,” and “communication.” Our understanding of these terms and relationships can be further enhanced by analyzing how forms of mass communication mediate each other. Martin-Barbero ( 1993 ) asserted that there should be a shift from media to mediations as multiple opposing forces meet in communication. He defined mediation as “the articulations between communication practices and social movements and the articulation of different tempos of development with the plurality of cultural matrices” (p. 187). Religions have relied on mediations through various media to communicate their messages (oral stories, print media, radio, television, internet, etc.). These media share religious messages, shape the messages and religious communities, and are constantly changing. What we find is that, as media sophistication develops, a culture’s understandings of mediated messages changes (Martin-Barbero, 1993 ). Thus, the very meanings of religion, culture, and communication are transitioning as societies morph into more digitally mediated societies. Research should continue to explore the effects of digital mediation on our conceptualizations of religion, culture, and communication.

Closely linked to mediation is the need to continue extending our focus on the influence of globalization on religion, culture, and communication. It is essential to study the relationships among culture, religion, and communication in the context of globalization. In addition to trading goods and services, people are increasingly sharing ideas, values, and beliefs in the modern world. Thus, globalization not only leads to technological and socioeconomic changes, but also shapes individuals’ ways of communicating and their perceptions and beliefs about religion and culture. While religion represents an old way of life, globalization challenges traditional meaning systems and is often perceived as a threat to religion. For instance, Marx and Weber both asserted that modernization was incompatible with tradition. But, in contrast, globalization could facilitate religious freedom by spreading the idea of freedom worldwide. Thus, future work needs to consider the influence of globalization to fully grasp the interrelationships among religion, culture, and communication in the world.

A review of the present definitions of religion in communication research reveals that communication scholars approach religion as a holistic, total, and unique institution or notion, studied from the viewpoint of different communication fields such as health, intercultural, interpersonal, organizational communication, and so on. However, this approach to communication undermines the function of a religion as a culture and also does not consider the possible differences between religious cultures. For example, religious cultures differ in their levels of individualism and collectivism. There are also differences in how religious cultures interact to compete for more followers and territory (Klock, Novoa, & Mogaddam, 2010 ). Thus, localization is one area of further research for religion communication studies. This line of study best fits in the domain of intergroup communication. Such an approach will provide researchers with the opportunity to think about the roles that interreligious communication can play in areas such as peacemaking processes (Klock et al., 2010 ).

Academic discourse about religion has focused largely on Christian denominations. In a content analysis of communication journal discourse on religion and spirituality, Croucher et al. ( 2016 ) found that the terms “Christian” or “Christianity” appeared in 9.56% of all articles, and combined with other Christian denominations (Catholicism, Evangelism, Baptist, Protestantism, and Mormonism, for example), appeared in 18.41% of all articles. Other religious cultures (denominations) made up a relatively small part of the overall academic discourse: Islam appeared in 6.8%, Judaism in 4.27%, and Hinduism in only 0.96%. Despite the presence of various faiths in the data, the dominance of Christianity and its various denominations is incontestable. Having religions unevenly represented in the academic discourse is problematic. This highly unbalanced representation presents a biased picture of religious practices. It also represents one faith as being the dominant faith and others as being minority religions in all contexts.

Ultimately, the present overview, with its focus on religion, culture, and communication points to the undeniable connections among these concepts. Religion and culture are essential elements of humanity, and it is through communication, that these elements of humanity are mediated. Whether exploring these terms in health, interpersonal, intercultural, intergroup, mass, or other communication contexts, it is evident that understanding the intersection(s) among religion, culture, and communication offers vast opportunities for researchers and practitioners.

Further Reading

The references to this article provide various examples of scholarship on religion, culture, and communication. The following list includes some critical pieces of literature that one should consider reading if interested in studying the relationships among religion, culture, and communication.

