Religion and Spirituality in a Broad Sense
Spirituality and religion are two terms that have rather unstable, historically changing definitions, characterized by numerous implied and explicit theological considerations. Further, the general contention is that these definitions are either overly specific or overly generic. A more astonishing fact is, possibly, these researches’ level of concurrence that spirituality represents a private, budding, personal and emotional sphere, whilst religion is more public, group-based and fairly stable. Interviews and questionnaire tools arising out of these definitions characteristically undertake measurements of the spirituality element by posing questions with regard to people’s self-identity, psychological experiences, and psychological health. By contrast, the element of religion is measured using questions that relate to religious participation, events and undertakings, observance of community or religious code. (Bender 1).
The ideal approach to spirituality would be considering it as a means to know the divine. Individual means to do so are, to a certain extent, based on and manifested through religious customs, principles, and groups. It is asserted by some that spirituality constitutes a personal and practical component of religion; given this idea, these individuals propose four means by which religious bodies teach and convey this, as highlighted by four key U.S. spirituality forms: know via the body (encompassing individual and group customs and rites); know via the heart (which focuses on experiences and emotions); know via the will (concentrates on the prophetic stand and social fairness), and know via the mind (encourages followers to seek a metaphysical bond with divinity) (Bender 3).
The aforementioned perspective brings to light a number of important points. Firstly, whilst spirituality may be linked to people and the worldviews they maintain, they chiefly convey it through their behavior (knowing); for instance, reading the rosary, seeking perfection by meditating, meeting with religious others, or supporting racial justice (Bender 3). Briefly, spirituality entails kinds of action, theology and devotion. Secondly, it indicates spiritual approaches’ diversity of distribution over religious customs, such that a few religious customs will more likely stress on knowing via one’s heart instead of via the mind. Further, religious bodies and customs create and communicate the above styles. Every religious community and tradition will probably have symbols and figures to epitomize diverse styles; for instance, spiritual movements in followers of the Roman Catholic Church are as varied as the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and Catholic Worker movement. Lastly, the approach centers on Americans’ continued pursuit of spirituality both individually and collectively (Bender 3).
Considering the above, the differences between, and limits in, religiousness and spirituality do not, however, become clear in any way. A number of Americans maintain a spiritual but not religious (SBNR) stance, besides not taking part in regular religious organizations. They aren’t religious but seem to display a sort of individually-developed spiritual perspective or orientation facilitated by means of what may be called a free “spiritual bazaar” and not by means of religious authority (Bender 3). Researchers occasionally label spirituality seekers as proofs of the presence of a clearer division between individual spirituality and organized religion, as well as of self-produced spirituality (Bender 3-4).
Factors for Decline in Religiousness in People
During the 90s, the share of U.S. citizens who indicated a lack of personal religious preference increased twofold (from 7-14%). The above shift will likely startle the vast crowd of authors who believe America is a particularly religious country, even going so far as to consider religiosity an “American exceptionalism” component, in addition to the numerous observers who believed the 90s to be an era wherein American religiosity was on the rise (Hout and Claude 165). The doubling of the inclination towards a no-religion stance within a decade represents both an alarmingly swift societal transformation as well as contests the commonly-maintained beliefs regarding the American culture. Moreover, it might be a sign of the century-old secularization-related prophecies coming true. Such a drastic shift could have various underlying factors, including growing religious skepticism, the 90’s blend of religion and politics, and demographic movements (Hout and Claude 165).
No religious preference might be on the rise because of demographic transformations. Religion goes along the traditional family lifecycle. Individuals often get disconnected from their organized religion at the time of leaving the home they were raised in and end up reattaching themselves to religion when they contemplate starting their own family. Present-day individuals’ protracted education and late family formation might have a role to play in the growing non-preference statistics witnessed nationwide. Youngsters will more likely have experienced a less-religious or totally non-religious upbringing as compared to individuals born six or seven decades ago. With the replacement of the religious elderly by less- or non- religious youth, the overall society’s religious attachment declines. A second demographic aspect is generation succession; the share of adults raised by a family without any religious preference grew from two to six percent. Late matrimony and parenthood is another factor. But, demography cannot possibly be the sole contributor. The religious shift witnessed has been more abrupt as compared to the slow, long-running demographic trends. Hence, cohort succession and familial factors cannot completely explain the unexpected growth (Hout and Claude 167).
