Connecticut is not necessarily ‘getting religion.’
A national survey recently published by SmileHub, a nonprofit organization that researches charities, ranked the Constitution State in the bottom tier at 41st for “Most Religious State.”
The top five most religious states were Alabama, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee and North Carolina; meanwhile, Alaska, Vermont, Nevada, New Hampshire and Maine comprised the bottom five. Connecticut fared better than any other state in New England, as Rhode Island and Massachusetts were 43rd and 45th, respectively.
In short, Connecticut is the most religious state in New England — but not by much. Despite outshining other regional states, Connecticut is still suffering from “lower levels of religious interest and fewer places of worship” compared to the rest of the country, according to the report’s author, Luke Powers told Yankee Institute. Only 28% of adults consider religion “very important in their lives”; 20% attend religious services weekly; and there are fewer congregations per capita.
Connecticut, however, is not alone in losing its religion. Nationwide, for the first time in U.S. history, “nones” outpaced Protestants and Catholics for most religious affiliation, with 28% of Americans describing themselves as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular,” according to a Pew Research Center study released in January.
Are these trends troubling? Definitely to the religiously inclined who long for a spiritual revival. Yet there are several indicators driving apostasy including but not limited to sexual abuse scandals; congregations becoming too political; teachings on LGBTQ people; or simply quiet quitting, according to the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).
But there are wider implications that should concern everyone about the decline in American religiosity. Religious unaffiliated residents are less civically engaged than those active in their faith lives, and less charitable in terms of monetary donations. As apostasy grows, services and costs once assumed by religious institutions are now being absorbed by government budgets and, thus, taxpayers.
As Samuel L. Perry, Professor of Sociology at the University of Oklahoma, wrote in Time Magazine about religion trends on a macro-level, “much of what religious institutions historically provided America’s citizens — education; counseling; support for the needy; marriage options; entertainment; and explanations for how the world works — are increasingly provided by the state and the market.”
So, what’s the status of religion in Connecticut?
‘For as Much as it Hath Pleased Almighty God’
Strolling along most — if not all — downtowns in Connecticut are Christian churches. In colonial times, the church was a village’s epicenter, typically located near the green, which served as the “public gathering places, market places, parade grounds, places for local citizens to report for military training, burying grounds, and grazing areas for cattle or sheep,” according to Connecticut History.
Today, greens still serve several of those purposes; but the churches remind passersby of religion’s former absolute dominance in Connecticut colonial life.
Indeed, Connecticut’s origin is intrinsically linked to religion, specifically the Puritans, a strictly pious Christian sect, who fled persecution in Europe by emigrating to the New World. The state’s founder — Thomas Hooker — was a minister. In 1636, he and one hundred members of his congregation left the Massachusetts Bay Colony and settled near present-day Hartford on the Connecticut River. Several years later, in January 1639, Hooker and Connecticut colonists — now consisting of Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield — formed the Fundamental Orders, that not only “provided the framework for the government of the Connecticut colony from 1639 to 1662,” but in doing so, is “considered by many to be the first written constitution of a democratic government.” This is why Connecticut is nicknamed the “Constitution State.”
The Fundamental Orders drew its inspiration from Christian doctrine, as the document states quite clearly in its preamble:
“…the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed…”
A decade later, the Connecticut colony expanded its reliance on biblical texts for its legal system in the Code of 1650. As Alexis de Tocqueville, a 19th century French political scientist, described in his seminal book Democracy in America, the Code of 1650 was “bizarre” for taking “verbatim from Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Leviticus,” inflicting capital punishment for crimes ranging from blasphemy, adultery, witchcraft, rape and “grave offenses perpetrated by a son upon his parents.” (The first witchcraft trials in America occurred in Connecticut due to these laws.)
Tocqueville, himself a Christian, remarked that, though troubling, Connecticut legislators sought for the “preservation of moral order and good practices in their society.” While he argued against a theocracy, favoring a separation of church and state, the French political scientist saw religion “no less the companion of liberty in all its battles and its triumphs; the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims,” adding, “The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom.”
In fact, Tocqueville further emphasized the connection between religion and inalienable rights, warning:
“Do you not see the decline of religions and the disappearance of the divine conception of rights? Do you not realize that morals are changing and with them the moral notion of rights is being removed?”
Fast forward to the 21st century. In 2000, 54.5% of Connecticut’s population were considered among the numerous faiths and denominations across the state; by 2020, that number dropped to 38.6%, with the Catholic Church losing more than 347,000 adherents, according to the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). Meanwhile, Pew Research Center finds that 70% of Connecticut adults identify as Christians (33% are Catholics, 17% are Mainline Protestant, 13% Evangelical and 5% Historically Black Protestant); 3% are Jewish; and 1% are Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu, each. Yet 23% are unaffiliated — otherwise known as “nones.”
Though both institutions present different figures, the overall trend for religious affiliation is on the downslope, barring a few exceptions like Islam, which has seen a rise in congregations and adherents, according to ARDA.
