NationStates Jolt Archive

Interesting article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1798944-2,00.html

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”


I think that says it all.

More proof and detail of this research would be nice...

Good point. The full paper is here
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

I agree, Religious destroys the healthy society.
It makes people to hate each other just because of their belief.
But I think that the worst in religoius society is that if you have a neighbour country that has a different belief, the people won't like each other.
WE ALL ARE EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS!

I haven't read the journal article, but I did read somewhere else that devout societies are correlated with increased numbers of teen pregnancy and STDs.

Apparently this is because they don't get any proper sex education, so less people know about STDs or contraception, and are more likely to believe old wives tales and superstitions about sex.

Although I'm not a religous person the conclusion of the article seems slightly flawed. I've only read the news story and not the journal article so I might be wrong but I think the comparative social ills of the US could be attributed to other factors greater then religion.

The study is interesting, but this is more of a spurious relationship than an accurate one. Religious beliefs can contribute to murder rates and STD cases, but there are so many other factors out there that could explain these numbers than just that Americans are more religious.

I must say thats a very flawed pemise if all it does is compare relgiosuity to levels of social problems. I can also compare that to any number of other factors. Just taking two factors and a correlation between the two does not nessecarly mean one influences the other.

Society is a place? :confused:

I agree, Religious destroys the healthy society.
It makes people to hate each other just because of their belief.

Nowhere in Christiainty at least are you taught to hate anyone

Nowhere in Christiainty at least are you taught to hate anyone
Yet we all go to hell for not believing. How's that for inferiority?

Nowhere in Christiainty at least are you taught to hate anyone


You dont really believe that do you?

Although I'm not a religous person the conclusion of the article seems slightly flawed. I've only read the news story and not the journal article so I might be wrong but I think the comparative social ills of the US could be attributed to other factors greater then religion.
It does disprove the notion that godless societies are immoral places though.

The journal article title doesn't seem to say that religion is a problem, it's just the press version. You can't fault the study authors for the liberty taken with their study by the press.

Nowhere in Christiainty at least are you taught to hate anyone
Ha! "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" I never liked that bit much, seemed like a message of hatred to me. Then you had the Crusades, the Inquisition, the beheadings in England from Henry VIII onwards depending on whether it was a Catholic or Protestant on the throne. All true efforts to spread peace, love and understanding.

(Disclaimer: I am well aware of some fantastic messages in Christianity, I do not tar all denominations with one brush and I primarily hold institutions, not individuals or laity responsible for atrocities committed in Christianity's name.)

I'm a Christian, and (as far as I know) I don't hate anyone. I've never been taught to hate anyone.

Citing political bodies who used Christianity to gain power hundreds of years ago and over a thousand years ago doesn't really say anything about the belief system - just that christians were very gullible hundreds of years ago. Atrocities have been commited "in the name of" other beliefs - extremism is dangerous, regardless from where it stems.

I'm a Christian, and (as far as I know) I don't hate anyone. I've never been taught to hate anyone.

Citing political bodies who used Christianity to gain power hundreds of years ago and over a thousand years ago doesn't really say anything about the belief system - just that christians were very gullible hundreds of years ago. Atrocities have been commited "in the name of" other beliefs - extremism is dangerous, regardless from where it stems.

Yes, attrocities have been commited in the name of other beliefs, like the Holocuast for instance.
However, can you name a particular belief or event of extremeism that is responsbile for so much misery or loss of life as christianity?

Yes, attrocities have been commited in the name of other beliefs, like the Holocuast for instance.
However, can you name a particular belief or event of extremeism that is responsbile for so much misery or loss of life as christianity?

Ever hear of South American Aztec, Mayan or Incan wars? Chinas Imperial Wars? Mongol Hordes? Huns, Vikings, Greeks, Roman wars, Persian Wars, Gaelic wars, what exactly are you trying reveal to us anyway? That you know nothing of world history except for western civilization but only since the fall of Rome and what bad things can be said about Christianized Europeans?

Good point. The full paper is here
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

You people do realize that this is a paper, not a study, an advocacy for a point of view, an opinion piece written by Gregory S. Paul of Baltimore, Maryland (whoever that is and what credentials he might have I don't know).