Additionally, the growth might echo an abruptly augmented historical tendency towards secularization. The sociological argument regarding whether secularization has been brought forth by modernization is several decades old. Secularization has apparently come considerably late to America, as compared to other English-speaking, largely-Protestant societies. The “no-religion” surge of the nineties possibly and finally heralded American secularization. The word “secularization,” by itself, has sparked considerable debate, with some asking for distinctions to be made, particularly between private and public religious expressions (Hout and Claude 167). This is perhaps a reversible shift. The U.S., Brazil, Spain, and Poland displayed substantial proof of a private-public religious move, with clear proofs of religion’s retreat to the realm of the private. But religious skepticism was an unlikely justification: A majority of individuals indicating no religious preference held traditional religious views in spite of separating from their organized religious groups. Such unchurched believers accounted for a major part of the growth in the no religious preference trend.
The paper would be incomplete without a look at celebrity effects, especially Oprah Winfrey’s influence, on spirituality and religion. Latest Oprah Winfrey Show episodes publicize means of awakening one’s spirit. This subject has also made the headlines of “0, The Oprah Magazine” which has advocated prayer and meditation techniques, as well as her “Oprah Book Club” books, where she is seen regularly urging her readers to seek truths for personal revolution (Lofton 599). All Oprah products merge practical inspiration and support with spiritual advice, and capitalist rationality with spiritual awakening. The famous talk-show host’s website recommends the maintenance of 6 different journals: besides a journal that one can create and name on one’s own, she defines: a Daily journal wherein one ought to record one’s general everyday thoughts; a Spa Girl journal to record one’s exercise regime; a Gratitude journal to record 5 things one loved about the day; a Discovery journal that aims at getting to know oneself through retrospection, and a Health journal. Clearly, to her, the maintenance of a journal ought to be a key spiritual practice. In the end, how these records will benefit a person have been proved in the form of bullet points on the very same webpage: decreased stress levels, self-discovery, more peace, general “awareness,” the audacity to follow one’s dreams and an understanding of one’s past (Lofton 611).
Writing occupies center stage in Oprah’s self- and spirit- related commentaries. She believes writing marks the foremost step in an overall self-actualization, renewal, and change process. It forms the fundamental way by which her audience practices faith (Lofton 611). Therefore, her religious principles and renunciation of religion may be considered a sleight of hand: Oprah accepts and supports only a few theological existence modes and dislikes a large number of them. In her opinion, religion fails to justify oppression and domination, as well as the inability of cataloging shop. To her, religion only works when made carefully in line with capitalist liking; hence, her shift towards spirituality: a non-dogmatic code fostering vague theism and exuberant consumerism combined. According to Oprah, every religion has spiritual elements which will become evident if one looks closely. Therefore, to her, Buddhism deals with aromatic incense and beaded bracelets rather than abandonment of the world and meditation. Likewise, Christianity is about the friendly Jesus’s democratic message rather than his memorization of doctrines or apocalyptic visions. So long as one spends on oneself, looks and feels good, she will accept one’s religious beliefs. This religious principle of Oprah’s is actually what’s been adopted by the late capitalist USA (Lofton 618).
