senators grilled social media ceos for not doing enough to protect children online

pestering the ceos to back more regulation. we wanted know your ideas about regulating these companies. if you live in the eastern part of the country style in at (202) 748-8000, mountain pacific (202) 748-8001 you can also text with your first name, city and state (202) 748-8003, you can also go on facebook.com/cspan or on x @ cspanwj. the ceo from meta had apologized to the families who had gathered for the hearing blaming the social media companies for

victimizing children. [video clip] >> you have families from across the nation whose children are harmed or gone and you don't think it is appropriate to talk about taking the steps that you took? have you compensated any of the victims? >> sorry? [video clip] >> these girls, have you compensated them? >> why not? >> why not help with counseling services or the damage you caused? >> our job and what we take seriously is making sure we build industry-leading tools. >> to make money. >> you didn't take any action,

you didn't fire anybody. let me ask you this. there are families of the victims today have you apologize to those victims? would you like to do so now? would you like to apologize to the victims? show them the pictures? [applause] >> no one should have to go through what your families have suffered in this is why we have invested so much to make sure that no one will have to go through what you're families of gone through. host: the ceo of meta apologizing for face book and instagram and the problems that is because to families across the country. we want you to reply to this

problem. as more regulation needed for social media? if you live in the eastern part of the country dial in at (202) 748-8000, pacific (202) 748-8001 , you could also text to (202) 748-8003 and facebook.com/cspan and on x @cspanwj. companies restricting false information has risen steadily. most americans say they should take steps to restrict false information and violent content. there is more support for

moderating the content than the federal government doing so. do you agree with that? does regulation need to come from the companies themselves and not the federal government forcing them to do so? join the conversation and let us know. mark zuckerberg told the committee that this is what his company has been doing. his platform has about 40,000 people working on safety issues and his company has spent more than 20 billion on the issues since 2016. senators rages ceos in the

companies failed to do better against predators. this is when laphonza butler questioned the cofounder of snapchat. [video clip] >> there are a number of parents whose children have been able to access illegal drugs on your platform. what do you say to those parents? >> we are devastated. >> to the parents, what do you say to those parents? >> i am so sorry we haven't been able to prevent these tragedies. we have proactively looked for and detected drug-related content and remove it from the platform in reference to law enforcement. we have worked together with nonprofits on information

campaigns because the scale of the pandemic is epidemic. that campaign was viewed more than 260 million times. >> there are two fathers who lost their sons at 16 years old. their children were able to get those pills from snapchat. i know there are statistics and good efforts but none of those efforts are keeping our kids from getting access to those drugs on your platform. as a california company i have talked to you about what it means to be a good neighbor and what american should be expected from you. you owe them more than statistics and i look forward to you showing up on all pieces of legislation to keep our children safe.

host: california senator butler questioning snapchat co-founder about buying drugs on the platform. the ceo of discord, x, meta, all before the committee yesterday and it was a bipartisan grilling from the senators. what do you say on this question ? should these companies be regulated and should it be the government? caller: i am a self-employed business owner that is a small business but i appreciate what these businesses have done we are just looking for a pocket to

pick. some want to blame when we are not parenting. when we don't have time and doing our job. i do feel offended that we are spending more time and money pointing fingers and looking for someone to pay the bill when what has really happened is that we haven't been parenting. host: on facebook melinda echoing what you had to say. parents need to regulate their children's internet usage. the government is not going to do something, that is your job. mona in virginia, what you say? caller: i am very upset with the negativity that callers have

expressed. i have coworkers who have been damaged by social media and i don't understand why we can't regulate a company that makes money. this is a money issue. host: mona, you dropped off their? caller: when we talk about social media companies who are making money off of our children and young adults. i have coworkers who have been damaged and have had to have counseling behind social media. i don't deal with social media and i understand small

businessesgh social media but we regulate everything else. yet, we can't seem to regulate social media companies. i am not understanding what the holdup is. host: the point made by the senators yesterday was they were likening these sites to big tobacco who fought regulation for years from congress in one senators saying when boeing have problems with their planes, the government agency grounded those planes and what are they doing to protect children? joe and red bank, new jersey. caller: it definitely has to be regulated by the government

because it is a nationwide problem. is not in any one state. they have gotten away without being regulated for years. they have all made millions of dollars. i wouldn't be surprised if you came back a year from today and the problems still exist because the congressman and senators depend on the big business interest and companies to get money for reelection campaigns they have a conflict of interest. they want to regulate the companies but want them to pay for their campaign. host: listen to this from the washington post.

this is their front-page story. committee leaders said they hoped the hearing would help build momentum for a package of bills hoping to curb child endangering information online by making it more difficult for platforms to dismiss protections. senators repeatedly attacked on wednesday they have advanced the bill in may but the measure has since stalled with no clear timetable to be taken up by the full chamber. what do you think of the idea behind the legislation allowing them to be sued and not allowing immunity? caller: those are good ideas.

i would add provisions that would increase penalty until time for hackers and regulate companies like tiktok which is a front company for communist china. the most important section you read was where you said the bill stalled in congress with no clear idea of when it will pass. unless you get on top of these guys this will continue happening. host: states have passed an array of laws to require tech companies to either build more stringent requirements or bar teens from accessing social media without approval but many

sweeping measures are facing legal challenges or held up in court. we went to get your reaction, is this regulation that should be done and should happen on the state level or federal level? if you're in the central part of the country (202) 748-8000, western part of the country (202) 748-8001. next we have steve. steve from pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: you got me there. a simple comment, i don't

believe the problem will be solved as long as posters remain anonymous. if you write a letter to your newspaper they publish your name in your city. when i called and this morning i was asked my first name in my zip code. a simple identification. as things stand, there is no repercussion for anything you post on social media. the responsibility lies with the posters and you can't expect young kids to make intelligent posts unless they feel they will get repercussions for bullying or any of the other problems resealed social media.

have a great morning, happy groundhog day. host: here is chat on facebook. regulate the social media companies and let's propose an age limit of 18, we have technology to do this. you could react to chatter in the other caller you have heard or the root word -- report we've heard this morning. we have michael from massachusetts next. caller: can you hear me this morning? i think the callers have made a great point. i think there is a multipronged approach, parenting and educating the kids and there is a degree of regulation already

in effect but i think we can do more to make these social media companies accountable. host: what is the degree of regulation from the fcc. caller: i think we can do more. i know the senators are grandstanding to get brownie points and they have the power to make changes but they are hypocrites. social media companies do not do enough to identify who is using their platform. they may have the power to block as much as they can a simple solution is to ban tiktok and

social medias are allowed to distribute data. they are making money off my data but were not making a dime for. every time were on social media platforms they are able to make a lot of money off of our back. we can hold them accountable and make them self regulate. host: should people be able to sue these companies? caller: absolutely if there is a data breach, i have a responsibility, i don't do any social media at all. host: what about the argument

senators were making yesterday pointing to the families in the room some of them had lost families to suicide saying they should be able to sue you because they had been bullied online? caller: i have a lot of sympathy but suicide is a conditional issue with the people who succumb to that and i don't think you can hold the platform responsible for someone committing suicide but you can hold them accountable for not being responsible for not doing as much as humanly possible to protect children and our nation from misinformation and everything else. i think they could play a much

bigger role in like one of the callers said they contribute to the senators and politicians. we can even get a daylight savings time adjustment and we are expecting these senators and congresspeople to help us out. i think it is a multi-pronged approach a little regulation and a lot of accountability. host: in the washington post reporting lawmakers acknowledge their own failure to act contributed to the ongoing problems with child abuse on the internet.