Which leads to SmileHub ranking Connecticut as the 41st “Most Religious State.” In an email interview with Yankee Institute, Powers said, “Although the state did not fall into the bottom five for the fewest faith and religious support charities (41st), fewest religious establishments (35th), or the lowest share of adults who consider religion very important in their lives (42nd), these relatively low rankings still contributed to its overall standing.”
He added, “The combination of a limited number of religious charities and establishments, along with a significant portion of the population placing less importance on religion, underscores why Connecticut ranks lower in fostering religious interest and community engagement.”
The survey also compared states between three subcategories — Religious Interest & Places of Worship; Religious Education & Careers; and Religion-Affiliated Organizations — in which Connecticut ranked 41st, 6th and 37th, respectively.
Powers noted how the higher placement in the Religious Education & Careers category may be “surprising, especially given [Connecticut’s] lower overall religious engagement metrics,” but the state has a “notable share of religion-related careers.”
“Religious Education, in this context, goes beyond the sheer quantity of religious institutions offering education,” he told Yankee Institute. “It encompasses the broader scope of religious studies, sacred music degrees, and the prevalence of careers tied to religious vocations,” adding that the state has “a strong professional landscape supporting religious activities, contributing to its higher score in this category.”
Nevertheless, Powers finds that there is still a “relatively lower presence of organizations primarily engaged in promoting religious activities,” such as faith-based charities, religious schools, media outlets and other establishments that support religious causes, hence the 37th rank in the Religion-Affiliated Organizations category.
While Connecticut is not the only state experiencing these issues, it is nevertheless a far cry, for better or worse, from the state’s origins.
To Cast a Vote and Give Alms?
Democracy in America is a much discussed talking point in the 2024 Presidential Election, and indeed a concern among a majority of voters. In March, the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service Battleground Civility Poll found that “81% of respondents stated that they believe democracy in America is currently being threatened, 72% agreeing with that statement strongly.”
Other surveys, like the Vanderbilt Unity Poll released in June, discovered similar alarming results with “nearly half of respondents (49 percent) [saying] they felt American democracy is under attack”; meanwhile, respondents told the Washington Post, “Threats to democracy are second only to the economy in the percentage of swing state voters overall who describe the issue as extremely important.”
As Tocqueville argued nearly two centuries ago, religion and democracy in American life are deeply intertwined, informing the country’s morality. The French political scientist recognized a phenomenon once explained by Founding Father John Adams, who said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Now, a decline in religious affiliation and a belief that ‘democracy is in peril’ is a causal relationship rather than correlated. But not so with civic engagement. According to a Pew Research Center survey released in January, “By a variety of measures, religious ‘nones’ are less civically engaged and socially connected than people who identify with a religion.” The report further claims, “On average, [nones] are less likely to vote, less likely to have volunteered lately, less satisfied with their local communities and less satisfied with their social lives.”
The gap is not small across several categories either. According to the same study, 27% of religiously affiliated Americans volunteered compared to 17% of “nones”; and 51% of religiously affiliated people voted in the 2022 election versus only 39% of “nones.”
Although not as wide margins, religiously affiliated adults (41%) follow government and public affairs more closely than religious “nones” (36%); and 30% of religiously affiliated adults have contacted an official and/or attended a government meeting versus 27% of “nones.”
However, Pew noted that “it’s not whether a person identifies with a religion (or not) but whether they actively take part [emphasis theirs] in a religious community that best predicts their level of civic engagement,” adding that “the link between religious disaffiliation and civic engagement is complicated.”
To complicate matters more in terms of deciphering civic engagement, New Hampshire and Maine — who are the least religious states per SmileHub’s study — boast some of the highest voter turnout rates in the country, while Connecticut ranks 33rd overall, according to Wisevoter. Meanwhile, Vermont, Rhode Island and Massachusetts finished 14, 30 and 40, respectively.
Also, Connecticut has shown active volunteerism, which peaked during the pandemic’s height. According to Connecticut By the Numbers, more than 828,000 Connecticut residents volunteered 50.1 million hours of service worth an estimated $1.7 billion. (However, the Constitution State was not among the “top ten states in formal or informal volunteering, but was above the national average in formal volunteering and on par with the national average in informal volunteering.”)
Still, Scott Thumma, co-director at the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, affirms Pew’s conclusion, telling Yankee Institute, “There are a number of variables that also play into this relationship such as religious tradition, race, and region of the country but [the relationship between the level of religiosity, charitable giving and civic engagement] is mostly a direct positive relationship.”
To be sure, charitable giving is not exclusively a religious phenomenon. For instance, the U.S. government has donated more than $4 billion in humanitarian aid in 2024 alone, and $15.47 billion in 2023; yet this is dwarfed by the amount of giving by Americans in 2023, which totaled $557.16 billion in 2023, according to Giving USA. (Although, due to inflation, giving declined by 2.1% from the previous year).
However, it is important to reflect on charity from a historical perspective. In ancient times, “charity was given to enhance the giver’s reputation and make others beholden to him” and since “the poor could not return the favor, they received little charity,” writes Rev. Ben Johnson for Acton Institute. Moreover, the poor were not well-regarded. As Andrew Doran, senior research fellow with the Philos Project, claims in his article “Civilization is from the Jews” for the European Conservative:
“Most will agree that civilized behavior, at a minimum, consists of abstaining from ritualistic torture, rape, sexual mutilation, human sacrifice, cannibalism, and related conduct. Yet for most of human history such conduct was normative and often sacralized. Habits of ritual violence and scapegoating to satisfy blood lust and communal anxiety were ubiquitous.”