A significant role is played by the political domain. The growing “no religion” preference was earlier limited to the political liberals and moderates, whilst conservatives retained their religious choice. The political contribution to the growing “nones” may be perceived as a telling negative attitude towards the right-wing conservative Christians (Hout and Claude 165). Controversies linking religiosity and politics might dissuade people from sticking to organized religion, a traditional association in several other societies which consider religiousness on a person’s part as his/her adoption of a political standing (generally conservative); anticlericalism is profoundly engrained in left-wing politics (e.g., the confessional parties of the Netherlands, Israeli National Religious Party, Shas and other parties, and German and Italian Christian Democrats).Such an institutionalized politics-religiosity link was absent in America for the major part of the last century, despite religion’s impact on voting. A link might have surfaced with the right-wing conservative Christians’ power in the Republican Party. Researchers indicate that American citizens didn’t grow more divided on a majority of cultural aspects during the past few decades; however, they also reveal that people’s political affiliations and religious identities grew more consistent with stances on abortion and other cultural issues which lie in the domain of public control of ethical choice. The assumption in this regard is: growing media and Congressional connections between Christian evangelicals and Republicans might have caused a distancing of liberal and moderate Americans from the right wing by claiming they lack religious preference (Hout and Claude 168).
Further, sociologists such as Weber and Marx have shed light on significant cultural and institutional shifts in postwar U.S., which factored in reducing religious commitments. These research works indicate a growth in spiritual interest, rituals, and discussions, combined with a decline of several religious bodies and systems within post-war U.S.. However, one must not forget that the people of America were never exceptionally conformist when it came to sticking to religious beliefs and customs. Scholars reveal that what is apparent, from particular viewing platforms, in a mounting interest in spirituality, seems, from other standpoints, like a more complicated blend of weaker institutional identification in Americans and their ongoing interest in investigating various heterodox spiritual concepts (Bender 5). This, therefore, leads to the most common spirituality-religion link: the SBNR. Here, the favored position is that of spirituality, which signifies a strong and pure link to the sacred/divine untainted by human religious authorities and organizations. SBNR refers to an individual’s renunciation of the typical organized religions. The SBNR discussion continues to be an oft-raised rallying call for alternate spiritual groups. Multiple recent research works observe that more American citizens will likely call themselves “religious and spiritual” than “only spiritual” or “only religious” (Bender 6). Their stance sheds light on how both aspects’ strong connection persists, and has, possibly, strengthened with the numerous American religious clusters’ renewed focus on promoting spiritual growth in their followers.
According to another discussion, religious customs, practices and organizations all represent second-order representations of primary first-order spiritual experiences. The argument favors spirituality over religion, and, consequently, typically points to spirituality’s universal nature, claiming that it refers to a shared experience which may be found at the core of all religious traditions. This argument very generously regards a majority of religious traditions, and unlike the SBNR stance which outright spurns religion, it considers religious teachings, organizations, teachers, customs, holy books, and laws to be repositories of mankind’s attempts at developing spiritual inclinations (Bender 7).
Typically, religious identity and membership are flexible and not unchanging realities. They do not transpire exclusively in the confines of or totally beyond mainstream institutional religions. Further, they evolve across a person’s life stages, altering under the influence of education, travel opportunities, relative range of religions/sub-religions in diverse cultural and geographical areas, etc. Institutionally unattached spiritualties gave rise to a DIY (do-it-yourself) demand, especially with their investigation being comprehensively supported by the increasing number of self-help books which increased their adaptability in settings and scenarios that, earlier, wouldn’t have been considered right for conventional spiritual or religious practice; e.g., company’s boardrooms, university auditoriums, training centers, military programs, and government offices, in which New Age-inspired initiatives are attempting at transforming the thought processes of consumers to make them more inventive and improved individuals. The combination of spirituality, business productivity increase and self-improvement would promote the growth of a lucrative industry and institute the organizational spirituality movement. The SBNR approach swiftly changed from describing an existential meaning-creation approach to a conveniently-commoditized lifestyle and identity signature (Drescher).