are we also to blame? absolutely said lindsey graham. william from ohio. caller: hi greta, good morning. i'm just an old tennessean and i've always said crooked politicians have their own three ring circus and the only time they need us is when they want money during election time. i wouldn't waste my valuable any one those critics. i feel so sorry for my great grandkids they won't stand a chance of the hot water. it is a shame that we have let these croaks take over.

i knew they would take the world the first time they came out and now we have bitcoin, is just one thing after another. host: on faceboo a we talking about regulatg websites when the biggest threat to children hisun? so tired of performative politics. in washington dc, how do you answer this question? caller: when you get a cell phone facebook is automatically on the cell phone. there is nothing you can do to remove the app because if you do is says it will reset your phone. i have a really big issue with

facebook just slogging out of the account permanently. facebook is so huge that on any android device, it is automatically installed as an app for you to use. i find that extremely problematic. the fact they have that much is a really big issue. host: that's interesting because meta and other social media companies are saying it is the phone maker apple, android, they are the ones that should take responsibility for allowing children to get these apps in the first place. there should be a safeguard for

children on the phone and if they wanted download an app it is apple or samsung's responsibility to get that app without parental approval. host: that's a catch-22. caller: for instagram you have to go into the app but facebook? that outcomes preprogrammed on any new android device you have. to say that is samsung's responsibility, they are trying to play politics there.

i am pretty sure they entered into an agreement with samsung and apple to do that. for them to say that is mind-boggling. host: don on facebook says you lost me at more regulation. it is more regulation needed for social media companies. washington is debating what to do so it is your opportunity to tell these lawmakers what you would like them to do and how you would like them to act on this? alex in texas. caller: it's really simple. this is parenting. every social media cap has a true instruction why can a parent keep their kids off social media? it's as that.

and i has parental controls for a parent to use to keep your kid from downloading anything. you let your kid speak to random people all day. why are you doing anything about it. host: jackson in wilmington, north carolina. caller: meta is too big to fail the fines they have paid her nothing but -- caller: i think there should be more regulation. why are they groveling to these

companies? back when bill clinton was president we didn't have social media but kids are still buying drugs because the parents were paying attention when breaking bad was on tv we weren't saying breaking bad is influencing people by drugs. we have things like amazon that has no competition facebook has no competition there is nothing like facebook it's the only one of its kind in is stealing data and taking information. we need to do more regulation to make sure these billionaires are

taxed more and looked into. we are not the problem is the people trying to make money off the backs of innocent people. host: who are using the social media sites? the youngest u.s. adults are far more likely to use instagram, snapshot and tiktok. ages are less pronounced for facebook. these are the ages of the user for these platforms. these are the youngest people 65 plus, 50-60 four, and this is the youngest generation. tiktok should be banned. there was lots of conversation

about whether tiktok should be banned. we will show you at back and fon senators as well. jerome and lancaster california. hi jerome, go ahead. caller: i believe they should create a new platform that would be separate from the platforms that already exist for honest communication free from propaganda and conspiracy theories that have helped create division in this country. regulation creates a platform with something like c-span where there is an honest debate. host: we want more conversation

with all of you on this topic. keep dialing in and join us on facebook, x or send us a text. joining us from capitol hill is chrissy houlahan, a member of the armed services committee, a democrat from pennsylvania. we wanted to take this time with you and we appreciate this time to discuss retaliation by the united states on that u.s. base in jordan. the president said he had a plan. what do you think he should do? guest: i think it is not an appropriate question to ask me a member of the armed services committee to opine on what the commander-in-chief should do. there are a bevy of people who can given advice -- give him advice.

i think it should be proportional, appropriate and directed at the people who perpetrated this attack and i believe our commander-in-chief will make those decisions. host: the u.s. has been responding to the threats of the who these in the presence they have on the red sea and the threat to global commerce. what can you tell us, i know you're on the committee, what impact does this having on the houthis? it's not clear our responses have made much of a difference. there is still a struggle to navigate those waters freely for many communities. i think a response have made to some amount of difference and i'm certain we will continue to respond.

as a president will in the coming weeks. host: what are your concerns of the region for potential escalation? guest: i have deep concerns about that and that is a fine line the administration has had to walk. anything done on behalf of the protection of our allies has the possibility to escalate in the region and it is important that we tread that line carefully. i believe this administration has done that and some of the criticism coming from my colleagues about a more aggressive response needs to be put in its place. there needs to be a more thoughtful response to when, and who we are retaliating so we don't escalate this into a larger conflict. host: what role or

responsibility does congress have here? guest: we have a responsibility in many cases we are on the defense and the president has the obligation and authority to respond to defense. we have a responsibility should this escalate to anything further to give authorization and authority to the president. host: moving to the situation in gaza, you joined a group who has served in the military asserting israel's tactics are endangering hamas militants. guest: we are a of democrats who have served and we do have concerns as an ally and friend to israel and a group that wants to make sure that israel is able to protect that

sovereignty and do so within the boundaries defined by international law. it's an important message to send to think about that this is not an extended or expanded war and we have the ability to create a two state solution where israelis and palestinians could live side-by-side? host: has the president been forceful enough with israel? guest: they are doing as much as possible. there is a lot going on behind-the-scenes to make sure that we are having open and frank discussions with israel to make sure we are able to free hostages and find an abiding peace. host: is there a cease fire and

under what conditions? guest: it's an agreement on both sides and at this point hamas has done indicated a willingness to step forward with any positives so at this point a cease-fire is not something i would support unless less of mosses at the table. host: one more reason to talk about is what is going on with ukraine. dat ukraine is tied up with negotiations over the southern border. what is your stance on that? guest: i had the chance to meet in lithuania and it was starting to see our men and women stationed in less to

hear their fear that if were not able to accomplish and aid package that the next domino would be moldova, estonia, those places that prudent as talked about escalating the conflict. this should be tied to ukraine aid and border security. there is a subset of all of us who are willing to move forward. we need to move forward with the deal is so my idea would support all of those things that i'm hopeful or leadership can respond to that. host: what do you think happens next on this? is there a conversation about separating border aid from

provisions? guest: depending on who to talk to -- who you talk to, i am hopeful and anxious we get something done because these three different situations are all urgent in terms of how to be able to help american people in national security. host: on the domestic side the house approved a tax bill, how did you vote and why? guest: this is a perfect example of what is possible in washington dc. a bipartisan court bill, we were allowed and permitted without going through a rules committee and so these are the ways we can accomplish things like border security if we are allowed to

