Skip to main content
Religious Freedom Toolkit

Part III | Expanded Analysis

Category G | Extrinsic Benefits

Topic 34 | The good religion does

One way to promote religious freedom is to highlight and articulate the good things that religion does, both for individuals and for society. The list is long and robust (although sometimes contested).919

Introduction  

In the past religion’s contributions to the social good appeared self-evident (at least in the Anglo-American world), but today they are much more contested. Religion is often expected to justify itself in terms of its good works or good effects. And religion may be expected to prove that the good it does outweighs the harms it ostensibly causes. Fortunately, this is not too difficult, as the social good produced by faith-based groups is far reaching and impactful.

There are dangers, however, in requiring religion to prove that it serves the public good. It can have the effect of instrumentalizing religion, where religion is viewed primarily as a means to an end. It can also frame religion as not intrinsically valuable but valuable only insofar as it justifies itself through its positive contributions to society. Another danger is that highlighting research on the good religion does can quickly descend into empirical disputes about how reliable the asserted correlations are, or whether correlations imply causation.

Despite dangers in requiring religion to prove its “worth,” highlighting the good religion does may be helpful in some contexts because, to many, the good religion does is largely invisible. In her article “The Impact of Religion and Religious Organizations,” law and religion scholar Elizabeth A. Clark gathers and discusses extensive research providing evidence of religion’s positive effects on individuals and society.920 Some of the findings collated in Clark’s article are cited and discussed below. Inherent dangers in relying only on this data, when advocating for freedom of religion or belief, are also discussed in more detail.

Research on the good religion does  

  • Personal well-being

Religion plays a significant role in promoting individuals’ well-being and positively impacting various aspects of their lives. It provides a sense of purpose, meaning, and hope, offering guidance and support during difficult times. This spiritual aspect of religion contributes to mental and emotional well-being, leading to healthier individuals within society.921

According to a 2019 Pew Research Center study, actively religious individuals are more likely to describe themselves as very happy, even after controlling for factors such as age, gender, education, and marital status.922 This increased happiness associated with religiosity can be attributed to multiple factors. Scholars suggest that religious ideals and the integration of religious organizations into the community contribute to a higher quality of life.923 While the doctrine of a religion may attract individuals with happy dispositions,924 when living in community with others, that happiness can spread. Religion also provides a purpose in life that fosters well-being.925

Research confirms that religious attitudes, practices, and membership are not only correlated with life satisfaction but also with overall physical and mental health.926 Regular religious attendees have a reduced risk of death, suicide, depression, and “deaths of despair.”927 Additionally, religiosity has been linked to happier and more stable family lives. For example, married couples who attend religious services are less likely to divorce.928

Recent studies have also highlighted the positive impact of home-based religious practices. Individuals who attend religious services regularly, engage in daily prayer, and participate in home worship practices (such as praying with family and reading scriptures) experience higher levels of life happiness and relationship quality.929 Couples who worship together regularly and engage in home-based religious practices report greater relationship quality, emotional closeness, sexual satisfaction, and shared decision-making, and demonstrate more loving behaviors such as forgiveness, commitment, and kindness.930

Religion can affect not only the quality of family time but the quantity as well. Religiously affiliated fathers tend to spend more time engaging in youth activities with their children compared to religiously unaffiliated fathers.931

These and other findings highlight the beneficial effects of religion on individuals’ personal and familial well-being and overall quality of life.

  • Moral framework and positive social norms  

Religious organizations fulfill an important social role by serving as a source of social norms. While some socially conservative religious norms, especially regarding gender and sexuality, may be controversial, it is notable that many religiously associated social norms are widely considered important. These include norms and values important to democracy, such as “reflective thinking, generosity, altruism, and law-abidingness.”932 Religious traditions have the ability to deeply instill commitment to these norms and play a significant role in passing them down between generations.933

Religion often offers a moral compass and ethical guidelines for individuals and communities. This moral framework has demonstrated significant positive effects in the realm of crime, with research indicating that religious behavior is associated with a reduction in various criminal activities.934