All the above-mentioned factors — demographics, politics, and secularization — drive and organize the analysis undertaken in this paper. One ought to take care not to dismiss the coinciding or corresponding impacts of all factors in developing a grasp of the increased “no religion” cluster of individuals. For instance, protracted education cannot be the sole factor that causes late religious attachment; however, it can increase chances of never getting attached (blending secularizing and demographic impacts). In more subtle terms, a few Christian evangelicals’ activism can concurrently boost religious enthusiasm in fellow evangelicals having the same views of instituting a conservative societal agenda and cause some Catholics or Protestants who disagree with the conservative plan to withdraw from publicly following a religion or expressing their membership in it (Hout and Claude 168).
Sudden Decline in Religiousness Following the 1900s
In spite of the growth in religiousness witnessed during the mid-twentieth century, the decades that followed experienced an abrupt, unexpected decline brought about by the Secular Generations which was a response to politics of a religiously conservative nature. The nation’s youth perceived religion as largely linked to conservative politics (particularly conventional perspectives of sexual morals, and anti-homosexual). Thus, a large number of Americans who, although religious, held liberal views when it came to moral subjects such as homosexuality) believed religion wasn’t for them if it entailed holding and sticking to such beliefs. The end-twentieth century and new millennium propelled innumerable Americans, particularly American youth, along an emphatically nonreligious path. The Nones’ emergence in the last decade of the twentieth century marked the unmistakable onset of the third temblor. Similar to the prior turning points, this new trend was largely governed by generational elements. Roughly 5-7% of Nones belonged to the pre-boomer generation (who attained adulthood prior to the year 1960), 10-15% belonged to the boomer generation (who became adults during the sixties, seventies, and eighties), and around 20-30% in the post-boomer generations (who attained adulated in the nineties and the new millennium).
During the prior two movements, America itself witnessed the effects in the form of the “gaining/losing influence” ratio as a response to a standard Gallup poll on American religion, which dropped from a ratio of 69:14 (1957) to 14:75 (1970), when the nation recorded its 60’s shock. Between 2000 and 2010, the ratio fell from 55:39 to 25:70, with another sudden movement in the nation’s religiousness trend. The latest movement’s effects proved equal to the impacts of the initial movement and stronger than the impacts of the second movement (Putnam, David and Shaylyn).
The start of the nineties saw a sharp bend in American opinion (of people from all age groups, particularly youth) towards liberality when it came to homosexuality and drugs. This drift coincides almost perfectly with the new Nones’ emergence. No comparable movement was observed in youth’s attitudes towards premarital sex (which was approved by nearly 80% of the nation since the 60’s religious shift). But youngsters’ perspective on the issue of abortion continued moving towards an increasingly conservative perspective in the nineties and the new millennium. However, the simultaneous emergence of changes in two key lifestyle/moral principles, and the new Nones’ advent, hardly appears to be a coincidence (Putnam, David and Shaylyn).
Moreover, youth who held more liberal opinions with regard to the aforementioned subjects (particularly homosexuality) were the same individuals who now claim they have no religious preference. Considering demographic aspects as well as political and social attitudes, the greatest difference between the latest Nones and older ones is their broadminded approach to the subject of homosexuality. Millennials who expressed more liberal attitudes towards homosexuality were over two times as likely as their conservative peers to identify themselves as religious Nones. Some factor led to youths’ liberality on such moral subjects, and these same youth began increasingly distancing themselves from organized religion, becoming the majority new Nones cluster. Furthermore, closer scrutiny of people who decreased their religious involvement from 2006 to 2007 (e.g., decreasing church attendance) and became Nones reveals that their views with regard to moral matters strongly predicted who would shift, even leaving other variables unchanged, including their religiosity levels in the year 2006. The above pattern offers a marginal extra proof that liberality when it comes to sexual morality results in people’s dissatisfaction from their religion, indicating a drastic contrast between highly-liberal youth (with regard to particular lifestyle and moral elements) who weren’t exactly averse to religious beliefs and principles and the elderly religious heads who, in their opinion, appeared to be obsessed with fighting homosexuality. This proved to be a key cause underlying the latest shift. It is an unsurprising fact that American youth, still forging religious bonds, manifested their discomfort with mixing politics and religion by rejecting religious attachments altogether. These youngsters reached adulthood in an age when people identified “religion” with right-wing religious conservatives who, at that moment, had prioritized resisting gay marriage and homosexuality. Ironically, it is this generation that reflected the most rapid growth in novel tolerance towards homosexuality. To sum up, American youth’s movement along one direction was accompanied by a simultaneous movement of several popular religious leaders along the opposite direction (Putnam, David and Shaylyn).
