Religious Diversity and Religious Participation in US

3 downloads 0 Views 561KB Size Report
May 17, 2018 - and demographic factors and in levels of religious participation among these denominational clusters. Second, various ... The 6.85 million U.S. Jews, although an influen- tial group in ... diversity across the world or United States, respec- tively. ... munity (Blau 1977; Blum 1985; Rabinowitz, Kim, ..... F D 4.846.
The Professional Geographer

ISSN: 0033-0124 (Print) 1467-9272 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpg20

Religious Diversity and Religious Participation in U.S. Jewish Communities Ira M. Sheskin & Harriet J. Hartman To cite this article: Ira M. Sheskin & Harriet J. Hartman (2018): Religious Diversity and Religious Participation in U.S. Jewish Communities, The Professional Geographer, DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2018.1455520 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2018.1455520

Published online: 17 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtpg20

Religious Diversity and Religious Participation in U.S. Jewish Communities Ira M. Sheskin University of Miami Harriet J. Hartman Rowan University This article examines variations in Jewish denominational identification (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Just Jewish) among fifty-five U.S. Jewish communities completing local Jewish community studies from 1993 through 2011. We relate these variations to levels of religious and ethnic participation, contributing to the literature on how and whether religious pluralism relates to religious and ethnic participation. First, five denominational clusters are created via k-means cluster analysis (high Orthodox; equal, except Orthodox; high Reform; high Reform/low Just Jewish; and high Just Jewish). We then examine differences in geographic and demographic factors and in levels of religious participation among these denominational clusters. Second, various indexes of Jewish denominational diversity (index of dissimilarity, Shannon Index, Simpson Index, and largest group) are developed. The relationship of the level of Jewish denominational diversity to religious and ethnic participation is explored. The basic finding is that more Jewish denominational diversity does result in higher levels of religious participation but not ethnic participation. Key Words: community context, Jewish communities, religious diversity, religious participation. 本文检视自 1993 年至 2011 年间完成在地犹太社群研究的美国五十五个犹太社群中的犹太教派指认变异 (正统、保守、改 革与仅只是犹太人)。我们将这些变异, 连结至宗教与族裔的参与程度, 对于宗教多元主义如何以及是否关乎宗教及族裔参 与的文献做出贡献。我们首先运用 K 系数集群分析创造五大教派集群 (高度正统; 正统之外各自平等; 高度改革; 高度 改革/低度 “仅只是犹太人”; 以及高度 “仅只是犹太人”)。我们接着检视地理与人口因素, 以及这些教派集群的宗教参与程度 之差异。再者, 我们建立犹太教派多样性的各种指标 (不相似性指标、夏农多样性指标、辛普森指标, 以及最大群体)。我们 探讨犹太教派多样性的程度之于宗教和族裔参与的关系。基本研究发现, 更多的犹太教派多样性, 的确导致较高程度的宗教 参与, 但却不会引发更多的族裔参与。 关键词: 社区脉络, 犹太社群, 宗教多样性, 宗教参与。

Este artículo examina las variaciones de la identificaci on confesional judía (Ortodoxa, Conservadora, Reforma y del Judío Justo) dentro de cincuenta y cinco comunidades judías estadounidenses, completando los estudios de comunidad judía local, desde 1993 hasta 2011. Relacionamos estas variaciones con los niveles de participaci on religiosa y etnica, contribuyendo a la literatura sobre si el pluralismo religioso se relaciona con la participaci on religiosa y etnica, y c omo lo hace. Primero, se crearon cinco agrupamientos confesionales vía analisis de agrupamiento k-means (alto Ortodoxo; igual, excepto Ortodoxo; alto Reforma; alto Reforma/bajo Judío Justo; y alto Judío Justo). Luego examinamos las diferencias en factores geograficos y demograficos, y en niveles de participaci on religiosa entre estos agrupamientos confesionales. Segundo, se desarrollaron varios índices de diversidad confesional judía (índice de disimilitud, Indice Shannon, Indice Simpson, y del grupo mas grande). Se explor o la relaci on del nivel de diversidad confesional judía con la participaci on religiosa y etnica. El descubrimiento basico es que mas diversidad confesional judía da lugar a niveles mas altos de participaci on religiosa, mas no de participaci on etnica. Palabras clave: comunidades judías, contexto comunitario, diversidad religiosa, participaci on religiosa.

T

he 6.85 million U.S. Jews, although an influential group in U.S. society, comprise only about 2 percent of the U.S. population (Sheskin and Dashefsky 2017). Some Jews identify with Judaism as a religion, whereas others view their Jewishness in more ethnic terms. Previous research on patterns of Jewishness, however, has failed to show many significant relationships between community context and individual Jewish identity in the United States, whether religious or ethnic (Hartman and Sheskin 2013; Sheskin and Hartman 2015). Some research has suggested that individuals contain their Jewish identities within

themselves and their families, rather than being influenced by the community in which they reside (S. M. Cohen and Eisen 2000). Alternatively, though, it might be that the methods of characterizing differences between Jewish communities have not been sufficient to tease out the differential impacts on community members. In this article, we suggest a new procedure for differentiating Jewish communities that we believe does affect the extent to which individuals are connected to their Jewishness. After a brief review of past research and discussion of data sources, we address three questions:

The Professional Geographer, 0(0) 2018, pages 1–13 © 2018 by American Association of Geographers. Initial submission, June 2017; revised submission, January 2018; final acceptance, February 2018. Published by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

2

Volume XX, Number X, XXXXX 2018

1. How does denominational composition (percentage Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Just Jewish) vary by Jewish community, and how stable is that denominational composition over time? 2. After defining five denominational clusters on the basis of denominational composition, we ask this: Are the five clusters distinguishable from one another on demographic and Jewish connectivity measures? 3. Does religious diversity in an area lead to greater levels of religious or ethnic participation? To accomplish this, we employ four different measures of denominational diversity (the index of dissimilarity, Shannon Index, Simpson Index, and the largest group) to address the debate as to whether greater levels of religious diversity in an area result in greater levels of religious and ethnic participation.

