A Worldwide Map of how Multilingual People Transmit Information and Ideas.

S. RONEN ET AL., PNAS EARLY EDITION (2014)

Many books are translated into and out of languages such as English, German, and Russian, but Arabic has fewer translations relative to its many speakers. (Arrows between circles represent translations; the size of a language's circle is proportional to the number of people who speak it.)

Want to influence the world? Map reveals the best languages to speak

http://news.sciencemag.org/social-sciences/2014/12/want-influence-world-map-reveals-best-languages-speak

by Michael Erard 

December 15, 2014

Comments

Speak or write in English, and the world will hear you. Speak or write in Tamil or Portuguese, and you may have a harder time getting your message out. Now, a new method for mapping how information flows around the globe identifies the best languages to spread your ideas far and wide. One hint: If you’re considering a second language, try Spanish instead of Chinese.

The study was spurred by a conversation about an untranslated book, says Shahar Ronen, a Microsoft program manager whose Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) master’s thesis formed the basis of the new work. A bilingual Hebrew-English speaker from Israel, he told his MIT adviser, César Hidalgo (himself a Spanish-English speaker), about a book written in Hebrew whose translation into English he wasn’t yet aware of. “I was able to bridge a certain culture gap because I was multilingual,” Ronen says. He began thinking about how to create worldwide maps of how multilingual people transmit information and ideas.

Ronen and co-authors from MIT, Harvard University, Northeastern University, and Aix-Marseille University tackled the problem by describing three global language networks based on bilingual tweeters, book translations, and multilingual Wikipedia edits. The book translation network maps how many books are translated into other languages. For example, the Hebrew book, translated from Hebrew into English and German, would be represented in lines pointing from a node of Hebrew to nodes of English and German. That network is based on 2.2 million translations of printed books published in more than 1000 languages. As in all of the networks, the thickness of the lines represents the number of connections between nodes. For tweets, the researchers used 550 million tweets by 17 million users in 73 languages. In that network, if a user tweets in, say, Hindi as well as in English, the two languages are connected. To build the Wikipedia network, the researchers tracked edits in up to five languages done by editors, carefully excluding "bots".

In all three networks, English has the most transmissions to and from other languages and is the most central hub, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. But the maps also reveal “a halo of intermediate hubs,” according to the paper, such as French, German, and Russian, which serve the same function at a different scale.

In contrast, some languages with large populations of speakers, such as Mandarin, Hindi, and Arabic, are relatively isolated in these networks. This means that fewer communications in those languages reach speakers of other languages. Meanwhile, a language like Dutch—spoken by 27 million people—can be a disproportionately large conduit, compared with a language like Arabic, which has a whopping 530 million native and second-language speakers. This is because the Dutch are very multilingual and very online.

The network maps show what is already widely known: If you want to get your ideas out, you can reach a lot of people through the English language. But the maps also show how speakers in disparate languages benefit from being indirectly linked through hub languages large and small. On Twitter, for example, ideas in Filipino can theoretically move to the Korean-speaking sphere through Malay, whereas the most likely path for ideas to go from Turkish to Malayalam (spoken in India by 35 million people) is through English. These networks are revealed in detail at the study’s website.

The authors note that the users they studied, whom they consider elite because—unlike most people in the world—they are literate and online, do not represent all the speakers of a language. However, “the elites of global languages have a disproportionate amount of power and responsibility, because they are tacitly shaping the way in which distant cultures see each other—even if this is not their goal,” Hidalgo says. When conflict in Ukraine flared this past summer, most people in the world learned about it through news stories originally written in English and then translated to other languages. In this case, “any implicit bias or angle taken by the English media will color the information about the conflict that is available to many non-English speakers,” Hidalgo says.

The networks potentially offer guidance to governments and other language communities that want to change their international role:

• “If I want my national language to be more prominent, then I should invest in translating more documents, encouraging more people to tweet in their national language,” Ronen says.

• “On the other side, if I want our ideas to spread, we should pick a second language that’s very well connected.”

For non-English speakers, the choice of English as second or third language is an obvious one. For English speakers, the analysis suggests it would be more advantageous to choose Spanish over Chinese—at least if they’re spreading their ideas through writing.

The problem of measuring the relative status of the world’s languages "is a very tricky one, and often very hard to get good data about,” says Mark Davis, the president and co-founder of the Unicode Consortium in Mountain View, California, which does character encoding for the world’s computers and mobile devices. “Their perspective on the problem is interesting and useful.”