Other than that, there are no research, no independent data, he makes an opinion and tries to show how he is right but his references don't say what he says they do. This is nothing more than an OP/ED piece written by an advocate for humanism/secularism, I fail to see the significance of it, there are at least a dozen advocates a week around here in this forum.

You people do realize that this is a paper, not a study, an advocacy for a point of view, an opinion piece written by Gregory S. Paul of Baltimore, Maryland (whoever that is and what credentials he might have I don't know).

Other than that, there are no research, no independent data, he makes an opinion and tries to show how he is right but his references don't say what he says they do. This is nothing more than an OP/ED piece written by an advocate for humanism/secularism, I fail to see the significance of it, there are at least a dozen advocates a week around here in this forum.
Thank God for a voice of reason. You saved me a lot of typing. :)

Interesting article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1798944-2,00.html
I'll say the same thing about this "study" as I said about the one posted the other day: they make a classic logical fallacy called "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which means "After this, therefore because of this." Just because something happens after another event does not mean that the first event "caused" the second.

EDIT: Actually, it would make just as much sense to say that there are more Christians in the US because people have recognized the wide-spread degeneration of the nation's moral fibre.

Some of the finest people I know are those who do their best to actually adhere to the basics of their faith.

I'm a Christian, and (as far as I know) I don't hate anyone. I've never been taught to hate anyone.

Citing political bodies who used Christianity to gain power hundreds of years ago and over a thousand years ago doesn't really say anything about the belief system - just that christians were very gullible hundreds of years ago. Atrocities have been commited "in the name of" other beliefs - extremism is dangerous, regardless from where it stems.
And I'm jewish and I don't hate anyone too, I'm talking about disliking from the first sight: like people who dislikes someone just because his skin is black, but because that he wear a Cipa(a jewish kind of hat that they only wear) or carries a cross with him. Excuse me for writing the wrong word, not hate, but first sight disliking.

You people do realize that this is a paper, not a study, an advocacy for a point of view, an opinion piece written by Gregory S. Paul of Baltimore, Maryland (whoever that is and what credentials he might have I don't know).

Other than that, there are no research, no independent data, he makes an opinion and tries to show how he is right but his references don't say what he says they do. This is nothing more than an OP/ED piece written by an advocate for humanism/secularism, I fail to see the significance of it, there are at least a dozen advocates a week around here in this forum.

But even without a research, you can watch every day how people look at you when you walk the street in a Muslamian city and you look like a jewish.
That is the proof for his right, I'm living this life.

And I'm jewish and I don't hate anyone too, I'm talking about disliking from the first sight: like people who dislikes someone just because his skin is black, but because that he wear a Cipa(a jewish kind of hat that they only wear) or carries a cross with him. Excuse me for writing the wrong word, not hate, but first sight disliking.


I'm not really sure this is primarily religious-based. Someone could be athiest and hate blacks or Jews. Religion is just another category with which people judge each other.

Good point. The full paper is here
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Interesting stuff. It's nice to see the actual paper as well.

What saddened me is where the US stands in all of this. So many people with literal interpretations of the bible...it's disheartening.

I'm a Christian, and (as far as I know) I don't hate anyone. I've never been taught to hate anyone. Oh good, so you have no problem with women, gays, atheists and people of other religions, etc. then. I can tell you a lot of Christians do.

Religions tend to set down a lot of immutable laws, many of which are based on values from societies thousands of years old.
The fact that these rules are interpreted as the 'Word of God' and therefore unchallengeable, means that values from ancient societies are preserved indefinitely. Even if they are obviously flawed, irrelevant or not applicable to modern society, or otherwise just need to be abandoned.

Anyway problems arise when the people and/or church begin putting emphasis on laws that discriminate against others. It just gives people an excuse to take it all out on others and call it Gods work. For example; in the name of Christianity (to say nothing of other religions that I know less of) for thousands of years the laws of God have been used as an excuse to oppress women, gays, heretics and heathens (ie. anyone who wasn't their particular brand of Christian). This was often manifested violently eg. The Inquisition, an institution that raped, tortured and murdered tens of thousands of innocent people (especially women) all over Europe. To say nothing of all the death and suffering caused indirectly by outlawing medical science.

Whilst the majority (I hope) of Christians are good and well meaning, any religion can lend itself to extremism and that's where the real problems start.