Religious Diversity and Religiosity Some research exists that characterizes regions or countries by religious diversity. Using data collected by the National Council of Churches, Zelinsky (1961) divided the nation into geographical regions characterized by different denominational indicators. Silk and Walsh (2008) and their collaborators in the Religion by Region project elaborated on this basic scheme, using membership statistics from the North American Religion Atlas, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), and National Surveys of Religion and Politics from 1992, 1996, and 2000 to flesh out the differences between the geographic regions in the United States. The project shows that diverse religious profiles in various parts of the country are related to political views, the extent to which religion influences the public arena, and other facets of public life. Kosmin and Keysar (2006) used ARIS to discuss religious distributions across states and regions in the United States, as well as urban–suburban–rural divisions, detailing twelve different religious groupings and also collapsing them into profiles of Christians, other faiths, and no faith. More recent studies flesh out the diverse religions in the United States and Canada and the impact of diversity on various aspects of the respective societies (Beaman and Beyer 2008; Carroll 2012; C. L. Cohen and Numbers 2013; Mislin 2015). Warf and colleagues took a somewhat different approach to studying religious diversity both at the county level within the United States (Warf and Winsberg 2008) and globally by country (Warf and Vincent 2007). Using Glenmary Research Center (2002) and Polis Center data (see www.polis.iupui.edu) for 2000 for the United States and the World Christian Database for 237 countries globally, they developed four indexes to measure religious diversity: number of religions represented in the area, the proportion of adherents in the largest faith, the Shannon Index (based on richness and evenness of distribution of diverse faiths), and the Simpson Index (measuring the likelihood that

two random individuals in the area will share the same faith). They then showed the distribution of religious diversity across the world or United States, respectively. This approach differs from Zelinsky’s and Silk and Walsh’s because it does not characterize a priori determined geographical regions but rather shows the distribution of diversity across the states or countries. Most research on Jewish community characteristics has focused on a few isolated characteristics and related these to characteristics of individual Jews living in that community. The size of the Jewish community (Blau 1977; Blum 1985; Rabinowitz, Kim, and Lazerwitz 1992; Rabinowitz, Lazerwitz, and Kim 1995; Weissbach 2005; Alper and Olson 2013), its proportion vis-a-vis the broader (non-Jewish) population (Horowitz 1999; Alper and Olson 2013), and the stability of the Jewish population (S. M. Cohen 1983) have been found to have weak linkages to expressions of individual Jewish identities. Our own research has taken a similar approach, although we entered multiple characteristics into regression analyses to see which characteristics were most salient. We have also included indicators of the religiosity of the broader community to explore whether such indicators add to the explanation of variance in individual Jewish identity but with relatively weak results (Hartman and Sheskin 2013). We also pursued the idea of Silk and Walsh’s regions by including this region as an independent variable predicting Jewish identity, but the results, when significant, were not always in line with the expectations derived from the broader community per Silk and Walsh (Hartman and Sheskin 2013). Our conclusion was that region itself might not work the same way for minority religions as it does for religions with a majority in the region and that other community features of the minority religion should be pursued. Using an approach somewhat similar to ours, although with a smaller sample, Alper and Olson (2013) showed various effects of Jewish community size (more important) and population share (less important) on the extent to which individual Jews feel like outsiders in the United States. They also examined the effects of religious profiles of a county, including evangelical share, mainline Protestant share, and Catholic share, which seem to have only minimal association with Jews feeling like outsiders. They used Jewish denominational identification (e.g., Orthodox, Conservative, Reform) as an individual-level variable rather than examining the share of each Jewish denomination in a particular Jewish community. In contrast, in this research, we first characterize Jewish communities by their denominational profiles (i.e., proportion of Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Just Jewish)—an indication of “Jewish diversity” in a Jewish community—by defining five community types. We then test to see whether these community types show relationships with various community-level characteristics. Second, we use five different measures of religious diversity in a Jewish community to see whether individuals’ religious participation is affected by level of diversity.

Religious Diversity and Participation Data The Berman Jewish DataBank (see www.jewishdata bank.org) archives about 200 local Jewish community population studies. The data set employed here includes community-wide measures for fifty-five U.S. Jewish communities completing local Jewish community studies from 1993 through 2011. These studies were based on more than 55,000 telephone interviews (using randomdigit dialing [RDD], distinctive Jewish name [DJN; Sheskin 1998], and Jewish mailing list sampling). About 80 percent of the U.S. Jewish population lives in these fiftyfive Jewish communities (Sheskin and Dashefsky 2017). Of the twenty largest U.S. Jewish communities, only Rockland County, New York, has not completed a local Jewish community study. The existing studies covered diverse topics designed to assist local Jewish federations in their planning and coordinating role for the Jewish community (Sheskin 2009). The vast majority of these 55,000 interviews were fifteen to twenty minutes in length. Importantly, note that the data employed in this article are for the communities themselves, not for the respondents to the surveys. Table 1 shows the fifty-five communities used in this study and the community-level data on Jewish identification for each community. The data in these tables (Sheskin 2015) and hundreds of other variables are available for these communities in Comparisons of Jewish Communities: A Compendium of Tables and Bar Charts, available at www.jewishdatabank.org. The typical question asked in these studies to determine denominational identification is this: Do you consider yourself Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, or Just Jewish?1 For the purposes of this article, we have combined Reconstructionist and Reform because Reconstructionist is less than 2 percent of almost all Jewish communities. In addition, respondents were permitted to provide their own responses. Traditional was combined with Conservative; Jewish Renewal, Jewish Humanist, agnostic, and atheist were combined with Just Jewish. For the most part, other than Reconstructionist and Traditional, the percentage volunteering other responses was minimal (see the footnotes to Table 1). Note that the question on denominational identification was asked separately from the question of membership or active affiliation with the denomination, and the answer on denominational identification might or might not reflect actual synagogue membership (e.g., someone can belong to a Conservative synagogue or to no synagogue at all but consider oneself Reform) or actual level of religious practice (e.g., some respondents call themselves Orthodox but then indicate that they do not keep kosher, a behavior that almost all would agree would be expected by those who identify with Orthodox Judaism; see also Klaff 2006). In addition, we considered the following nine demographic and geographic characteristics of communities: (1) the size of the Jewish population (expecting that a larger Jewish population might be able to support the infrastructure conducive to an Orthodox lifestyle; e.g.,

3

Jewish day schools, kosher restaurants, etc.); (2) the density of the Jewish population (as opposed to dispersion among the non-Jews in the area); (3) the year of the study (to see whether changes in the denominational structure from 1993–2011 are extant); (4) the percentage of Jewish households in the community; (5) the level of secular education (percentage of adults age twenty-five and over with a four-year college degree or higher; expecting higher percentages of Just Jewish among more educated populations, perhaps); (6) the percentage of persons age sixty-five and over in the Jewish population; (7) the percentage of persons under age eighteen in the Jewish population; (8) the median household income (expecting wealthier communities to have higher rates of affiliation); and (9) the region of the country (Census division: Northeast, Midwest, South, West). Analyses of variance were used to examine the first eight variables and both chi-square and z tests were used to examine the last variable. We also examine nine measures of the extent to which individuals in the Jewish communities are involved in Jewish behaviors, both religiously (couples’ intermarriage rate, synagogue service attendance once per month or more, always or usually lighting candles on Friday night, always or usually lighting Hanukkah candles, and keeping a kosher home) and ethnically (donating to a Jewish charity, being very familiar with the local Jewish Federation, belonging to a Jewish organization other than a synagogue or Jewish Community Center [JCC], and participation in the JCC). Clear differences could be noted between Jews who participate religiously and ethnically (Hartman, Sheskin, and Cohen 2017).

