The Religious Rights of Krishna Prisoners

[Note: I asked the Econ 17 ClassChat chatbot to help draft this blog post, but severe editing was still needed.]

A significant religious freedom case is developing in Florida, where the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) is preparing to file a lawsuit against the state's prison system over the ban of a Hindu holy text.

As explained in this Religion News Service article, since April 2022, The Bhagavad Gita As It Is—an English translation and commentary of the central Hindu scripture—has been prohibited from all Florida prisons, affecting inmates like Rakesh Patel at Jefferson Correctional Institution. Prison officials justified the ban by claiming the text was "written in code" and not easily interpretable by staff, despite it being a straightforward English translation with commentary.

Florida prisoners do have access to other religious materials like the Koran and the Bible, so this ban on the Krishna text appears at face value to be targeting one particular religious group.

This case highlights how religious rights and regulations are always being negotiated. ISKCON argues that denying access to sacred texts violates inmates' ability to practice their faith and maintain their religious identity while incarcerated, while the prison argues that there the text raises security concerns. ISKCON is preparing to file a religious discrimination lawsuit, and the impact of the lawsuit can extend beyond Patel to other Krishna prisoners.

As discussed in class, regulations can take various forms—from official policies to informal restrictions—and can significantly impact individuals' ability to engage in religious activities.  Florida's prison ban is an example of government regulation that creates a barrier to religious practice. It doesn't just affect individual religiosity; it can also impact the broader religious marketplace by setting precedents for how religious freedom is interpreted in institutional settings.

Exactly what will be the result of the lawsuit is unclear right now, and it will take time for it to be resolved. However, in the meantime for us, this case is a good example of how religious rights are neither automatic nor given. In some cases, a group—especially a minority group—will have to pursue legal means to get the same kind of protections for their religious rights that other larger and well-known groups already have. And these legal pursuits do not always work in the minority group's favor.

2025 Becket Religious Freedom Index

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which describes itself as "a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths," just released its Religious Freedom Index for 2025, which is summarized at that link.

An index is a composite measure that takes a bunch of data and condenses it into a single number. Becket's Religious Freedom Index takes a variety of evidence on opinions about religious freedom in the U.S. to create a single measure of those opinions in the U.S. Indices like this one are useful in the study of religion because they help to identify general trends, and these trends become objects of study for social scientists.

Here's how Becket summarizes the main findings for its 2025 index:

The seventh edition of the Religious Freedom Index marks another milestone, with the Index overall reaching its highest cumulative score yet (71). It also shows rising scores in several dimensions, most notably Religious Sharing, which measures Americans’ acceptance of the right to express faith beliefs and preach religious doctrines to others.

1. Faith in the public square is on the rise: This year’s Index shows that Americans – and especially younger generations – increasingly share a vigorous vision of religious liberty, one that is not confined to churches and private homes but expressed openly in the public square.

2. Religious freedom unifies Americans: This year, religious freedom made several trips to the Supreme Court – and many more to newspaper headlines. Litigation and newsworthiness can create the perception that religious liberty is a flashpoint in American culture. But our findings suggest the opposite is true: religious liberty is something that Americans can rally around, despite their other disagreements.

3. Americans support religious parents’ right to faithfully educate their children:  2025 saw a landmark Supreme Court decision, Mahmoud v. Taylor, that protected the right of parents to opt their children out of age-inappropriate school material that violates their sincere religious beliefs. This year’s Index finds that not only do Americans support the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud, they broadly support public funds following children to the school of their parent’s choice, even if that school is religious.

For reference, the Religious Freedom Index has increased over the time in which Becket has created it:

• 2025: 71
• 2024: 70
• 2023: 69
• 2022: 68
• 2021: 68
• 2020: 66
• 2019: 67

Read the Executive Summary at the top of this page, and then skim the rest to get a sense of the variety of survey results that factor into the Religious Freedom Index. See how closely your own opinions and the opinions of your friends compare with those of the American population.

The Influencer Who Rates His Visits to Catholic Churches

Twenty-two year old social media influencer Anthony Gross has been posting videos in which he grades his experiences visiting Catholic churches (congregations). One of his videos received more than 1.5 million views.