compromise a get together at the same table we have some rich opportunity. host: what is in the spell and why is it bipartisan? guest: we had a child care tax cut. it had pieces of legislation that supported research and development task has. -- tax code. host: chrissy houlahan from pennsylvania, we want to thank you for your perspective. back to our conversation with all of you. as more regulation needed from social media companies. michael, did you get a chance to watch the ceos or hear what they

had to tell lawmakers yesterday? caller: yes i did and lindsey graham's opening statement, you do need more parenting. but he also brought up the fact that the media is being bombarded by misinformation and i was hoping they would address that. i am a retired technician from the 90's and we had a big debate in school about tech companies they have too much power because the discussion was should this kind of technology be in the hands of the public because of this information. look at the state or nation's in because of misinformation and none of them touch base on that. host: the hearing yesterday with

social media ceos and mark zuckerberg the ceo of meta you had the ceos of tiktok, snapchat, discord all before the judiciary committee. if you missed anything from the four hour hearing you could go to our website and we are also offering c-span's short take from the hearing. if you don't have hours to sit down to watch this hearing you can get an idea of the questions from the senators to the ceos if you go to our youtube page or other digital platforms c-span short takes are a fast way to watch what is happening on capitol hill. and on greensburg -- in greensburg we have and.

ne. are you there? caller: i am right here. let me tell you, we need to put every body on the left in the right get them out of the offices and put them on the ship and put them all over the world and leave the united states out of it. they are not helping us. host: we're talking about social media. caller: let me tell you zuckerberg while he made the money he was ok but now that he

has being cut into pieces they're all getting on him. i am from the old school awa ho: use these sites at your own risk. what is next? why wo, t a job as a lawyer. dan in pennsylvania saying it is your responsibility on social media platforms. leroy in savannah, georgia. caller: good morning greta. i watched some of the hearing and it is so hypocritical of these politicians to talk about social media companies they do nothing about weapons companies

and the number of kids killed by guns. host: tiktok had a representative at the hearing and senators were peppering mr. chui and fluids. this is ted cruz. [video clip] >> if you look at what is on tiktok in china you are promoting educational videos and limit the amount of time kids can be on tiktok and in the united states who are promoting so far videos and anti-israel propaganda. why is there such a difference? >> that is not accurate.

tiktok is not available in china. >> you have technology in china that promotes positive materials. >> let me point to this there was a report recently that compared hashtags on instagram to #'s on tiktok and the differences were striking. for something like #taylor swift mania trout researchers found to instagram pose for one on tiktok but the differences jumping eight to one for the #tibet,

#tiananmen square and 174 to one for #hong kong protest. why on instagram can they put hong kong approaches compared to tiktok. what are they doing on behalf of china? >> nothing. not all videos carry hashtags in the second thing. >> why the difference between taylor swift mania and tiananmen square. >> why would there be no difference on taylor swift mania and tiananmen square?

>> you are selecting certain search words. >> 174 for hong kong versus taylor swifties alarming. >> if you missed any of the hearing you can find it on the website. following this hearing said these media companies be regulated? back in hammond, indiana. caller: it is all the way down to the parent and the child picks it up i see people when i am eating the husband has one the husband has one, the kid has one.

it's a situation that need to be regulated is a big problem. host: you're talking about cell phones? caller: whatever you are talking on these days put the kids first. the parent has to be held accountable for putting these things in their hands, where are they getting them from? host: this is fro larry in milford, michigan. have we come so weak that every segment of our life needs to be protected. parents need to regulate their kids. the washington post has an article. switch your kids profiles to

private and make sure those profiles are not public. this like one they have is limit the context from strangers. social media apps have settings that limit who can send you direct messages. friends only can shield your teams from scans and bullies. talk to them about the dm's they receive you could brainstorm together what can go wrong when strangers pry into their inbox. 75% of teen girls had received a picture of a pianist and there dm's unsolicited. one third is video stitches.

stitching or remixing lets people use snippets of other users video a popular tiktok before a popular tiktok video. it could mean your tiktok video being viewed by a few friends as opposed to millions of users. in eastern maryland, what you say? caller: i think the prior to caller said what i was going to say. i have a phd in computer science and i am a parent it is totally up to parents there is no law that you can write that will solve the problem you don't buy a skateboard for her two-year-old you don't tell a teenager to ride your bike on the interstate you put a fence

around your swimming pool so your youngsters can't get into the pool. don't give your kid a cell phone. host: your example about the fences of regulation. caller: it's a regulation but you have to have it. so the government has said if you want a pool you have to put up a fence or you will be liable of somebody wanders onto your property and drugs in your pool. caller: that's a different situation than your own children this is a parent's responsibility to monitor what their kids are doing and if they don't have the time to do that the unfortunately she they should not of been parents. no amount of money is going to fix the heartbreak of those parents who were there yesterday.

it doesn't matter what law you pass it will not solve the problem or make somebody whole. host: during the hearing yesterday there was this exchange between marsha blackburn and the meadows ceo. [video clip] >> i want to talk about your instagram creators program that you are pushing forward because you want to bring kids in early. you see these teenagers valuable quoting from the emails suggesting teens are household influencers and to bring in their younger siblings into the platform, instagram. how can you ensure that instagram creators, your product

and program does not facilitate illegal activities when you fail to remove content pertaining to the sale of minors? >> are tools our industry leading. >> mr. zuckerberg if there is a lot slipping through. this is the premier sex trafficking site. >> that's ridiculous. >> why don't you take it down? no you are not, you are not. we have been working on this

stuff for a decade. you have been army of lawyers and lobbyists that have fought us on this every step of the way. you work with the cato institute , taxpayers protection alliance so fight our bipartisan legislation to keep kids safe online. so will you stop funding these groups? are you going to stop lobbying against this? yes or no. [applause. ] >> of course we will work with you on legislation. >> you need to come to the table, each and every one of you need to come to the table and work with us, kids are dying. host: lisa in raleigh, north

carolina. tell washington what you think they should do on regulating social media companies. caller: good morning c-span. i am in agreement with the other callers. it is the parents. they put these devices in their children's hands and let them babysit their children and now they have a problem. that dog and pony show that congress is putting up is absolutely ridiculous. they are just acting like that because the parents were in the room. zuckerberg is like any other company, they are out to make money. and if parents don't want to regulate their children, it is their fault. as a society, we are going downhill. it is all about tech now. host: this is what eldon brought

on facebook says, no, don't regulate them and then it will be controlled by a few elites. protect free speech. john in virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. hello? host: we are listening. caller: first of all, these senators, they have no knowledge of technology and the people sitting in front of them are well educated technologists. if you can ask a question bring someone who knows what they are talking about. they are not talking about the issues they need to address. this technology, they need people who understand the system very well and reasonably. you can give your children a

phone. but those companies are here to make money and the reality is, ted cruz and lindsey graham, they don't know anything about technology. host: happening on capitol hill yesterday was a hearing on the threat china poses on cybersecurity testifying before the fbi director as well as cybersecurity warning of chinese hacking threats. this is from jen easterly at yesterday's hearing. [video clip] >> we have long been focused on the cyber threat from china but as you have heard, in recent years we have seen a concerning revolution and chinese targeting

infrastructure. burrowing deep into our infrastructure to construct attacks in the event of a major crisis. this is a world where a crisis could endanger the lives of americans at home to the disruption of our pipelines and severing of telecommunications, the pollution of our water facilities. all to ensure that they can incite panic and chaos and deter our ability to marshal military might and civilian will. host: that was yesterday's hearing before the house subcommittee on china. you are interested in that hearing and what the fbi director had to say, find it on our website, c-span.org. if you don't have the time to sit through hours of that

testimony, you can find points of interest on the video player on our website. that will allow you to click through the warnings from government officials. amy in westminster, maryland. what do you think should be done about social media companies? caller: i don't think we should just rule out exploring regulation and exploring that option, but i think that it is very important -- as a parent, i have first-hand experience with limiting and controlling and banning social media from my children. we have a shared phone at the house. having the experience of doing that and protecting them in my own home, but when they go with other children, and other families in other houses, they can be exposed to things from the other cell phones that are brought to parties and sleepovers.

