Posted on 10/22/2025 10:56:22 AM PDT by Morgana
* The director of the Survey Center on American Life, Daniel Cox, notes that US birth rates have dropped alongside a sharp decline in religious participation—weekly church attendance has fallen to 30% from 42% two decades ago.
* He studied the correlation, finding that Christians ages 40–59 average 2.2 children, compared with 1.8 for the unaffiliated. The fertility decline has been steeper among less religious Americans.
* Young religious adults are nearly twice as likely as nonreligious peers to want children (62% vs. 32%). Cox said that upbringing that emphasized family and marriage is more likely to result in a desire for children later.
* Cox argues that family hesitancy among nonreligious Americans stems from pessimism and mistrust rather than disbelief. He concludes that societies that foster collective hope and purpose, in addition to religiosity, could reverse low birth rates.
The falling U.S. birth rate, which hit an all-time low in 2024, is tied to a decline in religiosity, Daniel Cox, the director of the Survey Center on American Life, recently wrote in an article on his Substack.
“Falling birth rates have accompanied a dramatic decline in formal religious participation,” he said. He noted that a March Gallup report found that only about 30% of American adults attend religious services weekly, down from 42% who said the same thing 20 years ago. A Pew report from 2024 discovered that the majority of Americans in their mid-70s or older went to church weekly when they were children, compared with less than half of adults in their early 20s (68% vs. 48%).
“Pew’s landmark study also found a notable fertility gap between religiously affiliated and unaffiliated Americans,” Cox wrote, adding that Christians ages 40 to 59 have an average of 2.2 children, while people who are not religiously affiliated have an average of 1.8.
“But more importantly,” he wrote, “it’s the decline in fertility rates that distinguishes the two groups. This decline has been more pronounced among less religious Americans—suggesting a widening gap.”
According to Cox’s research, 62% of religious Americans younger than 40 years old say they want to have children someday, compared with 32% of nonreligious Americans. He hypothesized that the gap could be from “social contexts that prioritize marriage and parenthood,” noting that those who attend religious services are more likely than those who do not to say that their parents emphasized the values of finding a spouse and raising a family.
“Young adults today are far more likely to hear from their parents about the importance of getting an education or becoming financially independent than about marriage and starting a family,” Cox wrote.
He found that about two-thirds of Americans who said their parents often discussed the value of children also want children of their own, while only about one-third of those whose parents never talked about the benefit of a family want to have children.
Cox also noted that young men are more enthusiastic than young women about having children (57% vs. 45%), according to a 2024 Pew report. He wrote that young secular men and women have similar preferences for having children one day, but found that when separated by gender, religious Americans follow a similar pattern to the Pew report. Fifty-seven percent of religious women hope to have children at some point, compared with 66% of religious men.
“For nonreligious singles, the hesitancy to start a family may stem less from a lack of faith in a higher power and more from a pervasive sense of cynicism and mistrust,” he wrote, noting that nonreligious adults are more likely than their religious counterparts to be anxious, pessimistic about politics, and concerned about the future. He also found that those who are committed to being parents one day are the happiest.
Cox said that he doubts an uptick in religiosity alone would solve the US’ low birthrate, but added that “A society that does a better job of instilling young people with a sense of hopefulness about the future will better enable them to make forward-looking decisions.”
“Bringing children into the world is a radical act of hope. It’s a bet on the future and on ourselves,” he wrote. “It’s also a collective enterprise. But so many of our most critical social and civic institutions—the family, churches and places of worship, and schools—focus more on meeting individual needs rather than fostering a sense of collective obligation. Churches and places of worship can help foster a culture that values children and families, but they can’t do it alone.”
“Cox also noted that young men are more enthusiastic than young women about having children (57% vs. 45%)...”
That’s a large gap, and a gap that is primarily decided by that 45%.
God said, Be fruitful and multiply.
Nothing against the good Mr Cox
I see this a lot more as folks not thinking they could support even a small family - with up to 1/2 of **all income** grabbed by “Government’ at all levels, what real choice do they have?
Cut taxes at all levels and see what happens.
Of course, the professional grifters, thieves and vote buyers will fight anything like a real tax cut.
Since all the women have to work these days I would think it would be more related to who can afford children?
There are simply too many interesting distractions in modern life, all of them geared towards entertainment.
Texting, the internet, social media, online porn, online gambling, websites that cater to any desire, sports everywhere, celebrity worship, etc. etc.
Compared to that, church, community service, and raising children is far more mundane and the opposite of instant gratification.
Past generations had none of that. I tend to believe they would have acted no differently than we do.
“Since all the women have to work these days I would think it would be more related to who can afford children?”
I want to ask you all something.
My granny always said that if women stayed at home with the kids there would be better paying jobs for men and families would be better off. Was she correct?
Haunting image but correct.
My granny always said that if women stayed at home with the kids there would be better paying jobs for men and families would be better off. Was she correct?
Simple economics, supply and demand, a lower supply of labor, means a higher price for labor, which means higher wages.
And especially when both parents work, there are a lot of additional expenses that go into having both parents working, like additional transporation expenses and daycare, which cuts into the advantage of having a second income.
“Was she correct?”
Perhaps, but if the cost of labor goes up, so does the price of goods and services, and that would force those women back into the workforce.
So, you would end up exactly where your were.
“and daycare, which cuts into the advantage of having a second income.”
That is the one that gets me. How expensive daycare is. It’s not worth it as far as I’m concerned. Daycares are horrible for the child and expensive. Kids that little should be with mommy or at least daddy. If mom really has to work then could they stay with grandma? I don’t think modern families are gaining anything by having the mom work. I think this is something that is just pushed on women as “female empowerment” by telling them they need to have a job and earn a paycheck for self worth. That being a mother is “not an important job” when in fact it’s the most important.
it will eventually correct itself as the communist childless Satan worshipers die off and the children of the Godly have children of their own.
It is all about choices and priorities. People 200 years ago could afford to have 10 kids; today we are unimaginably more prosperous, so saying you can't have 10 kids today with earning power dramatically more than what people had 200 years ago is nonsense.
I never held a management/supervisory level position prior to my (early) retirement. I was an engineer for an auto supplier, not a particularly lucrative career. My wife was a stay-at-home homeschool mom. We were never in want in any real way.
As a new Christian after college, I figured if dirt-poor shepherds could be expected to tithe 10% in the Old Testament any modern person should be able to do better. So I set a minimum of 15% for charity each year, and always beat it. Not only have I managed to make ends meet, I retired at 47 and funded a 501C3 charitable foundation from my investments.
I could live in a mansion now, but I live very simply and modestly, and yet I would laugh at the notion that I'm deprived in any real sense. I'm blessed. In a few hours I'm off on a round-the-world trip to Pakistan to support churches and orphans and Christian schoolchildren there. I guess if you bless others, you really will be blessed. Though I would warn that giving simply to get back is entirely the wrong mindset. But so is trying to keep up with the Jones's over every stupid new expensive toy that everyone "must" have.
Some women are barely making it while working full time. Daycare, apartments, groceries, it’s expensive.
People 200 years ago were dirt poor. Americans have never been wealthier.
Child avoidance is a disease of affluence! Not poverty.
In some places cost-of-living is very high because of socialism and corruption making housing unaffordable, groceries expensive because of crime, etc. If people can't afford to live in those places, the bottom line is they need to leave. I live on my own now in flyover country on less than $35K/year in personal expenses. It's all about choices and priorities.
That’s cause they are single parents. A recipe for extreme difficulty. Kids need two parents. I know that is sometimes impossible but we need to try a lot harder.
Not all are single parents by choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.