Cultural transmission happens in spoken language too, points out William Rivers, the executive director of the nonprofit Joint National Committee for Languages and the National Council for Languages and International Studies in Garrett Park, Maryland. Data on interactions in, say, the souks of Marrakech, where people speak Arabic, Hassaniya, Moroccan Arabic, French, Tashelhit, and other languages, are impossible to get but important in cultural transmission, he says. He adds that “as the Internet has become more available to more people around the world, they go online in their own languages.” When they do, now they know how to connect to other languages and move their ideas, too.

[click to enlarge]

Connections by Published Book Translations

Connections by Tweeter Translations

Connections by Wikipedia Edits Translations

Global Language Network - Cesar Hidalgo
MIT Prof. Cesar Hidalgo on multilingualism, hierarchy of the
language networks, and cross-lingual research









Related ~

What Language the World Will Speak in 2115

The Upshot - Where Are the Hardest Places to Live in the U.S.?

From The Upshot...

Green means life is good and orange means not so good according to a collection of data points by The Upshot.

If you live in the Midwest, or on either coast, or even in parts of Texas and Florida you may be better off than the rest of the country.

See what you think and then ask why?

Are there more opportunities for reform in government, education, the labor market, earth-care, and transportation?

Do they work well together in open communities that communicate well with one another?

Has weather been a contributing factor to these areas? If not, then why?

Have the green population areas worked harder at assimilating disparate people-groups and cultures to achieve this success? Are they less boundary-oriented?

Are the green areas more open-minded, less traditional, more progressive?

As you can tell from the data points below the sociological interpretation of the map of America to these and other questions remains silent.

Nonetheless, they are intriguing questions to ask of communities re how they tick and what makes them tick so successfully.

R.E. Slater

September 30, 2014

* * * * * * * * * * * *

A composite ranking of where Americans are healthy and wealthy, or struggling.
Interactive Map link

June 26, 2014

Source Link

Annie Lowrey writes in the Times Magazine this week about the troubles of Clay County, Ky., which by several measures is the hardest place in America to live.

The Upshot came to this conclusion by looking at six data points for each county in the United States:  education (percentage of residents with at least a bachelor’s degree), median household income, unemployment rate, disability rate, life expectancy and obesity. We then averaged each county’s relative rank in these categories to create an overall ranking.

(We tried to include other factors, including income mobility and measures of environmental quality, but we were not able to find data sets covering all counties in the United States.)

The 10 lowest counties in the country, by this ranking, include a cluster of six in the Appalachian Mountains of eastern Kentucky (Breathitt, Clay, Jackson, Lee, Leslie and Magoffin), along with four others in various parts of the rural South: Humphreys County, Miss.; East Carroll Parish, La.; Jefferson County, Ga.; and Lee County, Ark.

SLIDE SHOW|12 Photos: The Hardest Place to Live in AmericaCredit: Luke Sharrett for The New York Times

We used disability — the percentage of the population collecting federal disability benefits but not also collecting Social Security retirement benefits — as a proxy for the number of working-age people who don’t have jobs but are not counted as unemployed. Appalachian Kentucky scores especially badly on this count; in four counties in the region, more than 10 percent of the total population is on disability, a phenomenon seen nowhere else except nearby McDowell County, W.Va.

Remove disability from the equation, though, and eastern Kentucky would still fare badly in the overall rankings. The same is true for most of the other six factors.

The exception is education. If you exclude educational attainment, or lack of it, in measuring disadvantage, five counties in Mississippi and one in Louisiana rank lower than anywhere in Kentucky. This suggests that while more people in the lower Mississippi River basin have a college degree than do their counterparts in Appalachian Kentucky, that education hasn’t improved other aspects of their well-being.

As Ms. Lowrey writes, this combination of problems is an overwhelmingly rural phenomenon. Not a single major urban county ranks in the bottom 20 percent or so on this scale, and when you do get to one — Wayne County, Mich., which includes Detroit — there are some significant differences. While Wayne County’s unemployment rate (11.7 percent) is almost as high as Clay County’s, and its life expectancy (75.1 years) and obesity rate (41.3 percent) are also similar, almost three times as many residents (20.8 percent) have at least a bachelor’s degree, and median household income ($41,504) is almost twice as high.