similarly when kids come to my house, they have different controls on their devices, i have to have conversations. i think really what needs to happen more, so that regulation is more training or communication on schools, through training, to reach parents so they can understand more about these apps and how they work, and the dangers and how to come up with a better approach, to let your child communicate, because it is very important that children are able to communicate with each other in a safe way. i think more training is needed. the way to get the parents involved. host: what about this? katie welch on facebook, they need more and/or better safety tools.

it needs to be at the safest level. they need a dashboard so everyone can check the status of settings. caller: sure. you are talking about language that frankly a lot of parents don't understand. my husband knows more about this than i do and he set up a system , but we just don't have good knowledge or the technology like the children do. they are more knowledgeable about. they can get around those things. host: amy in maryland. linda in myrtle beach, south carolina. one more from you, one more conversation. let me try this again. can we go to linda in myrtle beach, south carolina? are you there? caller: yes. host: hi linda. caller: i thought the whole

thing was about causing kids to commit suicide. just from what you're listening to, the senators were up there grilling the social media people. the kids are learning from them, our leaders, our fierce leaders. our ex-president. he is the biggest bully there ever was on this earth. that is where our kids are learning these things. it is the parents' responsibility, not social media. host: we will leave the conversation there for now. we will take a short break. when we come back, a new poll shows the number of americans with no religious affiliation has gone from 5% to nearly 30%

over the past 50 years. we will explore how that trend is impacting u.s. politics with pastor and political scientist, ryan burge of eastern illinois university. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 7:00 p.m. eastern, we continue with the series, free to choose. this episode titled from cradle-to-grave, government welfare programs. 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in american history, the second part of a lecture by history professor michael ron's on the 1925 trial about teaching evolution and its cultural significance to 1920's america. at 9:30 p.m. eastern, first

ladies and civil rights, i look at the complicated history of american first lady and race relations from martha washington to michelle obama. hosted by the white house historical association. 10:30 p.m. eastern on historic campaign speeches, a look at a 1988 speech by vice president george h w bush in south carolina, followed by 2020 democratic provincial candidate joe biden's victory speech after the south carolina primary. explore the american story. watch american history tv, full schedule on your onlinend a program guide or c-span.org/ history. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, former

white house deputy chief of staff christopher labelle will talk about his idea for a new transition period for incoming presidents that would start the ar before they take office. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, one writer with her book, be a revolution, looking at how everyday americans are fighting oppression to bring about change in communities. she is interviewed by an author and activist. find a full schedu oyour program guide. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back this morning with ryan burge, political science professor at eastern illinois university and also the author of a book, the nones, where they came from, who they are and where they are going. who is a none? guest: a none is someone who on

a survey, they say they have no religious affiliation. i categorize it as people who say they are atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular. that is what they check on the survey. in 1970 two, 5% of americans were nones. in 1991, it has risen -- it had only risen to 7%. from 1991 onward, the nones have continued to increase and increase. today, almost 30% of all american adults are nones. amongst generation z, people born in 1996 or later, it is over 40%. i argue it is the largest cultural shift we have seen in america over the last 50 years and it is having implications on every aspect of american society. host: what do these people believe in? guest: it really runs the gamut

from they don't believe in anything spiritual to lots of them do believe in some type of spirituality. there are some atheists who don't believe in a soul or an afterlife, they don't believe in the concept like evil or good. but there is also a lot of nones who are sort of dabbling in different types of spirituality. things like tarot cards and crystals and meditation and yoga. some nones go to church on a semi regular basis. amongst the nothing in particular group, about 33% of them say religion is somewhat important to them. it runs the gamut from i don't like religion, i don't want religion in my life to i am not religious in a traditional sense , not protestant or catholic or muslim, but i still deal for virtual and a connection to god in some way. host: what do they believe about the role of science? guest: amongst atheists and agnostics, we call those people secular people, which means they

have thrown off a religious worldview and they have replaced it with a secular worldview which tends to focus on things like science and rationality. many atheists and agnostics will tell you that science is the best way to understand the world and they follow things like logic and reason. they believe that is the way we should get through life. the nothing in particular group, we call them nonreligious because they have thrown off the religious worldview but they have not replaced it with anything else. sort of halfway on the science side, halfway on the secular side, halfway on the religious side. it is hard to understand how these nothing in particular folks think about things like philosophy. they are floating in the theological and mystical space. host: you wrote, the title of the book is the nones, where they came from, who they are and where they are going. where did they come from? guest: there was only one kind

of person that became a none. a lot of educated white people. but you don't get to be 30% of the population i just being one thing, so now the nones are coming from every aspect of american society. men and women. coming not just from the white community but from the african-american, asian, latino communities. it used to be all were liberals or left of center democrats. now we are seeing a rising number of conservative nones, republican nones. it used to be places like new england or the pacific northwest, but now we are seeing 25 percent or 30% of people living in states like iowa or nebraska are nonreligious. they are coming from every possible aspect of american society, every partisanship, every gender, every age. this is not just a young person phenomenon.

if you look at every generation, they are more likely to be nones today than in 2008. every facet of american society. host: have people just never joined a church or is it that people are leaving a church or a faith? guest: it's both. that is a really important point to understand the nones. people born in the 1950's, only 3% of them said they grew up in a nonreligious household. today amongst young people, about 15% say they are growing up in a nonreligious household that means for everyone who was raised none, another person becomes a none at some point in their life. the other thing that is helping the nones is it used to be that two thirds of people raised nones became religious as adults. now two thirds who are raised nones stay nones as adults. they are doing a better job in retaining their own, better than a lot of religious traditions,

excluding the catholic church. they are also converting people who are leaving religion behind. from a religious perspective, everything is moving in their direction. every trend is positive for the nones. retention is high but they are also bringing people into the conversion as well. host: why are people remaining nones? why hasn't the church been as successful as they have in the past, of recruiting more members as people get older? guest: i think a lot of it is, we have d stigmatized what it means to be nonreligious in america. if you think about someone who was born in mississippi in the 1940's and was an atheist, they might live and die and never tell a soul that they are atheist because it could make them lose their job, could have them kicked out of their family. they could lose their spouse or be ostracized socially. now if you are a none born in mississippi in 1955, you can go online and google atheists of

mississippi and find an online community where you feel like you are not alone. i think for a lot of people, they were nones in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. i just didn't want to admit it to anyone else because of all of the ostracized asian that comes with being a -- ostracizationh . also when they take surveys, they are being more honest now because it used to be almost all surveys were either in person or over the phone. now they are online. people are a lot more honest when they take a survey by looking at a web browser, instead of taking a survey looking another person in a fate -- in the face. people are more happy now not being part of religious tradition and saying that. host: we want to get the calls here. here is how we have divided the lines. if you consider yourself religious, dial in at (202)-748-8000. nonreligious, (202)-748-8001.