Japan, Scandinavia, and France are the most secular nations in the west, the United States is the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity otherwise limited to the second and third worlds (Bishop; PEW)

Actually, those of you saying "this is just paper", it is actually a reflection piece on a study conducted by Sociologist, Dr. Gary S. Paul or the University of Maryland, Baltimore. It was conducted over several years and followed the scientific research method for providing such data. (Google is great)

It's not surprising that given the above quotation from Dr. Paul's findings that most of the dissenting comments come from Christian Americans (not that that is an ethnic group, I'm more using it as two adjectives).

I'm a christian, but i agree with you to an extent. Religion is not good.

But being a christian was never ment to be religious.

Christianity is all about a relationship with God.
It is definatly not about telling everyone how bad they are and killing heathens.
I think it's terribly sad that so much in history, "christians" perform atrocities such as the crusades, etc, etc.
That is not christianity. It is religion.
Looking at the bible, Jesus was not religious. He did not follow the traditional religious way of things. In fact, pretty much the only people he ever rebuked were the religious leaders.
Religion, in the sense of telling people what they should and shouldn't do, and condemning unbelievers, is not good at all, and society would be better with out it.
Christianity, the type of christianity which reaches out to those who need help, which wants so much to save others from death and suffering, is vital in society.

My relationship with god ended years ago. We are now bitter rivals. When we see each other at parties it's a bit awkward, but I feel I am handling it maturely. Especially when he gets all drunk and apologetic and I have to remind him that he's really just a figment of people's imagination and that he can't actual be at a party much less drunk.

Woe is me...

:)

... I have to remind him that he's really just a figment of people's imagination and that he can't actual be at a party much less drunk.
So when you do this, does he just leave, or does he disappear in a clap of thunder??

Oh good, so you have no problem with women, gays, atheists and people of other religions, etc. then. I can tell you a lot of Christians do.

Religions tend to set down a lot of immutable laws, many of which are based on values from societies thousands of years old.
The fact that these rules are interpreted as the 'Word of God' and therefore unchallengeable, means that values from ancient societies are preserved indefinitely. Even if they are obviously flawed, irrelevant or not applicable to modern society, or otherwise just need to be abandoned.

Anyway problems arise when the people and/or church begin putting emphasis on laws that discriminate against others. It just gives people an excuse to take it all out on others and call it Gods work. For example; in the name of Christianity (to say nothing of other religions that I know less of) for thousands of years the laws of God have been used as an excuse to oppress women, gays, heretics and heathens (ie. anyone who wasn't their particular brand of Christian). This was often manifested violently eg. The Inquisition, an institution that raped, tortured and murdered tens of thousands of innocent people (especially women) all over Europe. To say nothing of all the death and suffering caused indirectly by outlawing medical science.

Whilst the majority (I hope) of Christians are good and well meaning, any religion can lend itself to extremism and that's where the real problems start.


Absolutely. Any "Christian" who hates women (poor guy, I say), gays, atheists, other religions, etc. does not understand the Christian faith. It's as you say, ". . . the laws of God have been used as an excuse to oppress . . ." The oppression is there, it's always been there, and will likely stay there. It existed before the Christian faith, and is not religiously-based. Oppression stems from one person judging another person to be inferior compared to themselves. Oppression comes from fear, lack of understanding, and pre-conceived perceptions. Religion is one of many categories with which people judge, and many "religious" people justify their fear or hate for someone else by warping and confusing their religion's beliefs. It's an effort to say, "it's alright to hate this person, and this is why." True Christian values do not excuse oppression - they must be warped and scriptures taken out of context in order to justify a person's hate for another. Religion, and certainly not Christianity, is not responsible for oppression or hate. It is not responsible for the ills of society. That responsibility rests on the people carrying out these ills.

lol, good to see you have a sense of humour!

Edit: sorry Keve, i didn't mean you, i ment the guys before you. you have very good, sound points.

christianity doesn't teach hatred, however in practice all the sects and organised churches have twisted and warped it so that the clergy make money and have power over its followers.
I have nothing against chrisitans but the church going "christian" isn't a real chrisitan, nowhere in the bible does it say "you must go to a big building every sunday with a load of other chrisitans and listen to some guy who gets payed too much to talk about god".
it just says keep it holy, you can be just as holy by sitting in your own house and reading a bible or taking a walk in the park and admiring god's creation or whatever.
i cant speak for other religions because i was born a church going christian, before deciding to be an atheist.