Read the entire Religion News Service article. Here's a quote:

His review from his Jan. 11 visit to Our Lady of Pompeii earned the parish a “D” rating, with Gross warning other young adults that it might not be the church for them, calling it the “quickest Mass in the city” with limited music and the absence of a social scene that evening.

Gross explained that his video series seeks to get more people out to church, and that he's mainly trying to find the best Catholic churches for youth adults to attend. Some Catholic churches have noticed an increase in attendance after appearing in one of his videos.

Others are critical of Gross's video series. What can he really learn in one short visit? Can he really give an accurate description that is useful to a wide audience, or is he ultimately just judging these churches based on superficial aspects of his visit?

One woman was critical of his video about her own church because he gave it a "B" grade. A priest at another church says that his church was given an unfairly low grade because Gross randomly attended on a day that did not have community activities, though the priest admitted that his church might not be doing the best job promoting its activities. Contrast these with the top church on Gross's list, which has seen a 15-20% increase in attendance at Mass since appearing in one of Gross's videos. A lot of the growth is from young adults in particular.

This story demonstrates the role of marketing and promotion in religion because some individuals are clearly making decisions about attending church based on watching Gross's videos.

But the story also says something about religious competition. The priest mentioned earlier did admit that Gross's video series is creating "healthy competition" among different Catholic churches. We often think of churches competing with other churches of different denominations, but individual congregations within the same denomination can also compete with each other. One form of this competition might involve, for example, multiple congregations competing for the same young adults. 

Another form of competition involves different congregations specializing to appeal to different segments of the membership. I observed this type of competition in a town on the east coast where I knew one of the leaders at an Episcopalian church. He told me of how, at that time, different Episcopalian churches in the city differentiated themselves by appealing to different members, e.g., one congregation was more for young families, one had more traditional services, and so on. This specialization meant that the different congregations were not competing for the same Episcopalians but were instead trying to find their own niche in the Episcopalian landscape.

Religious competition takes many forms and is influenced by many factors. I guess that means that Gross really is an "influencer."

The Buddhist Monks and Their Dog Walk

On 26 October 2025, a group of Buddhist monks and their dog began walking from a Buddhist temple in Texas to Washington, D.C. They are still walking today and are expected to reach Washington sometime in the middle of February. See this Religion News Service article here.

A few facts about the walk:

• The leader of the group is walking barefoot and now has heavily bandaged feet after stepping on rocks, nails, and glass along the way.
• The monks sleep in tents during the nights.
• Their dog, named Aloka, was rescued in India on an earlier long walk.
• The entire walk will be about 2300 miles.
• One of the monks was injured by a distracted driver passing by the walkers; the monk lost one of his legs and had to discontinue his participation in the walk.

Why are they walking, you ask? The leader, the Venerable Bhikkhu Pannakara, explained that they want to promote peace, and that converting people is not their goal. A spokesman for the Texas temple stated that, once in Washington, the monks will ask that Vesak, the day marking the birth of Buddha's enlightenment, be recognized as a national holiday.

This long walk is a good example of a credibility-enhancing religious action discussed in chapter 5 of the MM book. A credibility-enhancing religious action is a costly action that provides a strong signal of an individual's religious belief. Costly actions reveal much more about a person's beliefs that cheap action, and this long cross-country walk is a very costly action. The monks have given up months of other activities and suffered physical discomfort and even injuries while walking.

Yet, the walk itself is communicating to others the strength and convictions of the monks, and this has already yielded some positive results in the form of substantial interest and goodwill. Multiple (non-Buddhist) churches have hosted the monks along the way, thereby creating a sense of solidarity, community, and peace... just like the monks wanted.

Who are the Religious "Nones?"

Survey respondents who report "none" when asked for their religious affiliation are referred to as the religious "nones." This group of individuals is especially interesting because its share of the population has significantly increased in many countries during recent decades.

However, not all people who report "none" as their religious affiliation are the same. This can be seen in a Pew Research Report from last September. Many findings are reviewed in this report, and I will just point out a few of them.