Wayne County may not make for the best comparison — in addition to Detroit, it includes the Grosse Pointes and some other wealthy suburbs that could be pulling its rankings up. But St. Louis, another struggling city, stands alone as a jurisdiction for statistical purposes and ranks even higher over all, slightly, with better education and lower unemployment making up for a median household income ($34,384) that is lower than Wayne County’s but still quite a bit higher than Clay County’s $22,296.

At the other end of the scale, the different variations on our formula consistently yielded the same result. Six of the top 10 counties in the United States are in the suburbs of Washington (especially on the Virginia side of the Potomac River), but the top ranking of all goes to Los Alamos County, N.M., home of Los Alamos National Laboratory, which does much of the scientific work underpinning the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The lab directly employs one out of every five county residents and has a budget of $2.1 billion; only a fraction of that is spent within the county, but that’s still an enormous economic engine for a county of just 18,000 people.

Here are some specific comparisons: Only 7.4 percent of Clay County residents have at least a bachelor’s degree, while 63.2 percent do in Los Alamos. The median household income in Los Alamos County is $106,426, almost five times what the median Clay County household earns. In Clay County, 12.7 percent of residents are unemployed, and 11.7 percent are on disability; the corresponding figures in Los Alamos County are 3.5 percent and 0.3 percent. Los Alamos County’s obesity rate is 22.8 percent, while Clay County’s is 45.5 percent. And Los Alamos County residents live 11 years longer, on average — 82.4 years vs. 71.4 years in Clay County.

Clay and Los Alamos Counties are part of the same country. But they are truly different worlds.

RNS: The Politics Of Every Major U.S. Religion, In One Chart

Credit: Tobin Grant, Religious News Service.Click here to enlarge with more information.

The Politics Of Every Major U.S. Religion, In One Chart

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/08/29/3476349/does-your-church-dictate-your-politics/

by Jack Jenkins

August 29, 2014

For many political analysts, it’s an established truism that religion — for better or worse — is a force to be reckoned with in American politics. The religious affiliation of candidates (or lack thereof) is at least a minor point of discussion in virtually every election, and pundits regularly pour over data about the “Evangelical vote,” the “Catholic vote,” and even the “nonreligious vote.” Implicit in all of this number-crunching is the idea that when it comes to a American voter’s political opinions, religion matters.

But despite all the attention given to the voting patterns of the faithful, the question remains: does where you go to church (or temple, or mosque, or service, etc.) actually dictate your political views? A new chart, compiled by Tobin Grant of the Religion New Service and using data from Pew Research’s 2008 Religious Landscape Survey, takes a stab at answering this question by visually illustrating the general political beliefs of religious people on two policy questions. In it, an individual’s income bracket — and political opinions generally [are] reflective of one’s economic situation — looks to coincide with what “kind” of church he/she attends. Except for when it doesn’t.

As Grant explains: “This new graph maps the ideologies of 44 different religious groups using data comes from Pew’s Religious Landscape Survey. This survey included 32,000 respondents. It asked very specific questions on religion that allow us to find out the precise denomination, church, or religion of each person.”

In other words, the dimensions of each color-coded circle reflect the relative size of the religious group it represents, and a circle’s position on the graph illustrates how the faithful feel about the government’s involvement in both the economy (bigger government with more services vs. smaller government with less services) and morality (greater protection of morality vs. less protection of morality). While the chart is revealing on its own, the policy questions in play — the economy and morality — are perhaps best analyzed alongside data detailing the average income of religious people from different faith groups. Pew Research has information on just that, which was used by GOOD magazine and Column Five in 2010 to create this beautiful infographic:

Credit: Good and Column Five. Click here to enlarge.

At first glance, one of the most notable correlations between the two charts is how closely racial and economic trends track with the demographics of religious groups — particularly on the question of government services. Since churches often serve as community hubs, pastors and congregants — and, by extension, full denominations — are usually sensitive to issues faced by people in their pews. Historically black Protestant denominations, for instance, are shown as having a high percentage of congregants (roughly 47 percent) who make less than $30,000 a year. This income bracket disproportionally benefits from crucial social programs such as the Affordable Care Act and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (a.k.a., food stamps), so it makes sense that denominations such as National and unaffiliated Baptists show up as overwhelmingly in favor of a government that offers more services. Similarly, White Mainline Protestants such as the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal church, and the Presbyterian Church (USA) have some of the wealthiest congregants in the country (36 percent of White Mainliners make over $75,000 a year) who don’t usually come in contact with many social services. As such, it’s not entirely surprising that they skew towards the “smaller government, less services” section of Grant’s scale. Meanwhile, Catholics, whose numbers include a relatively even distribution of income brackets that closely matches the national average, are situated roughly in the center of the chart.