So when you do this, does he just leave, or does he disappear in a clap of thunder??

He just leaves. Usually someone has to call him a cab though.

Omnipotent my butt...if he was all knowing he would now the saying, "beer and then liquor, I don't exist".

I'll say the same thing about this "study" as I said about the one posted the other day: they make a classic logical fallacy called "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which means "After this, therefore because of this." Just because something happens after another event does not mean that the first event "caused" the second.

Actually, he does not. He very clearly states that there is a correlation, but nowhere in the article does he imply causation.

This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. (Paragraph 2).

He is attempting to refute the following hypothesis:

In broad terms the hypothesis that popular religiosity is socially beneficial holds that high rates of belief in a creator, as well as worship, prayer and other aspects of religious practice, correlate with lowering rates of lethal violence, suicide, non-monogamous sexual activity, and abortion, as well as improved physical health.(6).

A snippet:

If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developing democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. (19).

And the conclusion (bolding mine):

Conclusion: The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developing democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses).

Note: he said 'correlated with', not 'caused by'.

christianity doesn't teach hatred, however in practice all the sects and organised churches have twisted and warped it so that the clergy make money and have power over its followers.
I have nothing against chrisitans but the church going "christian" isn't a real chrisitan, nowhere in the bible does it say "you must go to a big building every sunday with a load of other chrisitans and listen to some guy who gets payed too much to talk about god".
it just says keep it holy, you can be just as holy by sitting in your own house and reading a bible or taking a walk in the park and admiring god's creation or whatever.
i cant speak for other religions because i was born a church going christian, before deciding to be an atheist.
let's just generalise everything, shall we?
all churches are not evil. there are many more easy and more successful ways of becoming rich than running a church. I don't see you critisizing football companies for trying to empty everyone's pockets. And at least churches try to help. The corrupt churches you talk of are, being realistic, rare.

I think the biggest problem in this 'evidence' is that there is a massive population desity issue... the United States is the third most populated country in the world... it is a totally unfair to compare a country of such population to countries as small as Denmark, England, Sweden... it is, very much so easier to enforce laws in smaller countries, especially if they have little or no military spending in regards to the GNP. The only way to fairly compare is to look at similary populated countries. China and India are fairer comparisons than Sweden and England. But ultimately, any highly populated country is going to have large country/large city problems. England's only large metropolis is London, America has LA, SF, Chicago, New York City. Lastly, the United States is the most populated industrialized country in the world. The United States is going to be unique. Christianity has become more of a vogue term... politicians don't get elected unless they say they are a Christian and look like they are being a Christian... and as the 2004 elections has proved... one doesn't even need to run the government like a Christian to get re-elected... they just have to remain looking more like a Christian than their opponent... I really don't think religion has much to do with America's problems... it's lack of attention... the new American attitude of "ignore it, it'll go away," "it's someone else's fault," "sweep it under the rug," and "God's law is more important than the person in question." (the very attitude that has been condemned by Jesus, sadly enough.)

Is religion the source of America's woes? To be frank, it is nowhere near the source... The source of America's woes stems from the size of the population. When a population size becomes suffieciently large, the resources of the government becomes stretched. With borders like the United States and the volume of people going in and out through airports, security becomes an issue. With mega metropolis such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City, crime and poverty are much, much, much more of a problem than the backwoods of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. You look at the United States carefully... the areas considered most religious are places that is too thinly populated to even have crime problems. The cities tend to veer more secular than the rural areas. I'm not trying to make the comparison... but it is fairly hard to find a large number of religiously orientated cities similar to, at least, Salt Lake City. And without such fair comparisons, no comparisons can be made without raising questions as to whether the comparison is valid or not.

Actually, he does not. He very clearly states that there is a correlation, but nowhere in the article does he imply causation.
Which is quite a fine distiction to make for most people. :(

Having read the thread so far, let me toss in my 2 cents:

1. The paper clearly points out statistical correlations without making any claims of causation. The choice for readers then is either to dismiss these findings as irrelevant or investigate them further to find out whether they point to a possible causation. I would be in favor of further investigation because the described US societal problems do exist, whether related to religiosity or not, and so far attempts to fix them have not succeeded, so I think it is time to take a fresh look at our situation.