Geographic Variation in Denominational Composition The first question that we address is the extent to which denominational composition varies by Jewish community. According to the Pew Research Center (2013), 10 percent of U.S. Jewish households are Orthodox, 18 percent Conservative, 1 percent Reconstructionist, 35 percent Reform, and 36 percent Just Jewish. Deconstructing this national average, however, reveals significant geographic variation across communities in the United States. Comparing the fifty-five communities in which local Jewish community studies have been conducted from 1993 through 2011 reveals a range of 1 percent to 21 percent Orthodox households across communities, 14 percent to 39 percent Conservative, 22 percent to 60 percent Reform, and 14 percent to 48 percent Just Jewish. Note that these percentages reflect households, rather than individuals (Table 1).2 The communities with the highest percentage Orthodox are Baltimore (21 percent) and New York (20 percent), with significantly more Orthodox than any others (the next highest percentage Orthodox is 12 percent in Bergen County, New Jersey). The majority of communities have only 5 percent or fewer

4

Volume XX, Number X, XXXXX 2018

Table 1 Jewish identification in 55 U.S. Jewish communities Base: Jewish households Orthodox Conservative (%) (%)

Community

Year

Atlanta Atlantic County Baltimorea Bergen County Bostonb Broward County Buffalo Charlotte Chicagoc Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Denverd Detroit Essex–Morris County Harrisburg Hartford Howard County Jacksonville Las Vegas Lehigh Valley Los Angeles Martin–St. Lucie Miami Middlesex Milwaukee Minneapolis Monmouth New Haven New York Orlando Palm Springsg Philadelphia Phoenix Pittsburgh Portland (ME) Rhode Island Richmond Rochester S. Palm Beach San Antonio San Diego San Francisco Sarasota Seattle St. Louis St. Paul St. Petersburg Tidewater Tucson W Palm Beach Washington Westport Wilmington York Pewi

2006 2004 2010 2001 2005 1997 1995 1997 2010 2008 2011 2001 2007 2005 1998

10 1 21 12 4 4 6 2 7 5 10 6 2 11 3

1994 2000 2010 2002 2005 2007 1997 1999 2004 2008 1996 2004 1997 2010 2011 1993 1998 2009 2002 2002 2007 2002 1994 1999 2005 2007 2003 2004 2001 2000 1995 2004 1994 2001 2002 2005 2003 2000 1995 1999 2013

10 4 1 2 3 4 6 1 9 7 3 2 9 4 20 2 6 6 3 7 2 6 4 6 4 4 3 3 2 5 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 6 1 10

Reconstructionist (%)

Reform (%)

Just Jewish (%)

Index of dissimilarity (%)

27 32 25 31 31 37 31 26 22 27 25 23 16 28 27

0 1 1 1 1 1 5 0 4 0 3 1 5 3 N/A

45 37 27 25 43 24 35 40 45 47 46 41 39 36 51

18 29 20 30 18 34 23 32 14 22 16 29 31e 22f 20

22 24 8 13 25 21 21 23 29 24 24 21 26 17 28

33 31 30 38 23 34 29 22 32 35 24 31 37 30 19 33 31 31 24 32 14 30 37 24 35 25 22 17 22 19 21 32 23 39 21 32 30 22 28 24 18

4 0 12 1 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 N/A 1 1 0 0 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 2 3 2 1 N/A 1 1 0 1 2 1 3 0 4 1 1

22 31 32 24 26 30 41 51 27 29 39 32 26 30 23 30 42 42 44 41 35 28 29 41 34 39 40 38 38 41 60 28 39 29 32 37 31 41 29 49 35

32 34 25 36 47 31 22 26 31 29 34 35 28 35 37 35 14 18 28 18 48 35 30 29 26 30 32 40h 37 35 15 37 36 28 44 29 34 35 33 25 36

15 21 24 23 24 21 22 27 16 18 23 23 16 21 12 23 30 26 23 25 34 19 21 20 21 21 25 30 26 26 36 23 24 22 27 23 23 26 19 25 22

Note: Respondents who identify as Sephardic are included in Orthodox. 5% of respondents identify as Traditional. 3% of respondents identify with another denomination. c 8% of respondents identify as Traditional. d 6% of respondents identify as Traditional. e Includes 3% of respondents who identify as Jewish Renewal. f Includes 3% of respondents who identify as Jewish Humanistic and 1% as Jewish Renewal. g 7% of respondents identify as Traditional. h Includes 1% of respondents who identify as Jewish Renewal. i Pew Research Center (2013). These results are for U.S. Jewish households as a whole. a

b

Religious Diversity and Participation Orthodox, with four communities having only 1 percent (Howard County, Maryland; Atlantic County, New Jersey; Martin–St. Lucie, Florida; and York, Pennsylvania). The median is 4 percent. Note that even within the same state (e.g., Bergen County and Atlantic County, New Jersey), communities could differ significantly in percentage Orthodox. The percentage Conservative varies from 14 percent in Portland, Maine, to 39 percent in Tidewater, Virginia. The median Conservative is 28 percent. The percentage Reform varies from 22 percent in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to 60 percent in St. Louis, Missouri. The median Reform is 37 percent. Communities differ significantly in terms of the percentage who do not identify with any of the main denominational groups (the Just Jewish group), from 14 percent in Palm Springs, California, to 48 percent in Portland, Maine. The median Just Jewish is 31 percent. The denominational composition of a community might change over time. Nationally, between the 2000–2001 National Jewish Population Survey (NJPS; Kotler-Berkowitz et al. 2003) and the Pew Research Center national study of Jews in 2013, the percentage Orthodox increased slightly from 8 percent to 10 percent, the percentage Conservative decreased from 25 percent to 18 percent, the percentage Reform remained at 35 percent, and the percentage Just Jewish increased from 30 percent to 36 percent (Ament 2005; Pew Research Center 2013), consistent with the increased percentage of “nones” in U.S. society (Kosmin et al. 2009). For twenty-eight of the communities, we have data on denominational self-identification for two points in time, with the time between

