If you’re like me, the first thing you think of when you
hear the word “none” is Whoopi Goldberg in Sister Act. Yes, Whoopi played a nun
in a movie, but that’s not the kind we’re talking about.
Someone who identifies or is categorized as “none” is
someone who is not affiliated with any place of worship or religious/spiritual
practice. So let’s say you’re taking a survey and a multiple-choice question
pops up. It asks “Which church do you belong to?” and lists off options. If you
don’t belong to any of them, you may select “none,” as in “none of the above.”
Nones are not a new phenomenon. However, there has been a
rather stark increase of Americans who are not affiliated over the past 50
years. According to the Pew Research Center, statistics taken from the
U.S. Census Bureau’s August 2012 Current Population Survey show that just under
20% of US adults are religiously unaffiliated. A large number of nones are
young adults (18-30ish) and the number is growing.
For some people, me included, the phrase “none” carries
connotations that I do not like. It’s a vague word that suggests that someone
who is a none is someone who holds no religious or spiritual beliefs. And while
that may be the case for some, it isn’t the case for all.
In their book, Robert Putnam and David Campbell
explain that it’s important to clarify that nones are people who are “less
attached to organized religion than other Americans” while they also “do not
seem to have discarded all religious beliefs or predilections.”
There are many reasons why the percentage of nones is rising
in the United States. Putnam and Campbell offer one example that historically,
a number of churches have been deeply infused with politics, and vice versa.
That makes some people uncomfortable. The topics of abortion and women’s
rights, 9/11, and homosexuality and same-sex marriage, are a few topics that
make people uneasy when religion is thrown in.
One of my goals for this conversation of nones is to come up
with a new term, as well as think about whether a term is even necessary, or
appropriate. It sort of reminds me of gender fluidity. A number of my friends
identify as gender non-conforming and queer. That’s putting it simply because
many of us feel that there just isn’t a word in the English language that
articulates how someone identifies well enough. The same goes for how some
people practice religion. Maybe I’m Buddhist today, even though I was Christian
yesterday. Tomorrow, I could have no idea what I am.
There have been some religious typologies that a lot of
people have thought of. My favorite so far is “Seeker.” But is that specific
enough? I’d love to hear your reactions to “none” and offer any thoughts on it
in the comment section below.