But while income seems to indicate the probable political positions of some faith groups on the graph, Grant’s compilation also highlights several notable — and politically perplexing — exceptions. Sixty-five percent of Hindus make over $75,000 a year, for instance, but Grant’s chart depicts this wealthy group as firmly endorsing big government. Conversely, 58 percent of evangelicals — who, in Pew’s designation, are overwhelmingly white — make less than $50,000 a year, and many benefit directly from social services: white non-Hispanics make up 42 percent of our nation’s poor and receive 69 percent of government benefits, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Yet most of the evangelical denominations, marked in dark blue, are huddled near the upper right side of Grant’s graph, indicating a solid preference for a smaller government with less services.

There are also odd outliers, such as white Pentecostals — who, on average, are poorer and less educated than the average American. They, like historically black churches, show up as decidedly left-of-center on the big government question, breaking the trend set by their fellow white conservative Christians.

Interestingly, the economic divide is also arguably even more consistent on the question of whether or not the federal government should do more to protect morality. One could contend, for example, that Grant’s graph adds weight to studies positing that wealthier people tend to gravitate towards looser moral standards. As mentioned, historically black churches and conservative evangelical denominations both have high percentages of churchgoers who earn less money than the national average, and both groups sit almost entirely on the half of the graph that calls for a greater protection of morality. But groups with high income rates — Buddhists, Unitarians, non-conservative Jews, the religiously unaffiliated (listed here as “nothing in particular”), and Mainline protestants — all lean towards a hypothetical administration that does less to reinforce moral codes. But this “the rich hate morals” argument gets muddled pretty quickly: Mainline protestant denominations are relatively wealthy, but they are also decidedly more liberal than evangelicals on social issues such as homosexuality. As such, it’s possible that these progressively-minded respondents conflate the idea of “protecting morality” with harmful policies that restrict the rights of LGBT people.

The notable outlier on the morality question is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), or Mormons, who live pretty comfortably as a people yet fervently support a more morally-minded administration. There are a number of possible explanations for this, but one could be that the top-down style of the LDS church and its teachings simply have an unusually deep impact the lives of Mormons. Three scholars actually explored this phenomenon a new book about the church, highlighting how Mormons are now one of the most “politically cohesive” groups in the country. This “theological impact” argument could also explain another odd division within the Jewish community that shows up in Grant’s chart: Adherents to Judaism fair relatively well economically across the board, but Conservative and Orthodox Jews seem to prefer a government that does more to protect morality. More liberal Jews, on the other hand, deeply support leadership that does less to protect moral standards.

Grant’s graph also exposes some possible disconnects between the professed beliefs of religious institutions and the opinions of those in their pews. For example, according to the chart, virtually all Mainline protestant denominations are firmly situated in the “smaller government, less services” side of the ideological spectrum. Yet Mainline protestant denominational heads have repeatedly and passionately participated in efforts such as the “Circle of Protection,” an ecumenical effort to safeguard social services that help poorer Americans. The same is true for Catholics: Catholic leaders have lobbied fiercely for both social programs (such as food stamps) and against policies they see as morally abhorrent (such as contraception), yet Pew’s data and Grant’s chart shows the average Catholic as roughly at the center of the idealogical spectrum on these questions.

So does where you go to church dictate your politics? Well, sort of. Regarding the two issues discussed above, the data hints that a voter’s religious affiliation is a strong indicator of their political beliefs, but it’s not totally clear whether religious teachings are the main forceshaping those political beliefs. A longer analysis of history, theology, and actual voting patterns of parishioners would be required to get a more accurate picture of what’s going on here. However, it is clear that your wallet can say a lot about what kind of faith community you might attend. How you respond to the teachings of your church once you get there — and whether you’re self-selecting a religious community based off of your income bracket — is still mostly up to you.

Thomas Jay Oord - Holiness as Love. Not as Rules, or Living in the Past.

Atheists Only Slightly Worse at Retaining Children

than Holiness Folk

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/atheists_only_slightly_worse_at_retaining_children_than_holiness_folk/#.U3XzY_ldX9y

by Thomas Jay Oord

May 15, 2014

A poll a few years ago from the Pew research group has generated surprising results. Some of the results encourage me. Others are profoundly discouraging! 