New Nones who were questioned about the reason for their rejection of religious identification claimed their separation was, partly at least, on account of their perception of religious individuals as two-faced, hypercritical, or dishonest. Many further asserted their religious separation was due to religious organizations’ exaggerated emphasis on rules, without leaving sufficient room for spirituality. Youngsters, thus, hesitate to, or cannot, differentiate overall organized religion from the stand maintained by the most political, and popular religious leaders (Putnam, David and Shaylyn).
The media has contributed greatly to American religious decline as well. The late 90s saw mainstream news vehicles employing the term SBNR for indicating a pursuit of fulfillment and meaning not tied to specific dogmatic or institutional commitments. SBNRs, who weren’t agnostics or atheists, sought the divine in all places but at church. They devised varied approaches to spirituality separate from traditional religions, as they wished to blend religion and science, were against the church’s authoritarianism or sexism, or were better inspired and metaphysically excited with their spiritual journey and findings. SBNR adopted a political part as well, since the nation began raising questions of religious tolerance, identity, and pluralism post-9/11. To a few American Muslims, stressing the absence of traditional devotion as nominal Jews or Christians do or stressing a potentially longstanding secularity was one means to circumvent post-9/11 resentment and stereotyping. Touting oneself as SBNR, only a Muslim quasi-ethnic identity remained, which effectively suggested a non-extremist, non-Christian, ordinary American religiosity (Drescher). Although widespread access to the World Wide Web beginning from the mid-nineties significantly impacted spiritual seeking, interreligious interactions and participation, and religious practice, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, novel websites and other social networks generated a torrent of views on subjects, which altered with every minute. Different, multiplatform mediations of reports on the Nones continues constructing a complicated grasp of Nones’ identity (including SBNRs) and the impact of their growth on future American spirituality and religiosity (Drescher).
Moreover, a wealth of new literature, socialist principles and considerable public interest has emerged on the subjects of body, spirit, mind, and personal growth. Substance dependence and bereavement counselors, psychotherapists, nurses, and educators alike are introducing ‘spirituality’ modes into their respective fields. Use of spirituality figuratively in corporate culture has been practiced by management consultants and companies for promoting efficiency, expanding markets and remaining competitive in today’s swiftly-progressing information economy. To many individuals, the transformation of prior social identities and commitments by modernism has led to spirituality replacing religion. But in today’s context of individuality and eroded traditional community loyalties, ‘spirituality’ has emerged as the novel cultural obsession, in addition to an established solution to modern life’s troubles. Individuals disenchanted with conventional institutional religions hail and adopt spirituality, considering it a curative force that leads to internal transformation and wholeness (Carrette and Richard 1).
Ever since the 17th-18th century Enlightenment, religion has encountered a loss of social authority owing to the development of humanism, scientific rationalism, and contemporary, tolerant democratic national models (i.e., the ‘secularization’ process). In contemporary western communities, this has, to several different extents, often been exhibited in the form of a religious relegation to a private realm. But what modern social theorists fail to adequately realize is that this process’s later phases became closely entwined with commercial capitalism’s dissemination across the globe (Carrette and Richard 13).