For instance, one noteworthy correlation exists between religious attendance and a decrease in domestic abuse. Studies indicate that individuals who actively participate in religious practices are less likely to engage in domestic violence.935

Moreover, religiosity acts as a protective factor for individuals residing in underprivileged areas, shielding them from negative influences often associated with criminal behavior.936

Religion is also linked to lower rates of recidivism, the likelihood of convicted criminals to reoffend. Recidivism rates are notoriously difficult to decrease, but research has shown that participation in faith-based prisoner reentry programs can effectively lower recidivism rates and assist with post-release employment.937 Additionally, research shows community visits to incarcerated individuals reduce recidivism as measured by rearrest, reconviction, and new offense reincarceration, with faith-based communities being significant contributors in providing community volunteers.938

Such results have a positive economic effect as well. For example, one study of a Minnesota faith-based prisoner reentry program estimated that it saved the government approximately $3 million USD, or nearly $8300 per participant, over a span of six years by lowering recidivism and assisting with post-release employment.939

These examples highlight how religion can contribute to positive societal outcomes by providing and reinforcing social norms and values, decreasing criminal behavior, combating domestic abuse, and helping reduce recidivism.

  • Social cohesion  

Religion can foster a sense of belonging by creating social capital and community among its followers. Places of worship, religious rituals, and gatherings provide opportunities for people to come together, form relationships, and build social bonds. This social cohesion can lead to a stronger support network and enhanced social capital within communities.940

Recent research has shed light on the significance of gathering and engaging in joint or ritual behavior within faith communities. For instance, a study focused on Sikh communities discovered a positive correlation between the ability to practice rituals and the frequency of ritual participation with social well-being and a sense of community.941

The benefits of religious belief, participation, and communities extend beyond individuals and families, positively impacting society as a whole. Actively religious individuals have shown higher levels of civic engagement942 and exhibit a positive outlook toward their communities.943 They are more likely to exercise their right to vote, engage in volunteer work (for both religious and non-religious causes), participate in community projects, serve on juries, interact with neighbors, and contribute to charitable causes.944

Scholars such as Robert Putnam have helped developed the concept of “social capital,” referring to the contributions that individuals and groups make to society through social networks, trust, and cooperation. Religious individuals and organizations play a significant role in generating this social capital, strengthening community bonds and positively influencing their surroundings.945 Putnam asserts that

"[f]aith communities in which people worship together are arguably the single most important repository of social capital in America. . . . As a rough rule of thumb, our evidence shows, nearly half of all associational memberships in America are church related, half of all personal philanthropy is religious in character, and half of all volunteering occurs in a religious context."946

In sum, research shows that actively religious individuals demonstrate higher levels of civic engagement and contribute to the social capital of their communities, employing the transformative power of religious belief, organization, and involvement to help shape communities for the better.

  • Altruism, charity, and social justice  

The social capital created by religion is seen perhaps most dramatically in the impact religious organizations have had in contributing to the charitable sector and promoting social justice. The teachings of many religions emphasize the importance of helping others—encouraging acts of charity and promoting altruistic behavior. But religions don’t just talk the talk. Many religious organizations and individuals address social needs and improve the lives of others through charitable activities, such as providing food and shelter to the needy, supporting education and healthcare initiatives, and responding to humanitarian crises.947

Author Arthur C. Brooks notes the ties between practicing faith, charitable giving, and happiness. He explains that “[p]eople who give to charity are 43 percent more likely than people who don’t give to say they’re very happy people.” Brooks notes further, “The number- one characteristic of those who give in this country is that they practice a faith. Of people who practice their faith regularly—which is to say, they attend worship services every week—91 percent give to charity each year. Of people who don’t attend every week, 66 percent do.”948