• Allport, G. W. (1950). Individual and his religion: A psychological interpretation . New York: Macmillan.
• Campbell, H. A. (2010). When religion meets new media . New York: Routledge.
• Cheong, P. H. , Fischer-Nielson, P. , Gelfgren, S. , & Ess, C. (Eds.). (2012). Digital religion, social media and culture: Perspectives, practices and futures . New York: Peter Lang.
• Cohen, A. B. , & Hill, P. C. (2007). Religion as culture: Religious individualism and collectivism among American Catholics, Jews, and Protestants . Journal of Personality , 75 , 709–742.
• Coomaraswamy, A. K. (2015). Hinduism and buddhism . New Delhi: Munshiram Monoharlal Publishers.
• Coomaraswamy, A. K. (2015). A new approach to the Vedas: Essays in translation and exegesis . Philadelphia: Coronet Books.
• Harris, T. M. , Parrott, R. , & Dorgan, K. A. (2004). Talking about human genetics within religious frameworks . Health Communication , 16 , 105–116.
• Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great . New York: Hachette.
• Hoover, S. M. (2006). Religion in the media age (media, religion and culture) . New York: Routledge.
• Lundby, K. , & Hoover, S. M. (1997). Summary remarks: Mediated religion. In S. M. Hoover & K. Lundby (Eds.), Rethinking media, religion, and culture (pp. 298–309). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Mahan, J. H. (2014). Media, religion and culture: An introduction . New York: Routledge.
• Parrott, R. (2004). “Collective amnesia”: The absence of religious faith and spirituality in health communication research and practice . Journal of Health Communication , 16 , 1–5.
• Russell, B. (1957). Why I am not a Christian . New York: Touchstone.
• Sarwar, G. (2001). Islam: Beliefs and teachings (5th ed.). Tigard, OR: Muslim Educational Trust.
• Stout, D. A. (2011). Media and religion: Foundations of an emerging field . New York: Routledge.
• Antony, M. G. (2010). On the spot: Seeking acceptance and expressing resistance through the Bindi . Journal of International and Intercultural Communication , 3 , 346–368.
• Beckford, J. A. , & Demerath, N. J. (Eds.). (2007). The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Burrell, D. B. (2013). The triumph of mercy: Philosophy and scripture in Mulla Sadra—By Mohammed Rustom . Modern Theology , 29 , 413–416.
• Clark, A. S. , & Hoover, S. M. (1997). At the intersection of media, culture, and religion. In S. M. Hoover , & K. Lundby (Eds.), Rethinking media, religion, and culture (pp. 15–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Croucher, S. M. , Braziunaite, R. , & Oommen, D. (2012a). The effects of religiousness and religious identification on organizational dissent. In S. M. Croucher , & T. M. Harris (Eds.), Religion and communication: An anthology of extensions in theory, research, and method (pp. 69–79). New York: Peter Lang.
• Croucher, S. M. , Faulkner , Oommen, D. , & Long, B. (2012b). Demographic and religious differences in the dimensions of self-disclosure among Hindus and Muslims in India . Journal of Intercultural Communication Research , 39 , 29–48.
• Croucher, S. M. , & Harris, T. M. (Eds.). (2012). Religion and communication: An anthology of extensions in theory, research, & method . New York: Peter Lang.
• Croucher, S. M. , Sommier, M. , Kuchma, A. , & Melnychenko, V. (2016). A content analysis of the discourses of “religion” and “spirituality” in communication journals: 2002–2012. Journal of Communication and Religion , 38 , 42–79.
• Davie, G. (2008). The sociology of religion . Los Angeles: SAGE.
• De Juan, A. , Pierskalla, J. H. , & Vüllers, J. (2015). The pacifying effects of local religious institutions: An analysis of communal violence in Indonesia . Political Research Quarterly , 68 , 211–224.
• Durkheim, E. (1976). The elementary forms of religious life . London: Harper Collins.
• Garner, J. T. , & Wargo, M. (2009). Feedback from the pew: A dual-perspective exploration of organizational dissent in churches. Journal of Communication & Religion , 32 , 375–400.
• Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays by Clifford Geertz . New York: Basic Books.
• Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond culture . New York: Anchor Books.
• Harris, T. M. , & Worley, T. R. (2012). Deconstructing lay epistemologies of religion within health communication research. In S. M. Croucher , & T. M. Harris (Eds.), Religion & communication: An anthology of extensions in theory, research, and method (pp. 119–136). New York: Peter Lang.
• Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind . London: McGraw-Hill.
• Holiday, A. (1999). Small culture . Applied Linguistics , 20 , 237–264.
• Hoover, S. M. , & Lundby, K. (1997). Introduction. In S. M. Hoover & K. Lundby (Eds.), Rethinking media, religion, and culture (pp. 3–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Karniel, Y. , & Lavie-Dinur, A. (2011). Entertainment and stereotype: Representation of the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel in reality shows on Israeli television . Journal of Intercultural Communication Research , 40 , 65–88.
• Kennedy, E. J. , & Lawton, L. (1998). Religiousness and business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics , 17 , 175–180.
• Klock, J. , Novoa, C. , & Mogaddam, F. M. (2010). Communication across religions. In H. Giles , S. Reid , & J. Harwood (Eds.), The dynamics of intergroup communication (pp. 77–88). New York: Peter Lang
• Kluckhohn, C. (1949). Mirror for man: The relation of anthropology to modern life . Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
• Kohl, C. T. (2007). Buddhism and quantum physics . Contemporary Buddhism , 8 , 69–82.
• Mapped: These are the world’s most religious countries . (April 13, 2015). Telegraph Online .
• Martin-Barbero, J. (1993). Communication, culture and hegemony: From the media to the mediations . London: SAGE.
• Marx, K. , & Engels, F. (1975). Collected works . London: Lawrence and Wishart.
• Nietzsche, F. (1996). Human, all too human: A book for free spirits . R. J. Hollingdale (Trans.). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Piller, I. (2011). Intercultural communication: A critical introduction . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Philipsen, G. (2002). Cultural communication. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Cross-cultural and intercultural communication (pp. 35–51). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel . K. Wolff (Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
• Stout, D. A. , & Buddenbaum, J. M. (Eds.). (1996). Religion and mass media: Audiences and adaptations . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Weber, M. (1963). The sociology of religion . London: Methuen.
• Wimal, D. (2007). Nagarjuna and modern communication theory. China Media Research , 3 , 34–41.
• Applegate, J. , & Sypher, H. (1988). A constructivist theory of communication and culture. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories of intercultural communication (pp. 41-65). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Related Articles