Both the aforementioned movements may be termed as religious privatization, in two separate senses. In one case, the 17th-18th century European Enlightenment resulted in a heightened propensity to leave out religious discussions from public politics, science and economics. This was largely accomplished through a representation of ‘the religious’ largely with regard to individual choice, private mindsets and beliefs. Locke, Kant and other philosophers deemed it imperative to define the exact domain within which to place religion, to preserve liberal politics’ secularity from the disputes, aggression and prejudice stemming from the disagreement between conflicting religious groups and philosophies in Europe. Thus, religion entailed personal agreement with a collection of beliefs, a private mindset or individuals’ personal orientation within the conditions outlined by Enlightenment-inspired contemporary liberalism. One impact of the above approach was, in diverse forms and ways, official separation of religion from governance in modern Northern Europe (although with varying tones and levels of smoothness). This process represents religion’s individualization. This cultural transition has permitted considerable trialing and individual liberty to examine religious alternatives, which have proved critical to, say, the development of the New Age and its fusion of spiritualties and religions (Carrette and Richard 14).
But during the latter part of the 20 thcentury, a second kind of privatization occurred, built partly on the prior process, but with major associated discontinuities. It may be considered a wholesale religious commodification: marketing of religious notions, authentic service claims and religious buildings to company or individual profit and promoting the corporate capitalist worldview and lifestyle (Carrette and Richard 15). Such a reselling takes advantage of the historical authentic feel and respect of religious traditions (commercially known as corporate goodwill) whilst simultaneously separating itself from all negative implications linked to the religious within a contemporary secular context (i.e., rebranding). This is the precise burden of spirituality as an element within these contexts, enabling a concurrent detachment from and nod towards religion (Carrette and Richard 16).
From the analytical paper, there is clear evidence as to the decline of religion in favor of spirituality due to a facet of factors. Most Americans maintain a spiritual but not religious (SBNR) stance, besides not taking part in regular religious organizations. They aren’t religious but seem to display a sort of individually-developed spiritual perspective or orientation. The shift has various underlying factors, including growing religious skepticism, the 90’s blend of religion and politics, and demographic movements. One cannot overlook the celebrity effects, such as Oprah Winfrey’s on spirituality and religion. Lastly the growth in religiousness after the mid-twentieth century experienced an abrupt, unexpected decline brought about by the Secular Generations which was a response to politics of a religiously conservative nature, wealth of new literature, socialist principles and considerable public interest on the subjects of body, spirit, mind, and personal growth.
Bender, Courtney. “Religion and spirituality: History, discourse, measurement.” SSRC Web Forum. 2007.
Carrette, Jeremy R., and Richard King. Selling spirituality: The silent takeover of religion. Psychology Press, 2005.
Drescher, Elizabeth. “News Media Creation and Recreation of the Spiritual-But-Not-Religious.”
Hout, Michael, and Claude S. Fischer. “Why more Americans have no religious preference: Politics and generations.” American Sociological Review (2002): 165-190.
Lofton, Kathryn. “Practicing Oprah; or, the prescriptive compulsion of a spiritual capitalism.” The journal of popular culture 39.4 (2006): 599-621.
Putnam, Robert D., David E. Campbell, and Shaylyn Romney Garrett. American grace: How religion divides and unites us. Simon and Schuster, 2012.
Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?
- Plagiarism free papers
- Timely delivery
- Any deadline
- Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
- Subject-relevant academic writer
- Adherence to paper instructions
- Ability to tackle bulk assignments
- Reasonable prices
- 24/7 Customer Support
- Get superb grades consistently
Online Academic Help With Different Subjects
Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.
Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.
While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.
Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.
In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.
Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.
We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!
We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.
Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.
What discipline/subjects do you deal in?
We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.
Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?
Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.
What if I don’t like the paper?
There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.
- When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
- We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.
In the event that you don’t like your paper:
- The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
- We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
- Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.
Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?
Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.
What if the paper is plagiarized?
We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.
When will I get my paper?
You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.
Will anyone find out that I used your services?
We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.
How our Assignment Help Service Works
1. Place an order
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
2. Pay for the order
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
3. Track the progress
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
4. Download the paper
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!