ryan burge, on capitol hill there was an annual bipartisan gathering between lawmakers and the president for the national prayer breakfast. the president is going to speak, as many of them have over the decades, at this gathering on capitol hill, in about 25 minutes or so. did this used to matter more to the american public? guest: it is pretty staggering to think about the fact that about 30% of americans have no religious affiliation but less than five members of congress have no religious affiliation. we talk a lot about what is happening in washington, why are we continuing to have legislatures who are 70 or even 80 years old representing us in congress and the white house? it is a generational thing. religion used to matter a whole lot more to the silent generation, to the baby boomers. they are the ones who are in the

halls of congress. it matters a whole lot less to millenials and generation z who are not taking their fair share of seats in the congress. what is going to happen is this is a holdover from a different time in american history, when we were more religious, more outwardly religious. as time passes, the importance of things like this are going to continue to fade and it's going to look like a relic of a bygone era, that we had things like the national prayer breakfast, if congress begins to look more and more like the people who vote for them. host: by the way, to our viewers, you can watch the national prayer breakfast over on c-span2, today as well as c-span.org or our free video mobile app. randy in virginia. good morning to you. question or comment? caller: a little bit of both. good morning. just in the first hour, my father was a founding chair of

emeritus. when al gore joked about paying for or discovering the internet, it was the national academy of sciences that got the funding to him so that he could pass that bill. those scientists -- host: could we move onto the topic that we've got here? caller: during that time, people like my dad was president of a shipyard. he built aircraft carriers and submarines defending this country now. during that time, he sold from the bernadine sisters, he was here in virginia. he sold that hospital and was founding chair of their foundation which was $40 million. during that time, the first years of accepting grant

applications and reviewing them, it was painfully obvious that pastors were looking for capital improvement funds. due to a personal injury -- host: you've got to get to your point. caller: the point is that religion is a financial instrument. the catholic church is making money off of the border. they are making money off of adoption. they are making money off of health care. host: randy burge, distressed in the -- just trust in the institution -- distrust in the institutions. guest: if you look at the data, americans are lest -- less trusting of every institution in american life, not just religion. things like banks and unions. the government, the media. but also religion. we trust it less now than we did 30 or 40 years ago. that's especially acute amongst younger people. think about like the toxic stew

online. negative news goes farther. they don't report on the planes that land on time which happens 99% of the time. clergy, there are literally hundreds of thousands of clergy in the united states, and almost all of them do their job well. they don't steal money. they don't abuse people. they go to their house of worship and preach well and serve their community. not many stories are written about them. it's the one in the million person who steals money or abuses children or does something awful that makes the headlines. the problem is we only really hear about religion when it does something negative. i can't emphasize this point enough. there are lots of faith out there who are doing good work for their community. we forget about them oftentimes. that is part of this larger narrative. we are so pessimistic and cynical about everything and religion has been caught up in that larger wave. host: kyle in new mexico. caller: can you hear me?

host: yes we can. caller: good deal. as i'm listening to the caller, i was raised catholic. i love t■s i was just looking at a book, i'm sure the caller and you are familiar with him. the pillars of something or another. the binder is all torn up. anyways, plenty of books have been written about catholicism, and the influence of the church. but i do like this conversation a lot and i called in almost specifically to say, i'm going to buy this book, because the nones, that is an adorable phrase. i'm going to buy this book. as a none, as a millennial none,

i can say that -- host: why are you a none? caller: why? i'm still a catholic i guess. host: first you say you are a none, then you say wait, you're a catholic? caller: it's an adorable phrase? i'd like to buy the book to understand more of what a none is. host: ryan burge, what do you make of kyle? guest: kyle is a lot of americans. they are not firm in their position. in some ways they are a catholic or some ways they are a none. it's interesting because it has almost become a cultural marker instead of a marker about theology or religion. if you are raised in a certain type of community. say your parents are irish or italian or hispanic american. you say you are catholic but you haven't been to mass in five years because catholicism is the

culture you are raised in. protestantism does not work that way. in 1972, over 50% of catholics were weekly mass attenders and today it is less than 25%. that catholic identity is still hanging on even though the religious behavior, going to mass has declined over time. host: could you say that about other religions? but it's more cultural or that they identify because of cultural reasons rather than the actual practice of faith? guest: the hard want to do from a survey perspective is judaism. it's like five different things wrapped in one. cultural jews or secular jews, a rising force in judaism. it happens with muslims as well. but as the hard part about religion. more and more people are saying they are never a tent -- they are a never attending catholic or a never attending muslim.

social science perspective, i have to figure out why you still say you are catholic or muslim or jewish even though you have not been to religious services in five years. why don't you say you are nothing in particular or atheist or agnostic? a lot of times as you still see yourself as being part of that group. i still see myself as muslim even though i don't go to a mosque. why is that? that is the fun part is a social scientist. i get to find out why you picked those things. host: why are you drawn to this topic? guest: i am also a pastor. i've been a pastor in the american baptist church for over 20 years. i grew up in a conservative white evangelical southern baptist church in rural illinois. religion and politics has been part of my life from the beginning. a lot of what i pursuing my research is just trying to understand how i grew up and how odd that was. growing up in an evangelical church in rural america in the 1990's was a wild time. almost 30 of -- 30% of americans

were evangelical in 1993, the peak of evangelicalism in america. i heard all the rhetoric about abortions and same-sex marriage and bill clinton. i wanted to understand how that moment fits in the larger mayor -- larger narrative of american religion and politics. a lot of it is trying to figure out the world around me. i told one of my teachers i wanted to be a youth pastor and a lawyer and i kind of mist halfway on both but i get to understand the world in a new way and help other people understand it. that is my calling, to try and help people understand themselves and where they fit in the larger narrative. host: religion and politics. you say it like it's a phrase. is it still the case that those two go hand-in-hand? guest: that's a great question. when i was in grad school, the understanding of religion and politics was that religion was the first cause and everything else will sort of downstream from that. how i read the bible would tell me who to vote for, how to vote

or if i should. over the last 10 years or so, there has been a seismic shift in social science around this topic. now that we understand that politics and partisanship is the master identity, it is the first contact lens in our eyes, and now we view everything in our lives through that lens of partisanship. now we pick what church to go to, based on our political affiliation, not the other way around. i'm republican, i'm going to seek out an evangelical church. if i'm democrat, i'm going to seek out maybe an episcopalian church or no church at all because i want to hear from the pulpit, things that reinforce my own partisan worldviews. it's almost like politics, big politics and little religion, when it used to be much more 50-50. host: christina in michigan. caller: hi, thank you for letting me speak to you. this subject is so near and dear to me.