• Christianity as Public Religion in the Post-Secular 21st Century
• Legal Interpretations of Freedom of Expression and Blasphemy
• Public Culture
• Communicating Religious Identities
• Religion and Journalism
• Global Jihad and International Media Use

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Communication. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 29 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [195.158.225.244]
• 195.158.225.244

Character limit 500 /500

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Religion and Education Around the World

Large gaps in education levels persist, but all faiths are making gains – particularly among women

Table of contents.

• 1. Muslim educational attainment
• 2. Christian educational attainment
• 3. Educational attainment among the religiously unaffiliated
• 4. Buddhist educational attainment
• 5. Hindu educational attainment
• 6. Jewish educational attainment
• 7. How religion may affect educational attainment: scholarly theories and historical background
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix A: Methodology
• Appendix B: Data sources by country

Jews are more highly educated than any other major religious group around the world, while Muslims and Hindus tend to have the fewest years of formal schooling, according to a Pew Research Center global demographic study that shows wide disparities in average educational levels among religious groups.

These gaps in educational attainment are partly a function of where religious groups are concentrated throughout the world. For instance, the vast majority of the world’s Jews live in the United States and Israel – two economically developed countries with high levels of education overall. And low levels of attainment among Hindus reflect the fact that 98% of Hindu adults live in the developing countries of India, Nepal and Bangladesh.

But there also are important differences in educational attainment among religious groups living in the same region, and even the same country. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example , Christians generally have higher average levels of education than Muslims. Some social scientists have attributed this gap primarily to historical factors, including missionary activity during colonial times. (For more on theories about religion’s impact on educational attainment, see Chapter 7 .)

Drawing on census and survey data from 151 countries, the study also finds large gender gaps in educational attainment within some major world religions. For example, Muslim women around the globe have an average of 4.9 years of schooling, compared with 6.4 years among Muslim men. And formal education is especially low among Hindu women, who have 4.2 years of schooling on average, compared with 6.9 years among Hindu men.

Yet many of these disparities appear to be decreasing over time, as the religious groups with the lowest average levels of education – Muslims and Hindus – have made the biggest educational gains in recent generations, and as the gender gaps within some religions have diminished, according to Pew Research Center’s analysis.

At present, Jewish adults (ages 25 and older) have a global average of 13 years of formal schooling, compared with approximately nine years among Christians, eight years among Buddhists and six years among Muslims and Hindus. Religiously unaffiliated adults – those who describe their religion as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – have spent an average of nine years in school, a little less than Christian adults worldwide. 1

But the number of years of schooling received by the average adult in all the religious groups studied has been rising in recent decades, with the greatest overall gains made by the groups that had lagged furthest behind.