5

studies varying from six years (in West Palm Beach, Florida) to thirty years (in Houston, Texas).3 The percentage Orthodox seems to be fairly stable over time in most of the twenty-eight communities. A notable increase is seen in Detroit (from 7 percent to 11 percent over a sixteen-year period) and Atlanta (from 3 percent to 10 percent over a ten-year period), balanced by notable decreases in Atlantic County (from 6 percent to 1 percent over a nineteen-year period) and in Milwaukee (from 7 percent to 3 percent over a thirteen-year period). This stability is reflected in the percentage Orthodox measured in the three national surveys of U.S. Jews (NJPS 1971 [Massarik and Chenkin 1973], NJPS 1990 [Kosmin et al. 1991], NJPS 2000–2001 [Kotler-Berkowitz et al. 2003]; see Pew 2013): 9 percent of U.S. Jewish households were Orthodox in 1971, 6 percent in 1990, 8 percent in 2000– 2001, and 10 percent in 2013. In contrast, the percentage Conservative has decreased notably in sixteen of the twenty-eight communities compared over time and has increased notably in only one community (Howard County, Maryland). In six communities, the percentage Reform has increased notably, often with very large changes (in Atlanta from 34 percent to 45 percent and in Philadelphia from 28 percent to 42 percent. In eleven other communities, large decreases are noted (e.g., in Milwaukee from 52 percent to 39 percent and in St. Louis from 60 percent to 47 percent). The percentage Just Jewish has increased notably over time in fourteen communities (e.g., from 17 percent to 29 percent in Atlantic County and from 14 percent to 35 percent in Rhode Island), while decreasing notably in just two communities (from 33 percent to

Table 2 Jewish denominational clusters based on k-means cluster analysis Cluster 1: High Cluster 2: Equal, except Orthodox (n D 3) Orthodox (n D 20) Orthodox Conservative Reform/ Reconstructionist Just Jewish Total

18% 27% 26% 29% 100% Bergen Baltimore New York

4% 33% 31% 32% 100% Lehigh Valley Hartford Orlando New Haven Richmond Middlesex Minneapolis Rhode Island Miami Washington St. Paul Wilmington Broward Tidewater Harrisburg South Palm Beach Monmouth West Palm Beach Jacksonville Atlantic County

Cluster 3: High Reform (n D 14) 6% 29% 43% 23% 100% Los Angeles Buffalo Cincinnati Philadelphia Howard County Pittsburgh Detroit Atlanta Phoenix Rochester Boston San Antonio Columbus Palm Springs

Note: Communities are listed in order from most typical of the cluster to least typical.

Cluster 4: High Reform/ Cluster 5: High Just low Just Jewish (n D 6) Jewish (n D 12) 4% 25% 52% 19% 100% Essex–Morris York Cleveland Martin–St. Lucie Chicago St. Louis

3% 21% 39% 38% 100% Sarasota St. Petersburg Westport Milwaukee Seattle San Francisco San Diego Charlotte Tucson Denver Portland (ME) Las Vegas

6

Volume XX, Number X, XXXXX 2018

Figure 1 Profiles of Jewish denominational clusters. (Color figure available online.)

18 percent in Atlanta and from 43 percent to 35 percent in Seattle). Thus, considerable flux may be noted in the denominational composition of communities, with the exception of percentage Orthodox. In our analyses that follow, we focus on the latest data from each of the communities in the data file.

The Relationship between Denominational Composition and the Demography, Geography, and Religious Participation of U.S. Jews Communities vary not only in terms of the percentage for each of the denominations but also in terms of the combined profile of their denominational composition. We used a k-means cluster analysis to group the communities shown in Table 1 on the basis of their values for all four denominational groups. Four-, five-, and six-cluster solutions were examined and a five-cluster solution was adopted. Table 2 and Figure 1 present the average percentage of each denominational group for each cluster and list the communities in each cluster. The assignment of the fifty-five communities to the five clusters explains about 97 percent of the sum of squares in the analysis of variance produced by the cluster analysis. We labeled each cluster with a name that distinguishes its denominational profile from the other clusters: The clusters were particularly defined by the percentage Orthodox, Reform, or Just Jewish in the community. Cluster 1 (high Orthodox) was characterized as having the highest percentage Orthodox of all of the communities with approximately equal percentages of Reform,

Conservative, and Just Jewish. Cluster 2 (equal, except Orthodox) was characterized by having about equal Conservative, Reform, and Just Jewish percentages. Cluster 3 (high Reform) had the highest Reform percentages. Cluster 4 (high Reform/low Just Jewish) had high Reform and low Just Jewish percentages. Cluster 5 (high Just Jewish) had the highest Just Jewish percentages. Note that fewer communities are in the high Orthodox cluster and that the most “popular” cluster among these communities is the cluster with three equal denominations (Conservative, Reform, and Just Jewish). Demographic and Geographic Differences among Clusters The examination of the relationship between other community-level variables and the Jewish identity clusters was exploratory in the sense that the literature, although offering abundant examples of the relationship between Jewish identity and the demographics of individuals, offers little guidance on the community level. Table 3 shows that the only significant difference between the clusters on the eight demographic and geographic variables included was the mean size of the Jewish population, with the largest Jewish populations supporting communities with the highest percentage of Orthodox (as expected). Even in this case, if Cluster 1 (high Orthodox) is removed from the analysis of variance, no significant difference is seen among Clusters 2 through 5. Religiosity Differences among Clusters Given the known differences at the individual level among the four denominations, we expected to find

Religious Diversity and Participation

7

Table 3 Demographic and geographic differences among the Jewish denominational clusters Cluster 1: High Orthodox (n D 3)

Cluster 2: Equal, Cluster 4: High Reform/ Cluster 5: High except Orthodox Cluster 3: High low Just Jewish (n D 6) Just Jewish (n D 20) Reform (n D 14) (n D 12) Significance

567,700

58,037

99,844

88,233

51,475

F D 4.846 a D 0.002

31.3

41.8

46.5

53.2

30.7

F D 1.391 a D 0.250

2007.33

2001.45

2003.14

2002.00

2001.45

F D 1.130 a D 0.353

% Jewish households in the community

10.5

7.9

4.4

3.5

4.8

F D 1.043 a D 0.395

% with 4-year college degree

65.3

62.7

69.5

64.3

68.0

F D 1.041 a D 0.396

% age 65C

19.0

25.5

19.7

21.8

19.8

F D 0.639 a D 0.637

% age 0–17

24.7

20.7

20.9

21.0

21.0

F D 0.441 a D 0.778

96,000

92,900

93,929

86,166

93,583

F D 0.185 a D 0.945

Size of Jewish population Density of the Jewish populationa Year of study

Median household income ($)

Note: Table shows means for each cluster. The variable Census Division was cross-tabulated with the variable Cluster and no significant relationship was found. a Percentage of Jewish households living in the top three ZIP codes for Jewish households.