i'm 78 years old. i'm supposed to be one of those people that are all religious. i was raised catholic. politics was always a little bit of that. what happened to me is i don't care what the religion is. judaism, muslim, christian, i see it as all politics now. all organized religion in my mind has turned into just politics for power and money. all of these evangelicals who are so into trump, none of them are practicing christianity. if you are so religious and believe in that theology, then you should be living according to what christ taught and i don't see that. host: let's take your point. ryan burge? guest: she is making a really interesting point about how we understand words. the word even jell-o coal has

been part of the lexicon for hundreds of years in america -- the word evangelical has been part of the lexicon for hundreds of years in america. even that word has become a political moniker more than a theological one. in 2008, about 16% of self identified even jell-o coals attended church -- even jell-o coal -- evangelicals attended church. 20% of self identified evangelicals attended church once a year. more and more people think the word evangelical means you like donald trump or you are conservative. even muslim and evangelical. if you look for why they are doing that, it is consistency -- consistently the republican catholics and muslims who are self identifying as evangelical on surveys and the only

explanation we can come up with is because they think the word evangelical means, you are a republican, a conservative and you vote for donald trump. host: i want to point out that the national prayer breakfast, the president right now, sitting in the front row on the right side, sitting right next to the speaker of the house, mike johnson, a republican. do you think it is important that -- or what is the role of religion here, and its impact on politics? there they are, sitting side-by-side. what impacts could this have or has it had in the past on politics when the two sides are gathering for a religious event? guest: i'm a big fan of both sides getting together for any reason at this point, when they are not yelling at each other. religion has this way of bringing people together.

is a state funeral, you will see republicans and democrats sitting side-by-side at the national cathedral, to sell a break that person's life. anytime you can rub shoulders with people from a political background, it's a good thing. american religion used to be very diverse. not racially but economically, socially, educationally. we had people with phd's sitting next to people with high school diplomas or less. that was the only time they would see someone from a different class. john rockefeller was the richest men in the world 100 years ago. he hardly ever went to social events. the only money went to every week was his local baptist church. it was a circus when he got there. cameras and reporters. someone asked him, you could -- you have to go to all of this trouble to go to church, why? he said it is my only opportunity to talk to a blacksmith or a mechanic. that is what religion can provide. it can provide the ability to see people we don't typically see and build relationships with

people we typically don't build relationships with. having mike johnson sit next to joe biden at the national prayer breakfast is nothing but a good thing in my mind for relations between those two. host: right now the speaker of the house,lder to shoulder withm jeffries, the democrat leader. they are both going to be reading scripture and giving remarks. live coverage of this over on c-span2. catherine from minnesota, identifies as religious. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. i am really charmed by this. i grew up starting as a catholic and then felt exiled from that church, and then wandered around and found a lot of different churches, i found my way back because in college, in theology, something that was said to me by

a professor really struck me. she said people have a hard time moving away from where you begin. i found that to be very true. i found myself more recently going back to the catholic church, and again, i am so disappointed someone violated my trust. i don't even feel like i can just be a free person there. i feel like i am stared at. it's so strange. i am so disappointed, but because that is how my family started and our family limited -- family lineage was connected and once you are baptized as a catholic, you are told you are always a catholic and i found it hard to move away from it, even though i've been terribly disappointed. in my life, i feel government is super important and i feel that the relationship our founders set up, we didn't have to

practice a certain thing, that is so important. it has been so important to allow our country to be successful. i kind of want a claim to both of those things. i want to have a religious affiliation. i also want to believe that as people strive for higher ideals, that we give people license to be free. i just think it has been really tough to figure out how you fit into this, and figuring out how it is successful for you. host: professor burge? guest: i want to say i hear you and i feel you when it comes to church hurts. churches have hurt all of us. america is a very religious country, much more religious than we should be compared to our closest neighbors in places like spain and france and germany.

and a lot of those countries, the sheriff people who attend church every week is between 5% and 10%. today in america it is still 25%. we are much more religious than we should be and one of the reasons we think we are is because we have so much religious diversity in america and religious competition. we never had a state church. jefferson and madison were very clear about that. they wanted religions to compete for membership, not have automatic money coming from the taxpayer dollars. because of that, religion did very well because it had to. religious diversity is a strength for us. not having a state church has been a good thing for the robust amount of religious life we have in the united it's right now. host: ryan burge, is separation of church and state exactly what you just said? that there is not a state church, or is it that politicians should not be reading scripture? guest: i'm a baptist. roger williams founded the

tradition in america and one of the things he believed in was a strong separation of church and state. i don't believe churches should have anything to do with the government and ethic the government should be as hands-off with the -- with religion as it possibly can. i wish it was that black and white and clear. during the pandemic, there were ppp loans for churches and they could apply for these forgivable loans from the government to basically pay payroll so they wouldn't have to lay people off because they had no offerings coming in and my church did apply and received a ppp loan that was forgiven. i had a hard time with that but i knew that my church could not continue to exist without some help from the government. thousands of other churches around america did the same. i wish there was a clear answer between the separation and -- separation of church and state. pastors do not talk about politics at the pulpit. we know that to be empirically true. we asked 1000 people who went to church every week and give them a list of 15 issues and asked if

your pastor has spoken about any of these issues in the past year. one third of people said not one of those issues. 52% said the pastor spoke about one or zero issues over the last 12 months. most pastors are not bringing politics into the pulpit. if politics is in the church, it is happening at the pew level. host: if you consider yourself nonreligious, are you more or less likely to purchase a pate in civics? guest: good question -- to participate in civics? guest: good question. it depends on what type of nonreligious you are. atheists are the most quote unquote, religiously active today. they are much more likely to donate, but on the other that point, you have the nothing in particular group, which most nones are. nothing in particulars are the

least politically active religious group in america today, only 32% of nothing in particulars voted in the 2022 midterms compared to 52 percent of atheists and 50% of evangelicals. it depends on what type of none you are. host: i want to read this from mika in hendersonville. is a text. she says she was born and ra southern baptist and most of her family regularly attends church. they rejected her as -- when she came out as transgendeng religion as the reason to ostrher. can your guest speak more to transgender rights? guest: without a doubt, there are many marginalized communities in america because of religion. the lgbtq community especially has been marginalized by religion. that seems to have intensified over the last 10 years.

when same-sex marriage became the law of the land across all 50 states, it is all most likely just people felt like they had to dig in. one reason that even -- one reason that evangelicalism has continued to maintain it steady presence in american life, there is the main line, which is a more moderate flavor, and episcopal's. evangelicals are as large today as they were in the 1970's because they have created a clear delineation between them and everyone else. they call it us versus the world. things like transgender, that is one way they put their foot down and draw a clear line. these are lines they will not cross. there are a lot of social science literature that says hard religion, difficult religion tends to do better because it does create that sense of us versus them than religion that tends to capitulate to what the culture is all about. evangelicals say the proof is in the pudding.

