Affiliations and Consequences

I ran across an interesting article in the Deseret News (Salt Lake City) this morning about Gallup surveys that showed the most religious states in the nation, the results were pretty much expected as I grew up in the south and have spent significant time in Utah:

A recent Gallup poll revealed that Mississippi is the most religious U.S. state, and is one of eight states where at least half of the residents are classified as “very religious.” Gallup’s “very religious” designation is based on statements of religion as an important part of an individual’s daily life, as well as worship services attendance. Around 40 percent of Americans nationwide are classified as very religious, while another 32 percent are nonreligious. The remaining 28 percent are moderately religious. As the Gallup data shows, eight of the 10 most religious states in 2011 are in the South, with one located in the Midwest (Oklahoma) and the final state in the West (Utah). Six of the least religious states are in New England and four are in the West. America as a whole remains a religious nation, Gallup states, with more than two-thirds of U.S. residents classified as very or moderately religious.

I went to the Gallup report and grabbed a couple of tables:

As much as we talk about religion and how it is (or is not) important to governance in the US, I thought it would be interesting to look at how religiosity ties to party identification and whether or not the political power centers of the press and government (Washington, D.C., New York and the upper Northeast corridor) are religious or non-religious. I wondered if this might explain some of the anti-religious bias and a characteristic of some northerners that Robert Stacy McCain of  The Other McCain fame calls boreal supremacy:

Years ago, when I was living in Georgia, I coined the term boreal supremacy to describe the attitude of certain people that all things Northern were superior to all things Southern. That attitude has offended me ever since the 1970s, when Yankees started flooding into my native Atlanta, where the municipal motto might as well be, “Will the Last Son of a Bitch Leaving Cleveland Please Turn Out the Lights.”

The newcomers brought with them an arrogant assumption of their own superiority to us local yokels. The late humorist Lewis Grizzard spoke for us when he told those latter-day carpetbaggers that if they didn’t like the South, well, “Delta is ready when you are.” In other words, if all you’re going to do is complain about the way we talk and the way we live, please go the hell back to whatever frostbitten Rust Belt wasteland you came from and stop annoying us with your snooty Yankee putdowns.

Gallup also has surveys of state by state party identification, the tables below are from there:

I realize that the correlation is inferential but based on the anecdotal evidence, the majority alignment of these two tables (as is the alignment of the other two) is curious:

I guess that I wasn’t really surprised to see that the States that lean Democrat are also the states that are the least affiliated with religiosity. Perhaps that explains why the major media outlets that have their headquarters and major operations in those regions seem to have the least amount of understanding of religion and the people and areas where religious belief is strong.

Maybe it also explains the Stacy McCain’s description of boreal supremacy.

I was; however,  particularly disturbed to see that the seat of our national government, Washington, D.C., is tied with New York and Rhode Island as the 10th least religious entities (by only 10 points over Vermont and New Hampshire) in the country while being the #1 in Democrat identification by a long shot, 38 points over Rhode Island and 48 over New York. Kind of makes you think that if it weren’t for Republicans and their staffs, DC would be #1 on the least religious as well.

7 thoughts on “Affiliations and Consequences

  1. I found another interesting correlation based on the religiosity of the states:

    Mississippi, the most religious state, is dead-ass last in education rankings
    Utah, 2nd most religious state, ranked 21st among states for education
    Alabama 3rd most religious state, 47th in math and engineering preparedness
    Louisiana 4th in religion, 48th in math and engineering preparedness
    Arkansas 5th, 41 in math and engineering
    South Carolina 6th, 40 in ” and ”
    Tennessee 7th most religious, 23rd in math, engineering
    N. Carolina, 8th 36th in Math and engineering prep
    Georgia 9th, 19 ” ” ”
    Oklahoma 10th , 42nd ” ”

    Only three of the most religious states are ranked above average in the areas of math and engineering. Utah is mostly Mormon, and that religion wisely stays out of the creation/evolution argument.

    The obvious conclusion? The rankings were constructed by commie-libs. Not for me to suggest that the more religious one is, the less scientifically inclined one turns out to be.

    The Science and Engineering Readiness Index (SERI) measures how high school students are performing in physics and calculus — based on publicly available data, including Advanced Placement scores, National Assessment of Educational Progress reports, teacher certification requirements by state and physics class enrollment data.

    The SERI was developed by Susan Wite from the Statistical Research Center at the American Institute of Physics and physicist Paul Cottle of Florida State University.

    • Amnesia of the past seems to be a modern affliction – or maybe it’s just an affliction common to the Progressive/collectivist mindset. Case in point: we have forgotten that it was religious men who founded what we call modern science.

      Newton and Bacon – the fathers of modern science – BOTH said science AFFIRMS the Bible and existence of God. BOTH men wrote more about God and faith than they did about science. John Locke, the father of our founding philosophical principles: same thing. I can go on, but I doubt it will matter. Still, you will find many, many ‘founders’ of modern science in the ranks of devout Christianity (as well as other religions).

      The argument that science and religion do not mix IS A FALLACY! In fact, it is a lie perpetrated by atheists – nothing more.

      As for evolution, this is a THEORY – NOT FACT! And a bad theory, at that. In fact, Darwin said that, if we did not find the ‘intermediate’ fossil records, it would be all but fatal to his THEORY. Guess what? We have NEVER found them – NOT ONE! What’s more, the evidence we HAVE found seems to suggest life developed in REVERSE of the theory of evolution. So, has science looked for a new explanation? NOPE! They just patched something together to ‘save’ what they ‘know’ to be fact.