For instance, the youngest Hindu adults in the study (those born between 1976 and 1985) have spent an average of 7.1 years in school, nearly double the amount of schooling received by the oldest Hindus in the study (those born between 1936 and 1955). The youngest Muslims have made similar gains, receiving approximately three more years of schooling, on average, than their counterparts born a few decades earlier, as have the youngest Buddhists, who acquired 2.5 more years of schooling.

Over the same time frame, by contrast, Christians gained an average of just one more year of schooling, and Jews recorded an average gain of less than half a year of additional schooling.

Meanwhile, the youngest generation of religiously unaffiliated adults – sometimes called religious “nones” – in the study has gained so much ground (2.9 more years of schooling than the oldest generation of religious “nones” analyzed) that it has surpassed Christians in average number of years of schooling worldwide (10.3 years among the youngest unaffiliated adults vs. 9.9 years among the youngest Christians).

Gender gaps also are narrowing somewhat. In the oldest generation, across all the major religious groups, men received more years of schooling, on average, than women. But the youngest generations of Christian, Buddhist and unaffiliated women have achieved parity with their male counterparts in average years of schooling. And among the youngest Jewish adults, Jewish women have spent nearly one more year in school, on average, than Jewish men.

These are among the key findings of Pew Research Center’s new demographic study. A prior study by researchers at an Austrian institute, the Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Human Capital, looked at differences in educational attainment by age and gender. 2 The new study is the first comprehensive examination of differences in educational levels by religion . Wittgenstein Centre researchers Michaela Potančoková and Marcin Stonawski collaborated with Pew Research Center researchers to compile and standardize this data.

Religions vary in educational attainment

About one-in-five adults globally – but twice as many muslims and hindus – have received no schooling at all.

Despite recent gains by young adults, formal schooling is neither universal nor equal around the world. The global norm is barely more than a primary education – an average of about eight years of formal schooling for men and seven years for women.

At the high end of the spectrum, 14% of adults ages 25 and older (including 15% of men and 13% of women) have a university degree or some other kind of higher education, such as advanced vocational training after high school. But an even larger percentage – about one-in-five adults (19%) worldwide, or more than 680 million people – have no formal schooling at all.

Education levels vary a great deal by religion. About four-in-ten Hindus (41%) and more than one-third of Muslims (36%) in the study have no formal schooling. In other religious groups, the shares without any schooling range from 10% of Buddhists to 1% of Jews, while a majority of Jewish adults (61%) have post-secondary degrees. 3

Hindus and Muslims have made big advances in educational attainment

The study finds the religious groups with the lowest levels of education are also the ones that have made the biggest gains in educational attainment in recent decades.

Over three recent generations, the share of Hindus with at least some formal schooling rose by 28 percentage points, from 43% among the oldest Hindus in the study to 71% among the youngest. Muslims, meanwhile, registered a 25-point increase, from 46% among the oldest Muslims to 72% among the youngest.

Christians, Buddhists and religious “nones” have made more modest gains in basic education, but they started from a higher base. Among the oldest generation in the study, large majorities of these three religious groups received at least some formal education; among the youngest Christians, Buddhists and religious “nones,” more than nine-in-ten have received at least some schooling.

The share of Jews with at least some schooling has remained virtually universal across generations at 99%.

Declining gender gaps in formal education

In this study, more women than men have no formal education: As of 2010, an estimated 432 million women (23% of all women ages 25 and older) and 250 million men (14% of all men) lacked any formal education.

In some religious groups, the gender gaps in acquiring any formal education are particularly large. For example, just over half of Hindu women (53%) have received no formal schooling, compared with 29% of Hindu men, a difference of 24 percentage points. Among Muslims worldwide, 43% of women and 30% of men have no formal schooling, a 13-point gap. In other religions, the gender differences in the shares with no formal schooling are smaller, ranging from 9 points among the religiously unaffiliated to just 1 point among Jews.

But Hindus have substantially narrowed the gender gap in primary schooling, as shares of Hindu women with no formal schooling decreased across the three generations studied. Among the oldest Hindus, 72% of women and 41% of men have no formal schooling. But among the youngest Hindus in the study, the gender gap is smaller, as 38% of women and 20% of men have no formal schooling.

