This is a straightforward report of research conducted by two distinguished American sociologists of religion. It is intended for the general reader, with explanations given for any important technical points. Nevertheless, I recommend that readers have some acquaintance with survey research methods, specifically an understanding of "control variables" in multivariate analysis.

The authors use two kinds of data: 1) extended interviews from their own quota sample of parents from major religious groups and non-religious parents, and 2) data from fixed-response item surveys that are representative of the United States population. Since surveys provide relatively superficial information, the extended interviews probed issues with greater depth as well as providing textual examples that humanize what could otherwise be rather sterile tables of numbers. A research team, consisting mostly of undergraduate and graduate students and research assistants affiliated with the University of Notre Dame, as well as the authors themselves, conducted the extended interviews and transcribed them; software programs derived themes from the resultant database.

Since most readers are wide-awake members of the same society from which the information has been derived, the more accurate the report is the less surprising it will be. This is a perennial paradox of sociological publishing. So most readers will not be shocked to learn that parents generally believe they should equip their children with knowledge of their religion by routinely modeling its practices, values, and ethics, which children will then hopefully absorb and embrace for themselves. The desired result is that the chidlren will have purpose in life, with a level of happiness and and a sense for living rightly. The children, however, must find their own paths through the difficulties that their lives will present. Religion should, in the parents‘ thinking, provide a big picture that helps navigate everyday life. While a religion proposes a general truth, parents do not want to promote fanaticism or exclusivism. The main task of parents is to provide background resources, not to control.

The authors found what other researchers have also noted: Family solidarity, based on warm relationships among family members, is important for passing on religious commitments from one generation to the next. A shared religion can help, but it should not be demanded. Religious congregations are helps to the parents but not substitutes for them. Again, religion should be passed on primarily through modeling, especially during the children’s  teen years. Unforced converstion about religion proves to be particularly important.

Each chapter highlights one aspect of this general picture. Subsections frequently focus on particular groups: Christian denominations, Buddists, Muslims, immigrant families, Latino Catholicss, African Americans.... One is struck by the commonalities among these communities rather than any differences.

While the project has clearly been undertaken competently and dispassionately, there are nevertheless issues to be raised. The religiosity to be passed from one generation to the next consists largely of saying prayers, reading scriptures, attending services, and not getting into trouble with the police. These are religious goods, granted; but what about magnanimity, altruism, unselfishness, civic-mindedness, a love of justice, hearing the call to be peace makers, and a spirit that militates against ignorance, poverty, and fear? Is it the authors‘ fault that these religious goods are not mentioned? Maybe not. It might be that such are simply not in the minds of the people who were interviewed. It should be noted, however, that one of the tables the authors present  (page 208) suggests that the parents value social justice issues more than they do religious education items.

Second, while it makes sense not to conduct extended interviews with a national U.S.A. sample—the overhead cost would simply be too large—why not focus on a smaller catchment area, Great Lakes region large cities, for example? In political sociology, it makes sense to use national representative samples, since we have nation-wide presidential and congressional elections; but the sociology of religion gains no particular advantage from that kind of national focus. It would have been nice to consider interview material from groups that were not included in the authors‘ quotas—Latino Evangelicals, for example. And such added groups could have been interviewed if the catchment area were smaller.
I recommend the book, but I also recommend that readers raise their sites beyond it.