they say they are doing well while the mainline has collapsed because of their stances on things like abortion, same-sex marriage and transgender. host: professor burge, here is a follow-up from a viewer. dave in orlando says he takes offense at your remark that quote, we are more religious than we should be. please explain. guest: if you do a scatterplot of gdp, a measure of economic prosperity across the x axis, and a share of the country that says religion is important, we are huge outlier. really religious but very economically challenged countries are places in the global south. lots of them in that top left corner. in the bottom right, countries like sweden, norway, denmark and france. the closest neighbor we have in terms of our gdp is switzerland. it is almost exactly the same. 12% of the swiss say religion is very important to them. it is 51% for americans.

from that perspective, we should look like switzerland but we don't. we are much more religious than we "should" be based on metrics or other countries. host: greg in texas, nonreligious. guest: hello -- caller: hello. i would consider myself spiritual. my mom did not attend church regularly. we went with our grandparents. the reason why i don't go to church or except a religion is because religious people don't practice what they read. also the churches are political. they are oppressing women, they oppress -- they don't accept each other. each religion separates from the

other. a baptist and a catholic are not going to attend church together even though it is the same god. host: i want to take that point and have professor burge respond. guest: that is something i hear quite a bit, that religion is a cause for division in this country. my wife is catholic and i am baptist. i can't take communion at her church and she cannot take communion at mine. that can create divisiveness but if you look at western europe, western europe is basically postreligious. especially in places like sweden and denmark and norway. but they are still -- they still have divisions in those countries. it is not like division goes away if you get rather -- get rid of religion. you still have divisions over class, region, race. we are human beings, we are set

up in a way to create groups, us versus them and religion is just one way to create us versus them. if you get rid of religion, the tenants that we have -- the tendency we have to create us versus them does not go away. i would rather buy us versus them be over religion then what football team i'm going to cheer for in the super bowl. host: jamie in missouri, religious. are you there? jamie in garden city, missouri. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: i have a comment. this is so interesting. i grew up in a very conservative catholic -- i was not allowed to go to mass. long story short, i divorced, remarried, was shunned because i was going to be damned to hell. i did remarry. i am christian and i believe

that our country cannot exist without judeo-christian values. that is what our constitution was founded on. do i practice? no, i sit with my bible and i read because my trust in church is completely broken. host: you have the love for your lord. professor burge, respond? guest: she raises a good point about what is happening in the catholic church. after vatican two, the latin mass became the mass in the country in which you are in. the priest would face the congregation, not faces back to the congregation. it was a way to make mass more appealing to more catholics because the church was worried about losing membership will stop if you look at the data we just talked about, the sheriff catholics attending mass every sunday has declined and there is

a growing movement among american catholics, traditional catholics, they want to go back to the latin mass and there are is -- there is a medical evidence that dioceses who have brought back the latin mass havn attendance the latin mass and a lot of it's young families with young children. if you make religion hard, people are more likely to be drawn into hard religion. if you make it easy, it does not seem so supernatural and people are more lucky to drift away if they don't see it as being so difficult to stop that is a movement happening in lots of traditions by the way. don't make it easier to come, make it harder and when people come, they will stick around longer because they like how separate is from the rest of the world. host: where is the line for the church and officials, for trying to control behavior of those that are in your building on a weekly basis? you just heard her say, she was told she would burn in hell.

that is not just the catholic church. other religions use that as a way to control as well. does not go too far? guest: generally, politicians and elected officials have been very hesitant to get involved in religious disputes. even the courts will walk away from religious disputes, saying you need to figure that out on your own, because the american public wants religion to have a wide birth in american society and politics. there are some states where if you are a christian daycare, yof you are non-christian, you could inspected once a quarter. one of the interesting fights right now is what we call the ministerial exception. if you a minister like im, i can be fired for any reason for any time and i have no legal recourse. physically the courts would never step in. if i say i'm pro lgbtq and i'm fired, that is totally allowed because my pastor.

the question is how big is that exception? if i'm a schoolteacher in the local catholic church, teaching k-8 and i come out as lgbtq, can they fire me for that? there is a case an organism -- in oregon were a man was hired to work for a christian nonprofit as a lawyer and they found out he was gay and fired him because that is a violation of their religious beliefs and they use ministerial exception to say they can do that legally. there all these interesting questions about how much freedom does religion have in american life, but also things like diversity, equity, inclusion and discrimination? those things matter as well. those will be significant fights. host: brian in massachusetts, nonreligious. caller: good morning. a great conversation today. i was raised catholic. i became agnostic, atheist later on. now i'm in a 12 step program. you are supposed to have a higher power, which i kind of struggle with.

what your guest said about science, the nonreligious people basing their thinking on science andseparation of church and stae is in the constitution. everyone should just not push their religion on each other. i think back to when the indians, those savages we eradicated only first came here. they respect of the land and each other. they may have warred with each other, but like the pagans and everything, tand water. religion should be minimized because it is a political firestorm. host: professor? your thoughts?

guest: i was thinking about thomas jefferson. he was a guy who had a bible. you can find in the smithsonian. he took the gospel of jesus and cut out all the miracles but left the teaching. he thought jesus was a fine moral teacher but that he could not be divine because it is just not possible. it is unscientific to bring someone back from the dead or turn water into wine. he wanted to keep the teachings of jesus but get rid of the miracles. folks like jefferson worshiped at the temple of reason. that was the highest call. science and reason. that is what god gave us to help understand the world around us. we don't need miracles. they believed that god existed and that he was the divine watchmaker, creating the laws of science and physics and gravity and then took his hands off and let angst happen the way they are supposed to happen. host: let's go to bill in pennsylvania. religious. caller: good morning.

i am a evangelical lutheran. we don't think of evangelical the way other people think of evangelical. baptist, catholics, you are welcome to come and commune with us. my question has to do with televangelists and the rise of the televangelist, fakers, jho low steen -- joel osteen. to a lot of people, we see a lot of hypocrisy in the life of the televangelist. what is the effect of the rise of the televangelist and the mega churches on society's opinion of religion? guest: a great point. it is a really interesting story because when you look at the -- look at when the religious right

rose in america in the 1980's, guess what was also happening in american religion? we saw the rise of someone like pat robertson or jerry falwell or jim and tammy faye baker. they could use their pulpits, digital pulpits to get the message out to tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of followers every week because they had these vast tv deals. before that, it was almost impossible for a guy like billy graham to have his message heard by more people than were actually in the stadium or in the congregation he was giving a talk in. there is a lot of data and understanding from religious history that one of the reasons the religious right grew so quickly and became so cohesive was because the rise of televangelists helped guide the flock and organize them on certain issues like same-sex, pornography and abortion in the 1970's and 1980's. host: here is ramona any text message. as aaln away catholic, i'm ncned that the mority of

the supreme court are catholic. i would also be concerned if the majority were jewish or evangelicals. guest: the problem is if you have nine people, you can't represent all of america with nine people. that's a fundamental problem we've always had. it is just one of those small sample size things. there are several jews on the supreme court right now and the only makeup 2% of the population. if the supreme court looked like america, about two of them would be nonreligious. that's not going to happen at any point in the near future. when you only have nine people, it is hard to represent the diversity we have in america, especially when it comes to religion host: ath text from teresa in lite ck. do nones have more or less morals? what is their code on right or wrong? guest: that's an impossible question to answer but i wish i could. no one has the same sense of morality. i love evangelicals will look at