Faith-based organizations provide almost 60% of emergency shelter beds for homeless individuals, and for three years after the homeless leave such programs, faith-based residential recovery and job readiness initiatives save society more than $119 million.949 Multiple studies have demonstrated that religiously active individuals contribute financially more frequently and generously to both religious and secular causes. In the United States, 73% of all charitable giving is directed toward explicitly religious organizations, and 40 out of the top 50 charitable organizations in the country have religious affiliations.950 Members of religious organizations in the United States allocate 4.5 times more funds than the Gates Foundation to assisting those who are economically disadvantaged abroad.951 Additionally, 3 million children are educated in religious schools in the United States, while 20% of patients in U.S. hospitals are treated in religious hospitals.952

Thus, religion and religious organizations provide not only “a moral and conceptual basis for caring for others,” they also bring organizational and “practical strengths in charitable and social justice work,” allowing them to “become a benefit for society as a whole and not merely a private value for believers.”953

Key dangers

  • Losing sight of the intrinsic value of religion  

Despite the empirical research demonstrating the positive effects of religion, external pressures may demand (additional) proof of its societal value. This pressure to prove the good that religion does can have unintended consequences, instrumentalizing religion and undermining its intrinsic worth.

When religion is solely judged based on its measurable contributions to society, it can be reduced to a means to an end rather than recognized for its inherent value. This instrumentalization of religion shifts the focus from its spiritual, philosophical, and existential dimensions to a utilitarian assessment of its societal impact.954 From this perspective, religion is valued only to the extent that it can demonstrate tangible benefits, such as those discussed above.

Professor of Christian Ethics at Yale University Divinity School H. Richard Niebuhr issued the following caution/invitation to Christians (though his message could be extended all faith groups):

"In a world where . . . every group is interested not only in doing good but in seeing to it that it gets credit for doing good, and where good is being done for the sake of power, the church, as church, must surely feel called upon to go about its work with quietness and confidence, abjuring utilitarianism and the defensiveness that goes with it."955

The demand to prove the positive societal contributions of religion can also create an environment where religious communities feel the need to compete with secular institutions or ideologies for legitimacy and relevance.956 This pressure may lead to the distortion or simplification of religious teachings to fit predefined societal expectations, diluting the richness and complexity of religious traditions. In other cases, state regulators may seek the benefits of religious organizations by imposing rules that mute their distinctive faith-based character and transform them into another “de facto arm of the secular state.”957

  • Mistaking correlation with causation

The exercise of expounding on the good religion does for individuals and society, with long lists of statistics and research findings, can quickly descend into empirical claims about how reliable the asserted correlations are, or whether correlations imply causation.

For example, it is not hard to find places (such as China) where prosperity has been enhanced while religious freedom has been suppressed. Data shows that this suppression/repression, however, is detrimental to economic development in the long run. One study has found that innovative strength is more than twice as high in countries where governments respect freedom of religion or belief.958 Additionally, in most countries that have experienced improvements in civil liberties, such as religious freedom, empowerment of women, and freedom of expression, researchers have seen robust increases in measures of human flourishing.959

Another argument is that the positive effects of religion on individual health are primarily a result of religion’s socialization and community aspects rather than the result of religion itself.960 According to this view, it is the sense of belonging, social support, and shared values that foster positive outcomes, rather than specific religious doctrines or practices.

Skeptics of the correlation argument also raise concerns about potential selection bias. They suggest that individuals who are already predisposed to engage in pro-social behavior or have positive social outcomes may be more likely to participate in religious activities.961 This view asserts that the correlation between religion and positive effects may not imply a causal relationship but rather result from individual characteristics or socio-cultural factors. Those who acknowledge some level of correlation between “joiners” who participate in religious activity and more positive life outcomes may still rebut the argument that the positive influences stem completely and independently from religiosity.962

Conclusion  

Identifying and “bringing to light” the often-invisible good religion does may help others recognize the need to protect and promote the right to freedom of religion or belief. In doing so, however, we should avoid instrumentalizing religion, reducing it to a means to societal ends. We should also be aware that critics will discount correlations between religion and positive individual or societal outcomes. Any discussion of religion should also include the intrinsic value and contributions of religion that cannot be scientifically measured and graphed.