significant differences in Jewish behavior indicators among the clusters. Unlike the demographic and geographic characteristics, four of the nine Jewish behavior variables (Variables 1–4) are significant at the 0.05 level and another three

(Variables 5–7) are significant at the 0.10 level (Table 4). There was significant variation in the religious identity variables (keeping kosher, lighting Hanukkah candles, intermarriage, attendance at services, and Friday night candles) exhibited among the clusters and less so in the

Table 4 Religiosity differences among the Jewish denominational clusters Cluster 1: High Cluster 2: Equal, Cluster 3: Orthodox except Orthodox High Reform (n D 3) (n D 20) (n D 14) Religious identity variables Keep kosher in the home

Cluster 4: High Reform/low Just Jewish (n D 6)

Cluster 5: High Just Jewish (n D 12) Significance

29.0

14.6

14.2

15.8

8.0

F D 12.28 a D 0.000

Always/usually light Hanukkah candles

75.3

76.1

73.1

72.8

67.8

F D 5.29 a D 0.001

Attend synagogue services once per month or more

29.0

23.0

25.4

28.6

22.1

F D 3.34 a D 0.018

Always/usually light candles Friday night

33.7

22.2

23.2

22.2

17.5

F D 2.261 a D –0.076

Couples’ intermarriage ratea

19.7

28.8

32.8

33.8

43.3

F D 4.728 a D 0.003

Ethnic identity variables Participate in the JCC in the past year

41.3

33.7

44.0

36.0

26.4

F D 2.20 a D 0.088

41.3

33.7

44.0

25.5

27.0

F D 1.558 a D 0.204

17.0

22.3

29.0

19.0

18.0

F D 1.370 a D 0.266

64.3

65.6

62.7

66.0

58.1

F D 2.144 a D 0.091

Someone in the household is a member of a Jewish organization Very familiar with the Jewish Federation Donate to a Jewish charity in the past year

Note: Table shows means for each cluster. JCC D Jewish Community Center. a The percentage of all married couples in the Jewish community in which one spouse is not currently Jewish.

8

Volume XX, Number X, XXXXX 2018

ethnic identity variables (JCC participation, Jewish charity, Jewish organizational member, and Jewish Federation familiarity). Not surprisingly, communities in Cluster 1 (high Orthodox) had higher percentages who keep kosher at home, attend synagogue services, and light Friday night candles and a much lower couples’ intermarriage rate. As will be seen later, however, this is not only because of the Orthodox in the community but is an effect that spreads to the Conservative as well. Communities in Clusters 3 and 4 (high Reform and high Reform/low Just Jewish) are relatively high on the ethnic identity variables. Interestingly, synagogue attendance in the high Reform communities does not vary significantly from the high Orthodox communities. Communities in Cluster 5 (high Just Jewish) have the lowest percentage who keep kosher, light Friday night candles, and light Hanukkah candles and the highest couples’ intermarriage rate. Attendance at services, although the lowest in Cluster 5 (high Just Jewish), is not significantly different from Cluster 2 (equal, except Orthodox). The communities in the high Just Jewish cluster (Cluster 5) are also the lowest on three of the four ethnic identity factors.

Religious Diversity and Levels of Jewish Participation This section addresses the extent to which religious diversity affects religious participation using various indexes of religious diversity adapted to an intrafaith situation. The relationship between religious diversity and individuals’ religiosity has merited considerable debate among social scientists studying religion. Secularization theory (as presented in Berger 1967) suggests that the existence of many different religions in an area undermines the appeal of any given faith and contributes to decreased religious participation. More recently, Berger (2014) elaborated on this thesis, explaining how religious diversity results in greater tolerance for other religions but also greater indifference to religion and religiosity; elaborating on this formulation, others (Muller 2016; Pollack 2016; Woodhead 2016) elaborate on the mechanisms by which diversity dilutes religiosity at various levels. Olson and Hadaway (1999) posited that “religious pluralism lowers religious involvement by reducing the number of close social ties—especially family and friendship connections—that people maintain with others who share a common religious identity” (491). Others who have advanced this theory include Breault (1989a, 1989b), Olson (1998, 1999), Chaves and Gorski (2001), and Voas, Olson, and Crockett (2002). In contrast, Finke and Stark (1988; see also Finke 1998) posited that having more denominations in an area (i.e., having greater religious pluralism) offers an individual more choices and encourages religious participation. That is, more interfaith competition and religious diversity result in more aggressive outreach and recruitment efforts, which lead to higher levels of religiosity. Kohut and

Stokes (2006) pointed to the fact that the United States, which probably exhibits the greatest religious diversity in the world, also has a population that is more religious than other wealthy educated countries, particularly in Europe, where single churches often are backed by the government (Hout and Fischer 2002). Beaman’s (2003) critique of this formulation rests on debunking the extent of religious diversity in the United States, given the extent of Protestant hegemony. It should also be noted that in the more than thirty countries that are at least 90 percent Muslim, the population does tend to be highly religious (The Pew Global Attitudes Project 2008). Kaplan (2018) discussed various aspects of ethnic and religious pluralism from a geographic perspective. The controversy raises the issue of how “religion” is defined to measure religious diversity and how religious diversity is measured (see also Gill 2003; Wolfart 2015). This section addresses this debate over the relationship between religious diversity and religious participation in a somewhat different manner by looking at four “denominations” within Judaism. Thus, we are not looking at different religions but at denominations within a religion. According to Beaman (2003), this might not be considered religious diversity at all; however, the Jewish perspective would certainly consider the various denominations as separate organizational and financially independent entities in the Jewish communities (Gill’s formulation of what constitutes a religious unit to be considered in measuring religious diversity); Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform all have separate synagogues, national coordinating bodies, and rabbinical organizations, for example. Another difference between the denominations in this study and many of the religions used in other examinations of the religious diversity and religious participation debate is that being Jewish is both a religious group and an ethnic group. We define Just Jewish as a denominational group but in fact it is somewhat different than a traditional denomination. Although in some cases people identify themselves as Just Jewish because they simply do not like traditional labels, in most cases the Just Jewish are people who, when asked on a survey (Q1), “What is your religion if any?” respond atheist, agnostic, nothing in particular, no religion, don’t know, and so on, but when asked (Q2), “Do you consider yourself Jewish for any reason?” respond in the affirmative. In fact, the Pew Research Center Profile of Jewish Americans (Pew Research Center 2013) found that 22 percent of U.S. Jews followed the pattern of responding in the negative to Q1 and in the positive to Q2. Thus, unlike most previous work, which has examined data based on church membership, we can include a category for people who are probably not “church” members but who still identify as Jewish and who are involved to some extent in home religious practices. An advantage that accrues to examining these four Jewish denominations is that, unlike other studies, we have nine different measures of religious participation as defined earlier and as shown in Table 4, rather than simply looking at church membership or participation