The rise of Judeo-Christian religions came not only with a new morality, but increased charitable outreach to those on society’s margins. The late Rev. Demetrios J. Constantelos emphasized this point:
“[I]n the early Christian societies of both the Greek East and the Latin West, philanthropia [love for mankind] assumed an integrated and far-reaching meaning, its application directed to the humblest and the poorest. Philanthropia extended to the underprivileged, as it proclaimed freedom, equality, and brotherhood, transcending sex, race, and national boundaries. Thus it was not limited to equals, allies, or relatives, or to citizens and civilized men, as was most often the case in other ancient societies.”
It stands to reason then that if one believes that helping the needy is a commandment commissioned by God with ramifications for one’s eternal soul, they will be more motivated to be charitable than one who is not as religiously active. (Whether their gift is sincere or not is another story.) However, in an American context, Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for The Boston Globe, argued in an August op-ed, “From the earliest days of American history, religious faith and practice have been the foremost drivers of charitable giving and good works.”
He further reported, “Of the roughly 1.5 million charitable entities in the United States (not including foundations), one-third are either explicitly religious, motivated by a religious mission, or in some other way ‘faith-inspired.’” Indeed, Connecticut’s own Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, recently touted setting a new record for charitable giving at $190 million to causes such as supporting Ukrainian refugees, Special Olympics and disaster relief.
In 2019, Philanthropy Roundtable reached similar conclusions in its report “Less God, Less Giving,” finding that “religious practice is the behavioral variable with the strongest and most consistent association with generous giving.” However, the report also notes that “people with religious motivations don’t give just to faith-based causes—they are also much likelier to give to secular causes than the nonreligious,” adding, “Two thirds of people who worship at least twice a month give to secular causes, compared to less than half of non-attenders, and the average secular gift by a church attender is 20 percent bigger.”
Yet if irreligiosity trends continue or rapidly increase, it more than likely will have a drastic effect on charitable giving and certainly religious institutions’ financial stability. In a study released in July, the Hartford Institute for Religion Research found that though “congregational income reached a 15-year high of $165,000 in 2023, it falls short of keeping pace with inflation.” Furthermore, the institute discovered:
“When asked for their top two concerns regarding the current state of their congregation, numerous clergy leaders mention topics related to monetary giving, financial health, and long-term financial stability. Worries about the current financial position or anxiety over forecasting trends for the congregation’s future financial viability are common among clergy leaders.”
Put another way, as The Chronicle of Philanthropy emphasizes, “The nonprofit world as a whole stands to lose a great deal as churches empty of people, money, and energy.”
And who will step in to fill the void? The government — and, therefore, taxpayers.
In 2013, Connecticut launched the Nonprofit Grant Program, which helps “nonprofit health and human service agencies ensure that their funding goes towards assisting those most in need of their services by supporting capital purchases that enhance service delivery, efficiency and effectiveness.” Since then, the program has awarded more than $130 million to state’s nonprofit organizations, supporting nearly 750 projects, according to CT News Junkie.
Though admirable, there is a financial risk of state-sponsored support for nonprofits, as evidenced by a debate between Gov. Ned Lamont and nonprofits earlier this year. According to the CT Mirror, nonprofits agencies argued that they “lose $480 million annually because state payments haven’t kept pace with inflation, leaving them unable to meet demand.” To meet the demand, progressive lawmakers proposed removing the 2017 bipartisan fiscal guardrails, which have reversed decades of pension underfunding, improving Connecticut’s creditworthiness and financial stability.
Altering the fiscal guardrails will have enormous financial implications, permanently stifling the state’s ability to raise capital from private markets in the future, hurting the state’s credit rating and potentially leading to the need to increase the interest rates of future bond issuances.
Removing the guardrails will inflame Connecticut’s current economic problems. Currently, Connecticut residents endure some of the highest taxes and electricity rates in the country, and state businesses expressed a “growing pessimism” that they can “compete on cost and ease of doing business” at the CBIA’s annual Connecticut Economy Summit, according to CT Insider.
Connecticut is not exactly affordable. However, expanding government programs is not charitable either: in fact, increased spending makes everyone poorer, contributing to inflation and raising ‘cost of living’ expenses.
In short, the continued collapse of active religious affiliation is not one to celebrate or even ignore, especially from adherents of American democracy, free market principles and limited government. Millions upon millions of impoverished people depend on the charity given by predominantly religious organizations. Meanwhile, religious principles have been imbued into the fabric of the country’s laws and communities.
What happens if those influences disappear? One can only surmise, to meet the needs, government will step in, which will only increase its bureaucracy and powers. As the 20th century has shown, societies that have witnessed diminished religiosity — or even actively persecute religious practices — often increase government spending and financial woes for those in need and, at worse, leave tens of millions dead.
Is that a future we want? Perhaps it’s worth praying on.