According to the Pew poll, only 30% of those raised in atheist homes remain atheists. That’s a pretty astounding number!

That means 7 out of 10 kids raised by atheist parents chose a path different from their parents. To a theist like me, it’s encouraging to see many choosing to believe in God.

Now the discouraging news: only 32% of those raised in holiness Christian homes stay in that tradition. To someone like me who was raised in and is committed to the holiness tradition, that’s bad news!

Here’s a graph compiled from the Pew study:

What does this mean? What needs to change?

I suspect that the vast majority of those raised by holiness Christian parents are not becoming atheists. I suspect they are moving to other Christian traditions. 

To which traditions are they moving? I don’t know.

Why? I don’t know that either.

I’m sure there are many reasons children with holiness parents are leaving. The recent work by David Kinnaman points to some reasons. In his book, You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church… and Rethinking Faith, Kinnaman's surveys reveal the following reasons young people aren’t staying in the churches in which they were raised or are rethinking faith:

- Young people feel overprotected by their parents and elders

- Young people think Christianity as presented to them is shallow

- Young people perceive the church as against science

- Young people think Christians have skewed or repressive views of sex and sexual orientation issues

- Young people believe the church is too exclusive of outsiders

- Young people think the church allows no room for their doubts

Holiness Christians, generally speaking, have been slow to adapt to the changing world. They have not taken the lead in the academy, in culture, or in other domains.

To many, I suspect, “holiness” means “living in the past.” That may be a reason the children of holiness Christians are not staying in the holiness tradition.

Holiness as Love

My experience tells me, however, that those who understand holiness primarily as love are more likely to remain in the holiness tradition. By contrast, those who think holiness is primarily about rules and social taboos leave the holiness tradition.

In my view, the holiness message of love can be persuasive to youth today. But holiness people like me must be willing to adapt our language and the form of that message. We must explore the power of ancient practices and innovative liturgies.

We in the holiness tradition also must not be afraid to address the hard questions, face the tough issues, and be humble enough to admit we haven’t got everything figured out. Year after year, young people come through my undergraduate and graduate courses eager to go deeper in their faith. Most want to get beyond surface answers and flippant platitudes.

We have much work to do to reverse the trend. I sure want to be part it!

This quiz might help you find the right denomination

My Personal Observations

by R.E. Slater

I took the quiz below in quick-and-shorthand fashion and then afterwards thought it should be passed along for two reasons. One, it may help the interviewee see where they lean in preferences and dogmas. Two, it may also help in understanding our particular preferences for reading the Bible in the way that we do. When taking the quiz remember that it is not exact, scientific, or rigorous.

For myself, I took it without a lot of thought about it (taking it on-the-fly, as it were) and found several areas of my own personal indifference. With one question I found I had no preference at all. With a half-dozen or so questions I answered "maybe". And in the "agree/disagree" column I would've liked more leeway in the way the question was asked. (Note: It's important to show the scale of your "agreement" or "disagreement" to the stated question).

Overall, my background is (Regular) Baptist and Reformed Calvinism. But that revered heritage had always felt forced and contrived to my overall personality and temperament. However, more recently - as in the past dozen years or more - I have steadily been moving away from my inherited faith. Though with a deep appreciation for my education and religious background. But also with a newer mindset and introspective heart that has become broader, and more patient with, my past conservative training. I now find myself more in sympathy with Wesleyans (re God's love and human freewill), the Charismatics (re all things Spirit), and the Anglicans (re their liturgy, symbolism, creedal, and historical church orthodoxies). Though in hindsight, elements of those faiths had always been present even in my earliest youth and faith expressions because they were more in line with who I was and am today. Even so, according to the quiz, I resonate most predominantly with Southern Baptists! Horrors! LOL  :)

By way of a short explanation for my predilections, in Wesleyanism I find a more proper balance between the "love of God' and "man's free will" (arminianism v. calvinism). One that admits to God's love in all relational aspects to His creation - even to that of man's being and spirit, his circumstances and events in his life, and the openness of our future towards purposeful redemption.