9

Religious Diversity and Participation Table 5 Pearson correlations between indexes of diversity

Index of dissimilarity Shannon Simpson Largest group

Index of dissimilarity

Shannon

Simpson

Largest group

1 –0.898 –0.932 0.740

–0.898 1 0.938 –0.690

–0.932 0.938 1 –0.866

0.740 –0.690 –0.866 1

Note: All relationships are significant at a D 0.001.

in religious services. In addition, as shown in Table 4, the first five of these measures can be identified as being more related to the religious aspects of being Jewish, whereas the latter four can be viewed as being more related to the ethnic aspects of being Jewish. Warf and Winsberg (2008) identified four measures of religious diversity (often used to examine species diversity in biogeography), to which we add a fifth (the index of dissimilarity): 1. Index of dissimilarity (also known as the segregation index; Burt, Barber, and Rigby 2009). With four denominational groups, the greatest diversity occurs when 25 percent of Jewish households are found within each of the four groups. If 100 percent of Jewish households are found within, say, the Reform denomination, then the lowest level of diversity is extant. The measure can also be interpreted as the percentage of households who would need to switch their denomination to reach 25 percent in each of the four groups. Thus, the measure varies from 0 percent to 100 percent. The values of this measure for each community are shown in Table 1. 2. Shannon Index (Magurran 2004). Shannon Index is a measure that maximizes entropy based on the number of denominations and their proportional areal distribution and is calculated as H D −∑ðpi  Lnðpi ÞÞ;

(1)

where pi is the proportion of households in denomination i. Unlike the index of dissimilarity, the Shan-

nonIndex will reflect greater diversity in a community if a greater number of denominations exist. The number of denominations in the current application is set at four. 3. Simpson Index (Simpson 1949; Jones 2012). This index measures the probability that two households drawn at random fall in the same denomination and is calculated as D D   ∑p2i ;

(2)

where pi is the proportion of households in denomination i. As with the Shannon Index, in the current application, the number of denominations is set at four. 4. The percentage of adherents in the group with the most adherents (largest group). 5. The number of denominations in a geographic area. Because we have the same number (four) of denominations in all fifty-five Jewish communities in our Jewish community data set, the fifth measure cannot be used as an indicator of diversity in this application. Given four different measures of religious diversity, we first examined the extent to which these various religious diversity measures differ from one another (Table 5). Indeed, the Pearson correlations among these four measures are very high and statistically significantly different from 0 in all cases at the 0.001 level, even given the relatively small sample size of

Table 6 Pearson correlations between four religious diversity indexes and religious participation

Religious identity variables Keep kosher in the home Always/usually light Hanukkah candles Attend synagogue services once per month or more Always/usually light candles Friday night Couples’ intermarriage ratea Ethnic identity variables Participate in the JCC in the past year Member of a Jewish organization Very familiar with the Jewish Federation Donate to a Jewish charity in the past year

Index of dissimilarity

Shannon Index

Simpson Index

Largest group

¡0.027 ¡0.300* 0.015 ¡0.306* 0.445**

0.023 0.314** 0.023 0.364** ¡0.429**

¡0.016 0.299* ¡0.032 0.284* ¡0.433**

0.041 ¡0.223 0.132 ¡0.137 0.420**

¡0.151 ¡0.113 0.076 0.030

¡0.273* ¡0.228* ¡0.092 ¡0.043

0.211 0.179 0.174 0.104

Note: JCC D Jewish Community Center. The percentage of all married couples in a Jewish community in which one spouse is not Jewish. *Significant at the a D 0.05 level (one-tailed). **Significant at the a D 0.01 level (one-tailed). a

0.416** 0.319** 0.319** 0.023

10

Volume XX, Number X, XXXXX 2018

fifty-five. Nevertheless, we shall examine the relationship between religious diversity and religious participation using all four indexes. Table 6 examines the religious identity variables and the ethnic identity variables utilized earlier and their correlations with the four religious diversity indexes. We use Table 6 to address the question as to whether increases in religious diversity lead to increases in religious and ethnic participation. Of the thirty-six relationships examined, six are significant at the 0.05 level and nine at the 0.01 level. Thus, twenty-one relationships are not significant. Only the couples’ intermarriage rate is shown to be significant for all four measures. Perhaps more important than the statistical significance is that, except for the couples’ intermarriage rate, only two of the correlation coefficients are higher than 0.35. More interesting, ten of twenty religious identity relationships are significantly related to religious diversity, but only five of sixteen ethnic identity relationships are significantly related. So our data seem to support the thesis that religious pluralism leads to greater religious activity but not necessarily to ethnic activity. Thus, this article contributes to the literature because we measure more aspects of religious behavior (both religious and ethnic) than have been studied in the past and we show that religious pluralism has a different relationship to religiosity than to ethnic identities associated with Jewishness.

Summary and Conclusions Using information on the community level on fifty-five Jewish communities, we have explored the subject of denominational variation across U.S. Jewish communities and its impact on Jewish behaviors. We first show that significant geographic variation exists in the denominational composition of Jewish communities and that temporal changes are evident in denominational composition, with Conservative decreasing and Just Jewish increasing over the past few decades. We show that the denominational composition of communities falls into five clusters. Each of the clusters is characterized by particularly high or particularly low percentages of some of the denominational groups (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform/Reconstructionist, and Just Jewish). We identified both demographic characteristics and expressions of Jewish behavior that vary significantly across these five clusters. Thus, the cluster characterized by the highest percentage of Orthodox has communities with significantly larger Jewish populations than any of the other clusters, whereas the cluster characterized by the highest percentage of Just Jewish has communities with the smallest Jewish population size among the other clusters. In terms of religious behavior, the high Orthodox cluster is characterized by the highest percentages of ritual performance (keep kosher, light Hanukkah candles, light Friday night candles,