atheists and say you can't be a moral atheist because you have no moral framework. a lot of atheists say evangelicals are immoral because they don't allow women to preach and they are anti-lgbtq. morality is a shifting sand. one side throws insults at the other side. if you look at the data, most americans do say you can be moral and not be religious. there tends to be some tolerance in that direction. still a significant number of religious people, people who go to church on a regular basis do think you need to be religious in order to be moral. host: brad in louisiana, nonreligious. you've got to mute that television. caller: sorry. host: go ahead. caller: the whole idea of religion is a human construct. if we look at the evolution of homo sapiens, we find that it wasn't until the neolithic

period that we started getting the various gods. whether there is a god or not, there is no way to prove it. we need to turn to science. as we look at science -- i am a phd biologist -- we see through animal behavior the same kind of behaviors in humans, that we see in other animals. host: brad, and what way? where is their similarities between animal behavior and human behavior in it comes to religion? -- when it comes to religion? caller: animals have no religion. it is an idea, just like we have the construct for democracy or we have a construct for building an airplane. religion is the same thing. it came out of the human brain.

host: understood. guest: cultural and apologists would make that -- cultural anthropologists would make that argument. religion did not exist when people groups were small. you didn't want to steal from your cousin or your brothers because you were close with them. one societies became larger and more organized, you did not know everyone in your people group and you had to have some sort of external control to keep you from stealing and murdering and doing those awful things. essentially god was created in those societies to create a sense of external control and internal punishment for you doing things like stealing. it was a way to encourage prosocial behavior, altruistic behavior. it was an essential part. what they would also argue is that as government got larger and more likely to enforce roles -- rules and more capable of enforcing rules, punishment

doesn't come from god, it comes from the state. if you do steal or murder, you are tried and convicted and that is how the punishment happens. when these scholars look a place like denmark it is because the government now has become the god in many ways and it regular to behavior better than god ever could. host: maria and atlanta. you consider yourself religious -- maria in atlanta. you consider yourself religious. caller: thank you for c-span. yes i am religious. i look at religion as how you walk the earth and treat people morally. i do not see where america has a lot of religion in the things they have done the past and continue to do. but there are some good people and a lot of pastors and ministers, they are all about the money. the reason why they are scared to preach about it is because

they don't want the congregation to go because of the congregation goes, than their money goes. now it is all about money. america is not a great country, there is no way you can be religious and have the laws and the rules that you do in the prior history and today. host: thank you. guest: i would say that the average church in america is 75 people. the average pastor is vocational. very few pastors are getting any sort of richness off being a pastor. there is no economic security for them. many have significant amounts of student loan debt. we are seeing more and more pastors say they are burned out. almost half of pastors have seriously considered leaving the pulpit. in many ways, being a pastor is one of the worst jobs in america and we will have a significant shortage in this country in the next five or 10 years because of

all the negative sentiment that pastors receive from the general population. host: that brings up the last part of your book, where are they going? where are the nones going? guest: they are going to get larger. there is no doubt that in the next 30 years, the share of americans that are nonreligious is going to be 40%. this is going to create very interesting dichotomy in american society. we talk a lot about partisan polarization. we don't talk enough in this country about religious polarization. in the 1950's we talked about the mainline, half of americans were moderate protestants, methodist, episcopalians who did believe in the bible but were going to tell you you're going to hell. they wanted to help and build the community. those kinds of religions are dying rapidly. all that are going to be left in the future is a bunch of nones on one side and a bunch of very

religious people on the other. not just evangelicals, traditional catholics, conservative jews, conservative muslims are going to be locking arms on the right side of the religious spectrum and a lot of americans want to be religious they don't want to be that kind of religious, so they're going to be left out and they have no place to worship. a lot of people come to me and say they can't find a place to worship because they are not really conservative. the answer is in a lot of committees across the country, they don't have a lot of options when they used to have a cornucopia of options 30 or 40 years ago. host: richard in verona, missouri. caller: this religious business. if you are a catholic, you probably were raised by your parents as being catholic. you brainwash her kids into believ taught by your parents. the same way with the mormons or anyone else.

they are brainwashed into that particular religion. christianity is great. if you do the right thing, we've got these people coming from the border and we need to take care of them. they are none americans but they are humans. overseas, the muslims and the jews killing each other and sending each other to heaven i guess. to me, i'm 86 years old and i look back and i think religion for the most part has been a big con game that other people can get money without having to work for it. host: professor burge. guest: that is a sentiment we hear a lot. richard has a great point. the number one determinant of your current religion is the one you were raised in. majority of people across the world are the same religion that their parents were. we are seeing more and more religious switching in the united states.

protestants are becoming catholics. a lot of people are becoming nones. even some nones become religious overtime. we have a dynamic religious marketplace. the one thing that is great about our country is if you don't like your current religion, you have plenty of options, or you can become nonreligious. host: a text -- a post from bobby. don't most people choose a church before they become politically aware? why is that important? guest: they do. we grow up in church. your parents take you to church and for a lot of people, they don't even understand what denomination they are a part of because it is not part of the conversation. one hard thing with survey research is a lot of people don't know what the word protestant means anymore because a lot of protestant churches don't use that word, they will say they are jt christian. i have a hard time with surveys because young people especially don't know what the word artist that means because it is not used in the vernacular. people grow up in a specific

church. when people get to 18 or 19 years old and go to college, that is when they start looking around, saying why am i going to this church, why am i going to this type of church? should i continue to go to church? that is where they do a lot of searching. if you're going to choose to pick a different religion, they do it during that crucial period in their late teens and early 20's. host: any statisticss whether newer immigrants to the u.s. are more or less religiously affiliated than longer-term american residents? what is the effect of that on policy decisions? guest: immigrants tend to be slightly more religious as a whole because ill -- because a lot of the countries they're coming from tend to be more religious. what the data says is the longer

they are in the country, the more they assimilate to american culture, which means they are more looking to become nonreligious. there is an argument that if we increased immigration, we will become a more religious country. if you look at the data, we would be no more or less religious if we had no immigration versus having a lot more immigration because of the assimilation factor that happens in the second generation of people who come to the united states. host: what do you think overall is the impact on policy of the trends we are seeing of more nones in this country? guest: at some point, congress is going to have to wake up to the fact that there are a lot of nonreligious people in the united states, so things like the equality act, something i'm following very closely, the idea that no organization or business can discredited against you based on your gesexual orientat. a bill like that is very much liked by the nones but religious organizations are reluctant to embrace things like that because

would you be able to fire a transgender pastor of your church? churches still want to have a ton of autonomy when it comes to who they hire and fire and how they do their policy and they are worried the government is going to encroach on their ability to regulate who their pastor is. host: ryan burge, professor at eastern university illinois and author of the book, "the nones: where they came from, who they are and where they are going." professor and pastor burge, we appreciate the concert -- the conversation. we will take you up to the house. they are dabbling in early. live coverage here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.