Previous - Topic 34 Outline
Next - Topic 34 Quotes

References

919. Toolkit Topic 34 (The good religion does) was originally drafted by Stacy Runia, 2023 ICLRS Summer Fellow.

920. Elizabeth A. Clark, The Impact of Religion and Religious Organizations, 49(1) BYU LAW REVIEW 1 (2023), https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3463&context=lawreview.

921. Id. at 6–10.

922. Pew Research Center, Religion’s Relationship to Happiness, Civic Engagement, and Health Around the World (2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/01/31/religions-relationship-to-happiness-civic-engagement-and- health-around-the-world (link to PDF).

923. Abbott L. Ferriss, Religion and the Quality of Life, 3 JOURNAL OF HAPPINESS STUDIES 199 (2002).

924. Id.

925. Id.; see also HAROLD G. KOENIG, DANA E. KING & VERNA BENNER CARSON, HANDBOOK OF RELIGION AND HEALTH 222–24 (2d ed. 2023).

926. Gina Magyar-Russell et al., The Experience of Sacred Moments and Mental Health Benefits over Time, PSYCHOLOGY RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY (2020), https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000394.

927. Tyler J. Vanderweele & Brendan Case, Empty Pews Are an American Public Health Crisis, CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Oct. 19, 2021), https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/november/church-empty-pews-are-american-public-health-crisis.html.

928. Tyler J. VanderWeele, Religious Service Attendance, Marriage, and Health, INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY STUDIES, (Nov. 29, 2016), https://ifstudies.org/blog/religious-service-attendance-marriage-and-health; see also Edna Brown, Religiosity and Marital Stability Among Black American and White American Couples, 57 JOURNAL OF FAMILY RELATIONS 186, 194 (2008) (explaining that religiosity was predictive of marital stability over time but only when assessed by organizational religious participation and only as reported by wives).

929. JASON S. CARROLL, SPENCER L. JAMES & HAL BOYD, WHEATLEY INSTITUTE, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, RELIGION IN THE HOME: DO INDIVIDUALS AND COUPLES BENEFIT FROM HOME-BASED RELIGIOUS PRACTICES? 8–9 (2020), https://wheatley.byu.edu/00000183-231f-d026-a7c7-671f333e0001/religion-in-the-home-2020.

930. Id. at 21.

931. W. Bradford Wilcox, Religion and the Domestication of Men, 5(4) CONTEXTS 42, 44 (2006).

932. Clark, supra, at 30 (citing PETER BERKOWITZ, VIRTUE AND THE MAKING OF MODERN LIBERALISM (2000)).

933. Id.

934. Id. at 11–14.

935. Christopher G. Ellison, John P. Bartkowski & Kristin L. Anderson, Are There Religious Variations in Domestic Violence? 20 JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES 87 (1999).

936. Marvin D. Krohn & Terrence P. Thornberry, Network Theory: A Model for Understanding Drug Abuse Among African-American and Hispanic Youth, in NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE, DRUG ABUSE AMONG MINORITY YOUTH: ADVANCES IN RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY 102 (Mario R. De La Rosa & Juan-Luis Reco Adrados eds., NIDA Research Monograph 130, 1993).

937. Grant Duwe & Byron R. Johnson, Estimating the Benefits of a Faith-Based Correctional Program, 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY & SOCIOLOGY 227 (2013).

938. Grant Duwe & Byron R. Johnson, The Effects of Prison Visits from Community Volunteers on Offender Recidivism, 96 PRISON JOURNAL 279 (2016).

939. Byron R. Johnson, How Religion Contribute to the Common Good, Positive Criminology, and Justice Reform, 12(6) RELIGIONS 402, 407–08 (2021).

940. Clark, supra, at 19–23.

941. Khushbeen Kaur Sohi, Ritual Participation, Sense of Community, and Social Well-Being: A Study of Seva in the Sikh Community, 57 JOURNAL OF RELIGION & HEALTH 2066 (2018).

