The interplay between the sacred and the secular is a topic which has occupied much attention and energy of researchers in the sociology of religion throughout much of the field's history. Indeed, if the sociology of religion can be said to have a primary point of focus, it is around this particular issue. One largely unresolved question, however, is the degree of the mutuality of influence. Is religion primarily a recipient of influence from norms, behaviour, attitudes, beliefs, etc., within secular spheres, or is the direction of influence the reverse? Does secular society mainly 'inform' religion, as has been maintained recently,' or does the process work in the opposite direction?2 We will not pretend to answer these broad and possibly unresolvable problems in this paper, were that possible. What we will do is answer some more focused and limited questions concerning empirical relationships between religious and secular variables which should shed some light on these larger topics. One of the primary emphases in the recent sociological literature on religion has been on the notion that religiosity can be expressed in a variety of ways. Religion is held to be made up of a number of strands or 'dimensions', no one of which is reducible to the other.3 One particular delineation of these dimensions separated the following elements: the experiential, or the 'feeling' dimension; the ritualistic, or the 'cultic' dimension-what is commonly called church participation or activity; the ideological or belief dimension; the intellectualistic or knowledge dimension; and the 'practice', or the 'good works' dimension." Included in the first are a host of subelements, such as: concern, trust, faith, fear. Also included would be religious 'salience', the degree to which religion is perceived to be a part of the individual's life, to be relevant to the various aspects of life in which one finds oneself, and the degree to which religion is felt to be suffused throughout everything one does, feels, and is. It can