Muslims also have reduced the gender gap across generations by 11 percentage points. But in the youngest generation, a 10-point difference remains: 33% of Muslim women and 23% of Muslim men have no formal schooling. Among religiously unaffiliated adults and Buddhists worldwide, meanwhile, the gender gap in the shares with no formal schooling has virtually disappeared.

Reversal of some gender gaps in higher education

Worldwide, among all adults in the study, slightly more men than women hold post-secondary degrees (15% vs. 13%). But across generations, women have been outpacing men in reaching higher levels of education. As a result, in the youngest generation, the share of women with post-secondary degrees is comparable to the share of men (17% each).

In the youngest generation of three faith groups – Jews, Christians and the religiously unaffiliated – the gender gap in higher education has actually reversed. The biggest reversal has happened among Jews. Among the oldest generation of Jews, more men (66%) than women (59%) hold post-secondary degrees. But among the youngest Jewish adults worldwide, 69% of women and 57% of men have such degrees. In other words, a 7-point gender gap in the oldest generation (with more men than women holding advanced degrees) is now a 12-point gender gap in the other direction , with more women than men in the youngest generation of Jews holding degrees. (See Chapter 6 for details.)

Christians and religiously unaffiliated people have experienced similar – although not as dramatic – reversals of the gender gap in post-secondary education. Among Christians, the gender gap among those in the oldest adult cohort – 21% of men with higher education vs. 17% of women – has flipped among the youngest so that more women than men now hold degrees (25% of women vs. 20% of men). Similarly, among religiously unaffiliated people, the 3-point gender gap in the oldest generation (with more men than women having higher education) is now a 3-point gap in the other direction in the youngest generation, with more women than men earning post-secondary degrees.

Meanwhile, the gender gap in higher education has narrowed for Buddhists (by 5 points) and Muslims (by 3 points). Among the youngest generations in those groups, roughly equal shares of women and men hold higher degrees – 19% each among Buddhists and 11% and 9% among Muslim men and women, respectively. The gender gap in post-secondary education among Hindus has held steady across generations. In the youngest cohort of Hindus, more men than women still have post-secondary degrees (17% of men vs. 11% of women).

Both religion and region matter for educational attainment

Within the world’s major religious groups, there are often large variations in educational attainment depending on the country or region of the world in which adherents live. Muslims in Europe, for example, have more years of schooling, on average, than Muslims in the Middle East. This is because education levels are affected by many factors other than religion, including socioeconomic conditions, government resources and migration policies, the presence or absence of armed conflict and the prevalence of child labor and marriage.

At the same time, this study finds that even under the same regional or national conditions, there often are differences in education attainment among those within religious groups. Here are some findings from this report that illustrate both the diversity within the same religious group across different regions of the world, and the diversity within the same region among religious groups:

• Also in sub-Saharan Africa, the Muslim gender gap in education has remained largely unchanged across generations – and even widened slightly by some measures of attainment analyzed in this study. Although the youngest Muslim women in this region are making educational gains compared with their elders, they are making them at a slightly slower rate than their male peers. This pattern differs from some other regions, where Muslim women are generally making educational gains at a faster pace than Muslim men, thus narrowing the gender gap. (See Chapter 1 for details.)
• Christians have remained fairly stable at the global level in their overall educational attainment over three generations. But their attainment varies considerably by region. As the largest of the world’s major religious groups (numbering about 2.2 billion overall, including children, as of 2010), Christians also are the most widely dispersed faith group, with hundreds of millions of adherents in sub-Saharan Africa, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, North America and Latin America and the Caribbean. Christians in Europe and North America tend to be much more highly educated than those in sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, although African Christians are making rapid educational gains across generations. (See Chapter 2 for more detail on educational attainment among Christians.)
• Jews also have remained stable in their already high levels of educational attainment over recent generations. But Jews, unlike Christians, are a much smaller and more localized population, with a large majority of all Jews worldwide living in just two countries – Israel and the United States – where educational attainment is relatively high overall. ( Chapter 6 explores data on Jews in more detail.)
• At the global level, religiously unaffiliated adults have 1.3 more years of schooling, on average, than religiously affiliated adults (8.8 versus 7.5). One possible reason for this is that unaffiliated people are disproportionately concentrated in countries with relatively high overall levels of educational attainment, while the religiously affiliated are more dispersed across countries with both high and low levels of attainment. However, the unaffiliated are not consistently better educated than their religiously affiliated compatriots when looked at country by country. In the 76 countries with data available on the youngest generation of unaffiliated adults (born 1976-1985), they have a similar number of years of schooling as their religiously affiliated peers in 33 countries; they are less educated in 27 countries, and they are more highly educated than the affiliated in 16 countries. (See sidebar in Chapter 3 for more details on the unaffiliated and secularization theory.)
• Hindus in India, who make up a large majority of the country’s population (and more than 90% of the world’s Hindus), have relatively low levels of educational attainment – a nationwide average of 5.5 years of schooling. While they are more highly educated than Muslims in India (14% of the country’s population), they lag behind Christians (2.5% of India’s population). By contrast, fully 87% of Hindus living in North America hold post-secondary degrees – a higher share than any other major religious group in the region. (See Chapter 5 on Hindu educational attainment.)