942. ROBERT D. PUTNAM & DAVID E. CAMPBELL, AMERICAN GRACE: HOW RELIGION DIVIDES AND UNITES US 454–55 (2010).

943. Daniel A. Cox, Ryan Streeter, Samuel J. Abrams, Beatrice Lee & Dana Popky, Public Places and Commercial Spaces: How Neighborhood Amenities Foster Trust and Connection in American Communities, SURVEY CENTER ON AMERICAN LIFE (Oct. 20, 2021), https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/public-places-and-commercial-spaces-how-neighborhood-amenities-foster-trust-and-connection-in-american-communities (finding that 40% of Americans who report going to religious services more than once a week rate their communities as excellent, compared to 29% who seldom attend and 25% who never do).

944. PUTNAM & CAMPBELL, supra, at 82.

945. ROBERT D. PUTNAM, BOWLING ALONE: AMERICA'S DECLINING SOCIAL CAPITAL (2000).

946. Id. at 66.

947. Clark, supra, at 24–29.

948. Arthur C. Brooks, Address at the Brigham Young University Forum, Why Giving Matters (Feb. 24, 2009), https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/arthur-c-brooks/giving-matters-2.

949. Byron Johnson, William H. Wubbenhorst & Alfreda Avarez, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, Assessing the Faith-Based Response to Homelessness in America: Findings from Eleven Cities 7 (2017), https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/ISR-Homeless-FINAL-01092017-web.pdf.

950. Karl Zinsmeister, Less God, Less Giving? Religion and Generosity Feed Each Other in Fascinating Ways, PHILANTHROPY MAGAZINE (Winter 2019), https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/magazine/less-god-less-giving.

951. Id.

952. Id.

953. Clark, supra, at 35, 44.

954. H. Richard Niebuhr, Utilitarian Christianity, CHRISTIANITY AND CRISIS, July 8, 1946, https://www.religion-online.org/article/utilitarian-christianity.

955. Id.

956. Jӧrg Stolz, A Silent Battle: Theorizing the Effects of Competition Between Churches and Secular Institutions, 51(3) REVIEW OF RELIGIOUS RESEARCH 253 (2009).

957. Jack Fitzhenry, Preferring Works Without Faith, Nine Federal Agencies Would Make Religious Charities More Secular, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION (Apr. 27, 2023), https://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/report/preferring-works-without-faith-nine-federal-agencies-would-make-religious.
https://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/report/preferring-works-without-faith-nine-federal-agencies-would-make-religious

958. Brian J. Grim, Greg Clark & Robert Edward Snyder, Is Religious Freedom Good for Business?: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis, 10 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON RELIGION 4 (2014).

959. Christos Andreas Makridis, Human Flourishing and Religious Liberty: Evidence from over 150 Countries, 15 PLOS ONE, Oct. 1, 2020, at 11, 20–21, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239983.

960. Daniel E. Hall, Keith G. Meador & Harold G. Koenig, Measuring Religiousness in Health Research: Review and Critique, 47(2) JOURNAL OF RELIGION & HEALTH 134 (2008), doi: 10.1007/s10943-008-9165-2.

961. See, e.g., Roy Sablosky, Does Religion Foster Generosity?, 52(4) THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 545 (2024), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261918362_Does_Religion_Foster_Generosity. The author criticizes the findings that religion makes people more generous by pointing out what he characterizes as a flawed methodology for three reasons: (1) the findings are based on self-reporting, which is notoriously unreliable; (2) quantifying and defining religiosity are fraught with difficulties; and (3) the positive correlations could be due to selection bias. Id. at 546. He asserts that authors such as Putnam and Campbell assume positive effects are due to religiosity, rather than demonstrating that such is the case. Id. at 548.

962. See, e.g., Mark D. Regnerus & Christian Smith, Selection Effects in Studies of Religious Influence, 47 REVIEW OF RELIGIOUS RESEARCH 23 (2005), https://doi.org/10.2307/4148279. In rebutting the argument of self-selection rather than religious influence, the authors find that two common measures of religiosity are subject to selection processes but that this “does not appear easily to alter or diminish their independent effects.” Id. Further, the authors find that there is some evidence of strategic inclination to be more religious, “but this too fails to mitigate religious influences.” Id.