In Charismatic preference I would not classify myself as a strict practitioner, or definitionists, re tongues, prophecies, and healing, but one who definitely attests to the Holy Spirit's ready activity in the affairs of this world. Especially as the Spirit invokes God's Word and redemptive power. Hence, I view (i) tongues not as "heavenly" but as a means for practical and effectual communication with those different from ourselves.  (ii) Prophecy as a forth-telling rather than fore-telling activity (even as it was in both the Old and New Testaments). My reason for saying this is based upon my view of the openness of the future. One that even God cannot know, much less ourselves. But also one that God does inform through His plan of redemption and salvation. And it is in this way that prophecy is more a forth-telling than fore-telling activity. And, (iii) healing more in terms of the spiritual person - and humanity at large in its societies. Especially as it connects Jesus to personal, social, or community behavior and redemptive outcome.

And lastly, I resonate more with the Anglican faith because of its broader implications for doctrine and theology based upon its connectedness to the past orthodoxies of the Christian faith before its split from Rome during the time of the Reformation. More so, the more I study Christianity and the Bible, the more I find myself leaning towards a progressive evangelical faith (or even a post-evangelic Christian faith). And perhaps one that is more conservatively neo-orthodox than it is classically orthodox as I come to understand what these present elements may mean for Christian living, ministry, and witness. As such, I yearn for a more lively, more open-ended faith of God. One that is God-filled rather than man-filled by a religious faith bounded by stricter dogmas and folklore-based teachings. Whose edges are more rounded (if present at all). That is less logical and analytic - and more questioning and at peace with its unknowing. That is more mystical than knowing. And one allowing of doubt and uncertain to reside in the same breath with absolute faith and belief. This is the type of faith that would best define both myself and my God. It is not for everyone because within it must reside a tension and doubt alongside a more surer faith and belief. But it works for me.

And so, in addition to perhaps allowing the reader to determine their own personal religious predilections I thought I should be forthright in my own journaling here at Relevancy22 so that we each know where the other stands. But I should forewarn the reader that my background is eclectic, and that I will consider other beliefs than my own baptistic ones to inform me. To better help me find a line of direction for a common (or "catholic") spiritual communion with the Redeemer God of the universe. A God whom I know as Jesus Christ of  the Bible who was the exact expression and very Spirit, Person, and Being, of the Hebraic "unnamed" God YHWH. It is a journey I am willing to share with others who also wish to explore "another side" of their Christian faith than a Vulcanized form of Reformed theology with its expressionless logic and the analytical barrenness. It has its place for some to be sure, but I would rather discard its classical structures while searching within its frame for its more foundational elements expressed in terms of relational, process, and open theology. Peace.

R.E. Slater

May 8, 2014

Continue to -

Index to past articles on "An Open Faith and Open Theology"

* * * * * * * * * * * *

This quiz can might help you find the right denomination

http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/this-quiz-can-help-you-find-the-right-denomination/

The Church Mouse

January 7, 2011

Many of us wonder why we’re dissatisfied with the church we attend. For some, this might be because the clergy displace biblical teachings in favour of more worldly, including political, ones. However, others might be attending church in a denomination which might not suit their theological beliefs.

So, how do we know what denomination might be correct for us? Here’s a 24-question multiple-choice quiz that can help clarify which church might be best for you, the Christian Denomination Selector. It’s free and you don’t need to register or leave an email address in order to discover the results.

Be warned — you might well be surprised at what your answers to these questions tell you! I certainly was.

R.E. Slater's top match for Christian Denomination Selector is:  Southern Baptist

Your Complete Results:

Default order is alphabetical, Mike Hopkins determined the order.  URL: http://selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client= christiandenom Link: Christian Denomination Selector

			Southern Baptist (100%)
			Assemblies of God (94%)
			Episcopal/Anglican Church (94%)
			Methodist/Wesleyan Church (87%)
			Free Will Baptist (85%)
			Mennonite Brethren (85%)
			Reformed Baptist (85%)
			Seventh-Day Adventist (85%)
			Presbyterian Church USA (79%)
			Church of Christ (77%)
			Orthodox Quakerism (77%)
			Presbyterian Church in America/Orthodox Presbyterian Church (70%)
			Reformed Churches (70%)
			Evangelical Lutheran Church (64%)
			International Church of Christ (62%)
			Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (55%)
			United Pentecostal Church (55%)
			Liberal Quakerism (24%)
			Eastern Orthodox Church (16%)
			Mormonism (16%)
			Roman Catholic Church (16%)
			Jehovah's Witness (9%)
			Unity Church (7%)
			Unitarian Universalism (0%)