      NEWS FLASH: This is NOT ‘science,’ it is demagoguery cloaked in the guise of science. Science follows the evidence; this is nothing more than a religion trying to bend science to support its belief. Personally, I find it interesting that skeptics like to point to men twisting the Bible’s teachings to undermine faith, yet they never see how they totally pervert science to hold up their beliefs IN THE EXACT SAME MANNER! 🙂

      Sorry, G, but you need to take this one back to the drawing board. Start with an examination of the relative wealth of the States and cost per student spent on education in those States (and look also at unionization and federal contribution PERCENTAGES per student). You might also want to look at sub groups and cultural strata differentiation in the process. I think you have missed some of the factors in play here – and I will not excuse the possibility that those presenting the information have done so deliberately.

    • Your point being that if you are religious, you are ignorant and learned people know better than to believe in God?

      Regardless of your position, I related the lack of understanding of religion and the anti-religious bent of our government to the absence of religious belief in the areas of the greatest concentration of policy makers.

  2. I showed that the states with the most religious bent tend to have lower academic achievement. I doubt that is because the people are stupid, just that they don’t give science and learning the same weight as they should.

    B, a bad theory is the fable at the beginning of the Bible. as for this:

    Newton and Bacon – the fathers of modern science – BOTH said science AFFIRMS the Bible and existence of God. BOTH men wrote more about God and faith than they did about science. John Locke, the father of our founding philosophical principles: same thing.

    I would have written more about God than science in those days,too. Because if you did NOT say that science proved the existence of God, you were liable to lose your funding, your tenure, possibly your head! This proof you claim to know about, care to provide it, or is this like everything else that you claim everyone should already know?

    If my religion was so fragile that scientific facts endangered its underpinnings, I would be looking for a stronger spiritual base. be less afraid.

    • B, a bad theory is the fable at the beginning of the Bible.

      It’s easy to claim that Adam and Eve are supposed to be literal and, therefore, are a fable. But you have 2 problems with this attempt at straw man:

      1 — It IS possible for this to be literal, and you cannot say it is not possible while still claiming evolution is fact because evolution would have had to have started with 1 man and 1 woman.

      2 — If you know and understand the ancient Hebrew culture, AND you have an understanding of the Bible and how it teaches, then you cannot rule out that the story of Adam and Eve is allegory – an illustration – a teaching tool. Personally, I have always thought Christians that hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible were making a mistake. Christ even told His disciples that he taught in parables (stories) to teach CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES, not literal events. SO you swing and miss on both counts in relation to the Bible.

      As for Bacon and Newton – STRIKE TWO! These men were strident in their defense of their faith during a time when it WAS permissible – even in vogue – to run counter to the Church. This is the reason continental Europe became Godless (and we see the price they are paying for it) and England/our founders stayed with God (and enjoyed some 150+ more years of relative prosperity as a result – until we started to turn from God, ourselves). So you miss the target here, too – and it is because you insist on using straw man arguments. At least deal with the reality of what the men said and grant them the truth of their words, then try to reason away their actions. That way, at least you will not be arguing from a false premise/straw man.

      As for providing my sources, G, I do – but you reject them and Kells complains about how much I type in providing them. I know this will add fuel to the “B3A is arrogant” campaign here on TRNL, but no, I don’t care to teach you what you should have learned in school, or that which you can easily find for yourself by looking up what these men actually wrote and NOT what others claim they said. I have NO fear that you will be able to undermine my position because it is built on the reality of these men’s actual words, which makes it unassailable.

      My faith is the same way: it is not weakened by your supposed use of science, it is strengthened by the FACT that you and others have to MISAPPLY the scientific method to even come close to manufacturing a plausible explanation for the world without God. And even then, you have failed as you have yet to explain how or why there is anything here at all. I have none of these problems, but I have Okham’s Razor to tell me my faith is better founded than your science 😉

  3. I cannot tell how glad I am, B, to hear that you do not hold to a literal view of the Bible, Too many of the stories have counterparts in older religions to be anything but borrowed from other cultures. There is hope for you yet.
    Europe is in trouble, fer sure, so is Asia, Africa, and by golly, so are we! Not sure how that invalidates skepticism about the existence of an invisible being, but I never drank that brand of Kool-Aid.

    • Then let me disappoint you. I said I do not hold that the stories in the Bible are all literal, but I NEVER said I did not believe the lessons they teach. Case in point, where you see the Bible as taking from other cultures, I see the fragments in those other cultures as vestiges of EXACTLY what the Bible teaches us actually happened. As a non-believer, you see the cart before the horse: I see it the other way around. What’s more, when one understands the Hebrew culture, one understands that it can never be proven that the Bible is NOT older than any known text as it was carried orally long before it was ever written down. And even at that, we have very, VERY old records of the old testament. Add to that the FACT that the Bible has never been disproven on anything (at least so far as I am aware, and I try to stay up on these things), I’m happy to say I have complete faith in it as the inspired Word of God.

      As for your scoffing at the existence of God: look to history. When a NATION dedicated itself to Yahweh, it thrived – and it was good. But once it turned from that dedication, it fell. What’s more, NO nation has EVER held the same embrace of individual rights and liberties as those that embraced the teachings of the Bible – NOT ONE! This is the difference between what happened in Europe as compared to America (i.e. the revolutions and 100+ years following), as well as why we now find ourselves facing the same problems.

      You may disagree, and that’s fine. But I have reason enough to support my belief, you have nothing but ‘faith’ – and more faith than even I. Because even I do not believe that something can come from nothing without a creator. 🙂

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.