Close to 3 in 10 Americans make use of astrology, tarot cards or fortunetellers at least once a year, though only a small fraction rely on these practices to make major life decisions, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. About 2 in 10 Americans say they engage in these occult activities “just for fun,” with 1 in 10 agreeing that they participate in them because these practices give them “helpful insights.” But only about 1 percent say they rely “a lot” on what they learn from these practices when making major life decisions. Astrology’s most faithful devotees are younger women and LGBTQ+ people. About 4 in 10 women from ages 18 to 49 say they believe in astrology, compared with 3 in 10 women who are 50 and older and about 2 in 10 men under age 50. About half of these younger women onsult astrology or a horoscope at least yearly—roughly twice the share among U.S. adults overall.
Pew found about 2 in 10 LGBTQ+ adults saying that when they make major life decisions, they rely at least “a little” on what they’ve learned from a fortuneteller, tarot cards, astrology or a horoscope—a considerably larger share than any other demographic subgroup. Adults older than 65, those with high incomes and college degrees, and political conservatives are less likely than other adults to believe in astrology and engage with tarot cards and fortunetellers. The proportion of religiously affiliated adults engaging in these practices was very similar to that of the unaffiliated and atheists and agnostics. Of Hispanic Catholics, about 1 in 10 said they rely on insights from these practices at least “a little” for major life decisions, which was more than most of the other religious groups featured in the survey.
(The Pew study can be downloaded from: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/05/21/3-in-10-americans-consult-astrology-tarot-cards-or-fortune-tellers/)
A study attempting to explain Buddhist violence, which has occurred since the turn of the century, concludes that it is primarily a result of institutional arrangements—specifically, the degree of entanglement between Buddhist institutions and the state—rather than religious doctrines. The study, by Nilay Saiya and Stuti Manchanda (both at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) and published in International Security (Spring), notes that violence has happened in 8 out of the 11 countries where Buddhism is the largest religion. When the state privileges Buddhism over other religions, a mutually reinforcing relationship develops between temple and state. This alliance emboldens Buddhist actors to use violence to defend or advance their interests, particularly against religious minorities. While Buddhism is typically associated with nonviolence and compassion, scholars are aware that Buddhists have also found ways to justify violence. There is, however, a lack of generalizable, testable theories explaining why Buddhist violence occurs in some contexts but not others. Analyzing data from the 11 countries where Buddhism is the largest religion, and controlling for factors such as economic development and democracy, Saiya and Manchanda find that increased state favoritism of Buddhism is significantly associated with higher levels of Buddhist violence.
Governments co-opt Buddhism for political legitimacy, while Buddhist monks rely on state support to promote Buddhist values and maintain the social order. This creates a mutually reinforcing relationship where Buddhism becomes complicit in state violence and the state enables radical Buddhist actions. When governments favor majority religious traditions while repressing minorities, it can radicalize majority group members, who interpret this support as an endorsement of their extreme views. Paradoxically, it is often politically empowered religious groups rather than marginalized ones that justify attacking minorities, particularly Muslims who have suffered disproportionately from Buddhist nationalism. Buddhism’s reputation for nonviolence—a form of “positive Orientalism”—does not immunize it from being weaponized for violence when it is institutionally privileged by the state. According to Saiya and Manchanda, structural factors—especially the institutional relationship between religion and state—are key to understanding when and why religious violence occurs. They see their theory as having broader relevance for other religions, suggesting that state favoritism can foster majoritarian violence in any religious context.
(International Security, https://direct.mit.edu/isec)