First and foremost -- and this is what got the headline -- many nones hold some type of religious belief.  In the 22 countries they examined:

• About 1 in 5 nones believe in an afterlife.
• About 1 in 4 nones believe in God.
• About half of nones believe that "there is something spiritual beyond the natural world, even if we cannot see it."
• And about 60% of nones believe that "animals can have spirits or spiritual energies."

This is not to say that all of these people consider themselves religious. Most nones report that religion is "not important" or "not too important" in their lives, and by the standard measures the nones are less religious than those who do report a religious affiliation. Most nones in Western countries also report a belief that religion encourages intolerance, though the majority of nones in some other countries do not report the same.

There is much more in the report, so check it out, and keep in mind two big take-aways. First, the nones are a diverse group. The nones within one country can differ significantly from each other, and the nones in one country can differ significantly from nones in a different country. Second, the distinction between religious and not religious is a blurry one. A person can seem religious by one measure of religiosity and, at the same time, seem non-religious by another measure. This does not mean that the concept of religiosity is meaningless, but it does mean that we must accept some amount of imprecision when using the term. It also means there can be practical value in thinking of religiosity not as an either-or concept but as a matter of degrees.

Understanding Why Some People Stay in Their Religion While Others Leave

The following is a blog post written with the assistance of the Econ 17 Chatbot. I uploaded a printed pdf copy of this recent Religion News Service article and asked the chatbot to write a blog post that used the concept of religious capital to help us understand the patterns in the research study. I gave the chatbot some specific instructions in my prompt to provide it with clear direction on what I wanted. I then made edits and revisions to get the final product. I could have used the Pew report as the source, but I chose to use the news article because of its newsy style of writing.

----------

A recent article from Religion News Service explores findings from a new Pew Research Center report on why some Americans stay in their religion while others leave. The study, based on data from Pew's 2023-24 U.S. Religious Landscape Study surveying 8,937 adults, reveals that childhood religious experiences are the primary factor determining whether Americans maintain their faith into adulthood. While 56% of Americans still identify with their childhood faith, 35% have switched religious affiliations—including 20% who now claim no religion. The data shows a stark difference: 84% of those with positive childhood religious experiences remained in the same faith as adults, compared to 69% of those with negative experiences who now identify as having no religion.

From an economics of religion perspective, this phenomenon is not just about faith; it's about deeply ingrained social processes and accumulated investments that create powerful incentives to stay.

One key concept that helps us understand religious persistence is cultural transmission. Think of it like passing down a family recipe—parents and communities transmit religious beliefs, practices, and values to the next generation through repeated exposure, direct teaching, and social feedback. This isn't always a conscious process for the recipient; it's often absorbed through upbringing, social networks, and early experiences.

The article's findings that people with positive childhood religious experiences are more likely to remain in their faith provides clear evidence of cultural transmission at work. When cultural transmission is successful, individuals develop strong preferences for their inherited religious tradition. Conversely, negative childhood experiences represent failed or costly cultural transmission, making individuals more likely to seek alternatives or abandon religion altogether.

The concept of religious capital—the accumulated benefits and resources derived from religious participation—also applies. Religious capital includes social networks within the religious community, knowledge of traditions and practices, emotional connections to rituals, and the sense of identity that comes from group membership. Like any form of capital, religious capital results from investment that has been built up over time.

When individuals have invested significant time and effort into building religious capital within their current tradition, the economic cost of abandoning it becomes substantial. They risk losing not only their established social connections and support systems but also the familiar framework for meaning-making they've developed. The benefits of staying within a familiar religious tradition often outweigh the perceived benefits of seeking alternatives, especially when the costs of acquiring new religious capital in a different tradition are high.

This economic framework helps explain why 84% of people with positive childhood religious experiences stay in their tradition, while 69% of those with negative experiences leave. Positive childhood experiences represent successful cultural transmission and early investment in religious capital, creating strong incentives to remain. Negative experiences suggest failed transmission and lower accumulated religious capital, reducing the switching costs of leaving.

Understanding these economic forces can help religious communities better support positive cultural transmission and recognize that religious commitment often reflects rational responses to the costs and benefits of participation, accumulated over a lifetime of experiences and relationships. Human beings, it turns out, are remarkably good at making decisions that maximize their well-being—even in matters of faith.