A note about this analysis

This report looks at average educational levels among adherents of five major world religions – Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism – as well as among the religiously unaffiliated.

Educational systems vary enormously around the world; this report does not attempt to analyze differences in educational quality, but focuses primarily on educational attainment in terms of number of years of schooling. It distinguishes among four broad levels of educational attainment: no formal schooling (less than one year of primary school), primary education (completion of at least one grade of primary school), some secondary education (but no degree beyond high school) and post-secondary education (completion of some kind of college, university or vocational degree beyond high school, also referred to in this report as “higher education”). For comparability across countries, these educational categories are based on the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 1997; see Methodology for more details).

To measure changes over recent generations, the report looks at three birth cohorts: the “oldest” (born 1936-1955), “middle” (born 1956-1975) and “youngest” (born 1976-1985). These generations roughly correspond, respectively, to people ages 55 to 74, 35 to 54 and 25 to 34 as of 2010, the most recent year for which detailed census data are available in many countries. Whenever this report refers to “adults,” it means people who were 25 or older in 2010 (or, in some cases, the most recent year for which data are available).

The report presents figures at the global and regional levels but also includes select country-level data as illustrations of larger trends. It includes data from 151 countries, collectively representing 95% of the 3.6 billion people around the world who were 25 or older in 2010. Analyses of change across generations include data from 130 countries with available data on all three birth cohorts, representing 87% of the world’s population in 2010 ages 25 to 74.

The approach in this report is primarily descriptive: It lays out the differences in educational levels among religious groups without attempting to explain the reasons for those differences. Chapter 7 outlines some of the ways that social scientists think religion may influence educational attainment.

In this study, the world is divided into six regions . It includes data from 35 countries in the Asia-Pacific region; 36 countries in Europe, including Russia; 30 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, including Central America and Mexico; 12 countries in the Middle East-North Africa region; Canada and the United States in North America; and 36 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

• The rationale for estimating educational attainment among adults at least 25 years old is that by age 25, most adults are likely to have reached their highest level of educational attainment. ↩
• Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital is a collaboration between the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), the Vienna Institute of Demography of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, and the Vienna University of Economics and Business (Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien). Wittgenstein Centre educational attainment estimates are published in Lutz, Wolfgang, William P. Butz and Samir KC, eds. 2014. “World Population and Human Capital in the 21st Century.” ↩
• For details on the educational categories used in this report see “A note about this analysis” at the end of this overview and in the Methodology . ↩
• In 61 of the 112 countries (54%) with education data on a religious majority group and at least one religious minority group, at least one religious minority was more likely than the majority group to have post-secondary education by 5 percentage points or more. And in 11 of the 73 countries (15%) with data on a religious majority and at least two religious minorities, all religious minority groups were more likely than the majority to have higher education. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Christianity
• Comparison of Religions
• Educational Attainment
• Gender & Religion
• Muslims Around the World
• Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project
• Religion & Politics
• Religious Demographics
• Size & Demographic Characteristics of Religious Groups

Many around the globe say it’s important their leader stands up for people’s religious beliefs

4 facts about religion and diversity in taiwan, across asia, respect for elders is seen as necessary to be ‘truly’ buddhist, religion and spirituality in east asian societies, how people in south and southeast asia view religious diversity and pluralism, most popular, report materials.

• Appendix C: Mean years of schooling by country, religion and gender
• How Religious Groups Differ in Educational Attainment
• Estimates of Education by Religious Group data spreadsheets

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center