attend synagogue services) and a significantly lower rate of intermarriage, whereas the Just Jewish cluster exhibits the opposite tendencies. Note that this is not simply a matter of there being more observant individuals in the community who identify as Orthodox. As we have shown in a previous article, engagement in Jewish practices increases among both Orthodox and Conservative when there is a higher proportion of Orthodox in the community; further, Orthodox practices are stronger in communities with a higher proportion of Orthodox and weaker in communities with a higher proportion of Just Jewish. Thus, Jewish engagement of individuals is affected by the denominational composition of the community in which they live, no matter what their denomination (Sheskin and Hartman 2015). In this article, we also addressed the question of whether greater denominational diversity among Jews is related to religious participation or ethnic participation among the Jewish population in the community. To measure denominational diversity, we used four different indexes (index of dissimilarity, Shannon Index, Simpson Index, and the percentage attributed to the largest group). The correlations among the four measures are very high. Thus, the four measures often tell the same story. Because of our data set, which includes a variety of indicators of Jewish engagement, both religious and ethnic, we were able to consider the relative strength of the relationship between religious diversity and religious engagement and between religious diversity and ethnic engagement. We found that denominational diversity in the Jewish population has a stronger relationship with religious participation than it does with ethnic activity among Jews. One explanation for religious diversity being more strongly related to religious than ethnic participation might relate to the separation of religious activities between the different denominations in comparison with ethnic activities. That is, religious activity occurs primarily in synagogues that belong to a particular denomination and in homes that are usually characterized by a dominant mode of religious activity (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or Just Jewish). Although there is overlap between the different expressions of religious activity between the denominations, religious activities tend to be segregated and occur among individuals similar to each other. Eating kosher food (at home or in restaurants), lighting Sabbath or Hanukkah candles, and attending synagogue services usually take place within denominations rather than between denominations. Denominational congregations might also strengthen their individual identities to attract participation and membership, rather than recruiting across denominational identities. The ethnic activities measured (donations to Jewish philanthropic causes, familiarity with the local Jewish Federation, going to the local JCC, or belonging to a nonsynagogue and non-JCC Jewish organization), however, cut across denominational lines, retaining a common ethnic orientation no matter what the

Religious Diversity and Participation denominational affiliation or identity. Goldscheider and Zuckerman (1984) showed how Jewish identity is often maintained through social networks, residential proximity, and occupational niches, structural mechanisms that are employed in the maintenance of all ethnic identities (Alba and Nee 2005). Ethnic identities related to religion are not limited to the case of Judaism, as has been argued elsewhere (Hartman and Kaufman 2006). Internationally, the Hindu faith is sometimes “wrapped up” with “Indian nationalism or Hindutva” (“Hindutva a Way of Life” 2017). In the United States, the Dutch Reformed church has adherents who express their identity in both religious and ethnic terms, and the same can be said for some Irish Catholics. As U.S. society becomes more secular (Kosmin and Keysar 2006), we might expect more Americans to connect to tradition via ethnic rather than religious factors. As boundaries between religions become more blurred (Alba 2006; Berger 2014; Woodhead 2016), ethnic ties might serve to maintain communities more than religious identities, which could provide more differentiation. In future research, it is clear that it is important to differentiate between the ethnic and religious activities of any particular denominational group, to disentangle the nature of the ties affected (or not affected) by religious diversity. On the local level, Pollack (2016) suggested that we look at interpersonal contacts in families, in neighborhoods, at work, and at leisure between individuals in different religious groups to understand local religious diversity and its impact. Pollack found that local religious diversity had a differential impact in different cultural contexts. Understanding the broader religious context in these countries, as well as the degree to which ethnicity and religiosity are intertwined in different cultural contexts, might provide an insight into better understanding the differential impact of religious diversity on religious and ethnic identity in different religions and different communal contexts. We hope that our study of religious diversity among Jews and its impact on their religious and ethnic engagement will promote greater insight into this controversial topic. &

Notes 1

Orthodox Jews maintain the most traditional beliefs and practices, following Jewish law (halacha) to the greatest extent. Reform Jews historically rejected as outdated many of the practices that the Orthodox follow and instead emphasized the ethical dimensions of Judaism. With regard to halacha, the Reform left practices to a large extent up to the individual to determine which practices that individual felt had personal meaning. Conservative Jews traditionally maintained that halacha was binding on individuals but could be reinterpreted given current society. The Just Jewish are those who might or might not be involved with Jewish community in a significant way and who generally view being Jewish in a cultural, ancestral, or secular sense.

11

2

Note that because of higher average household sizes, Orthodox Jews are a higher percentage of all Jews than they are of all Jewish households. 3 Note that in a few communities, in the earlier study the question asked was “Do you consider yourself Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, or something else?” whereas in most of the studies the question was “Do you consider yourself Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, or Just Jewish?” The former question yields a higher percentage Reform and a lower percentage Just Jewish. Four tables showing these changes are available from the authors on request.

Literature Cited Alba, R. 2006. On the sociological significance of the American Jewish experience: Boundary blurring, assimilation, and pluralism. Sociology of Religion 67 (4):347–58. Alba, R., and V. Nee. 2005. Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Alper, B. A., and D. V. A. Olson. 2013. Religious population share and religious identity salience: Is Jewish identity more important to Jews in less Jewish areas? Sociology of Religion 74 (1):82–106. Ament, J. 2005. American religious denominations, United Jewish Communities Series on the National Jewish Population Survey 2000, Report Number 10. Accessed March 4, 2013. www.jfna.org/NJPS. Beaman, L. G. 2003. The myth of pluralism, diversity and vigor: The constitutional privilege of Protestantism in the United States and Canada. Journal of Scientific Study of Religion 42 (3):311–25. Beaman, L. G., and P. Beyer, eds. 2008. Religion and diversity in Canada. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Berger, P. 1967. The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. New York: Doubleday. ———. 2014. The many altars of modernity: Toward a paradigm for religion in a pluralistic age. Berlin: De Gruyter. Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: The Free Press. Blum, T. C. 1985. Structural constraints on interpersonal relations: A test of Blau’s macrosociological theory. American Journal of Sociology 91 (3):511–21. Breault, K. 1989a. New evidence on religious pluralism, urbanism and religious participation. American Sociological Review 54 (6):1048–53. ———. 1989b. A re-examination of the relationship between religious diversity and religious adherents: Reply to Finke and Stark. American Sociological Review 54 (6):1056–59. Burt, J. E., G. M. Barber, and D. L. Rigby. 2009. Elementary statistics for geographers. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford. Carroll, B. E. 2012. Religious pluralism in geographic perspective. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 80 (2):304–64. Chaves, M., and P. Gorski. 2001. Religious pluralism and religious participation. Annual Review of Sociology 27:261–81. Cohen, C. L., and R. Numbers. 2013. Gods in America: Religious pluralism in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press. Cohen, S. M. 1983. American modernity and Jewish identity. New York: Tavistock. Cohen, S. M., and A. Eisen. 2000. The Jew within: Self, family, and community in America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Finke, R. 1998. Religious choices and competition. American Sociological Review 63 (5):761–66.

12

Volume XX, Number X, XXXXX 2018

Finke, R., and R. Stark. 1988. Religious economies and sacred canopies: Religious mobilization in American cities. American Sociological Review 53 (1):41–49. Gill, A. 2003. Lost in the supermarket: Comments on Beaman, religious pluralism, and what it means to be free. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (3):327–32. Glenmary Research Center. 2002. Religious congregations & membership in the United States. Atlanta, GA: Glenmary Research Center. Goldscheider, C., and A. S. Zuckerman. 1984. The transformation of the Jews. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hartman, H., and D. Kaufman. 2006. Decentering the study of Jewish identity: Opening the dialogue with other religious groups. Sociology of Religion 67 (4):365–85. Hartman, H., and I. M. Sheskin. 2013. The (dis)similarity of a minority religion to its broader religious context: The case of American Jews. Review of Religious Research 55 (3):459–90. Hartman, H., I. M. Sheskin, and E. Cohen. 2017. Examining Jewish identity: Similarity structure analysis and factor analytic approaches. International Journal of Religions and Traditions 2 (1):9–18. Hindutva a way of life and not a religion: Supreme Court to continue hearing of 1995 verdict. 2017. Zee News, January 2. Accessed January 2, 2017. http://zeenews.india.com/ india/hindutva-a-way-of-life-and-not-religion-supremecourt-to-continue-hearing-of-1995-verdict_1963626.html Horowitz, B. 1999. Jewishness in New York: The exception or the rule? In National variations in Jewish identity: Implications for Jewish education, ed. S. Cohen and G. Horenczyk, 223–43. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hout, G., and C. Fischer. 2002. Why more Americans have no religious preference: Politics and generations. American Sociological Review 67 (2):165–90. Jones, D. E. 2012. Religious diversity in the U.S.: Simpson’s diversity scale applied to religious families. Accessed April 20, 2018. www.rcms2010.org. Kaplan, D. H. 2018. Managing ethnicity, segregation, placemaking, and difference. London: Rowman and Littlefield. Klaff, V. 2006. Defining American Jewry from religious and ethnic perspectives: The transitions to greater heterogeneity. Sociology of Religion 67 (4):415–38. Kohut, A., and B. Stokes. 2006. American against the world. New York: Holt. Kosmin, B. A., S. Goldstein, J. Waksberg, N. Lerer, A. Keysar, and J. Scheckner. 1991. Highlights of the CJF 1990 National Jewish population survey. New York: Council of Jewish Federations. Kosmin, B. A., and A. Keysar. 2006. Religion in a free market. Ithaca, NY: Paramount Marketing. Kosmin, B. A., A. Keysar, R. Cragun, and J. Navarro-Rivera. 2009. American nones: The profile of the no religion population. ARIS report. Hartford, CT: Trinity College. Kotler-Berkowitz, L., S. M. Cohen, J. Ament, V. Klaff, F. Mott, and D. Peckerman. 2003. Strength, challenge and diversity in the American Jewish population. New York: United Jewish Communities. Magurran, A. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Massarik, F., and A. Chenkin. 1973. United States National Jewish population study. In American Jewish year book, ed. D. Singer and L. Grossman, Vol. 73, 264–306. New York: American Jewish Committee. Mislin, D. 2015. Saving faith: Making religious pluralism an American value at the dawn of the secular age. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Muller, J. Z. 2016. The two pluralisms: Adumbrations and emendations. Society 53:47–50. Olson, D. 1998. Religious pluralism in contemporary U.S. counties. American Sociological Review 63 (5):759–61. ———. 1999. Religious pluralism and U.S. church membership: A reassessment. Sociology of Religion 60 (2):149–74. Olson, D., and C. K. Hadaway. 1999. Religious pluralism and affiliation among Canadian counties and cities. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38 (4):490–508. The Pew Global Attitudes Project. 2008. Unfavorable views of Jews and Muslims on the increase in Europe. Accessed March 4, 2013. http://www.pewglobal.org/2008/09/17/ chapter-2-religiosity/. Pew Research Center. 2013. A portrait of Jewish Americans. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Pollack, D. 2016. Religious pluralism: Undermining or reinforcing religiosity? Society 53:131–36. Rabinowitz, J., I. Kim, and B. Lazerwitz. 1992. Metropolitan size and participation in religio-ethnic communities. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31 (3):339–45. Rabinowitz, J., B. Lazerwitz, and I. Kim. 1995. Changes in the influence of Jewish community size on primary group, religious, and Jewish communal involvement—1971 and 1990. Sociology of Religion 56 (4):417–32. Sheskin, I. M. 1998. A methodology for examining the changing size and spatial distribution of a Jewish population: A Miami case study. Shofar 17 (1):97–116. ———. 2009. Local Jewish community studies as planning tools for the American Jewish community. Jewish Political Studies Review 21 (1–2):107–35. ———. 2015. Comparisons of Jewish communities: A compendium of tables and bar charts. New York: Berman Jewish DataBank and The Jewish Federations of North America. Sheskin, I. M., and A. Dashefsky. 2017. United States Jewish population, 2017. In The American Jewish year book, ed. A. Dashefsky and I. M. Sheskin, Vol. 117, 179–284. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Sheskin, I. M., and H. Hartman. 2015. Denominational variations across Jewish communities. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 54 (2):205–11. Silk, M., and A. Walsh. 2008. One nation divisible: How regional religious differences shape American politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Simpson, E. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688. Voas, D., D. Olson, and A. Crockett. 2002. Religious pluralism and participation: Why previous research is wrong. American Sociological Review 67 (2):212–30. Warf, B., and P. Vincent. 2007. Religious diversity across the globe: A geographic exploration. Social and Cultural Geography 8 (4):597–613. Warf, B., and M. Winsberg. 2008. The geography of religious diversity in the United States. The Professional Geographer 60 (3):413–24. Weissbach, L. S. 2005. Jewish life in small-town America: A history. New Haven, CT: Yale. Wolfart, J. 2015. “Increased religious diversity” in Canada: Some questions and suggestions. Toronto Journal of Theology 31 (2):159–69. Woodhead, L. 2016. Intensified religious pluralism and de-differentiation: The British example. Society 53:41– 46. Zelinsky, W. 1961. An approach to the religious geography of the United States: Patterns of church membership in 1952. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 51 (2):139–93.

Religious Diversity and Participation IRA M. SHESKIN is Professor and Chair of Geography and Director of the Jewish Demography Project, Sue and Leonard Miller Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124. E-mail: [email protected]. His main research interest is in the geography and demography of U.S. Jews and he is an editor of the American Jewish Year Book.

13

HARRIET J. HARTMAN is Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ 08028. Email: [email protected]. Her main research interests are gender and family among contemporary Jews, Jewish identity, and denominational and geographical variations. She is the editor-in-chief of the journal Contemporary Jewry.