2. When it comes to causation, there is a chicken-egg issue here. Do the problems exist and resist fixing because people are religious (and thus waiting for god to fix them), or are people religious because the problems exist and resist fixing (and thus people are despairing of any other solution)?

I think it is probably a combination of the two, varying from person to person, particularly in the US where there is a lack of sense of social welfare as a public good. Extremely poor people often have only community churches as a social support system, and I'm afraid in the US richer people sometimes take a let-them-eat-cake attitude of fobbing the problems of the poor onto churches. For example, Michael Brown, formerly of FEMA and definitely a rich man himself, actually said at his senate hearing this past week that he believed evacuating poor and disabled people from major cities in emergencies should be the responsibility of churches and faith-based organizations rather than FEMA. In other words, let god take care of them if he likes.

3. Religion -- all religions -- lend themselves to supporting prejudicial impulses in society. Being completely based on unprovable assertions, they can easily be warped by self-serving people to validate anything they want -- bigotry, elitism, oppression, war, etc. I don't really believe religion causes societal problems but I believe if society turns to religion for answers to societal problems it opens the doors to social, political and financial corruption, thus making things worse.

4. This tendency towards corruption, imo, applies to all organized groups which are exclusionary -- by which I mean that there are members and non-members and being a member is seen as more desireable than being a non-member. This is an automatically prejudicial attitude and is almost guaranteed to be exploited by those who seek to advance themselves at the expense of others. It is unfortunate that, of all organized groups, religion is the most corruptible (because of its subjective and highly personal and emotional nature), and when it is corrupted, it can do tremendous damage.

5. I agree with the poster who described Christianity as a personal relationship with god, not a ritualistic group activity. That's what all religion should properly be, imo. That's how I practice my religion, and it keeps me clear of all kinds of trouble. ;)

Which is quite a fine distiction to make for most people. :(
Well, maybe they should try a little harder. The best way to avoid the dumbing down of society is to make society think once in a while.

At least it's fun to watch them try. :p

5. I agree with the poster who described Christianity as a personal relationship with god, not a ritualistic group activity. That's what all religion should properly be, imo. That's how I practice my religion, and it keeps me clear of all kinds of trouble. ;)
Excellent post! Particularly that number 5. Would to God [/irony] more people thought this way.

Well, maybe they should try a little harder. The best way to avoid the dumbing down of society is to make society think once in a while.

At least it's fun to watch them try. :p
LOL! You do realize, do you not, that most newspapers pitch their vocabulary and phraseology to a tenth grade level? :headbang:

I think the biggest problem in this 'evidence' is that there is a massive population desity issue... the United States is the third most populated country in the world... it is a totally unfair to compare a country of such population to countries as small as Denmark, England, Sweden... it is, very much so easier to enforce laws in smaller countries, especially if they have little or no military spending in regards to the GNP. The only way to fairly compare is to look at similary populated countries. China and India are fairer comparisons than Sweden and England. But ultimately, any highly populated country is going to have large country/large city problems. England's only large metropolis is London, America has LA, SF, Chicago, New York City. Lastly, the United States is the most populated industrialized country in the world. The United States is going to be unique. Christianity has become more of a vogue term... politicians don't get elected unless they say they are a Christian and look like they are being a Christian... and as the 2004 elections has proved... one doesn't even need to run the government like a Christian to get re-elected... they just have to remain looking more like a Christian than their opponent... I really don't think religion has much to do with America's problems... it's lack of attention... the new American attitude of "ignore it, it'll go away," "it's someone else's fault," "sweep it under the rug," and "God's law is more important than the person in question." (the very attitude that has been condemned by Jesus, sadly enough.)

I disagree on several points. First, this study compares percentages, which make the actual # of citizens mute. I agree that some other attributes should be entertained (like the fact that in England and Sweden, cops don't have guns, and in Denmark many laws are relaxed). And I imagine that even if you took all the information from Europe as a Union, you'd still find the US to have a higher % of people interpreting the bible literally, praying regularly, and rejecting evolution. Not to mention that people who are Atheist/Agnostic are treated as heathens and infidels in the US when compared to the way people are treated in Europe.

Another point is that most European countries treat their populace as if they were adults and could make decisions for themselves, the US does not do this.


Is religion the source of America's woes? To be frank, it is nowhere near the source... The source of America's woes stems from the size of the population. When a population size becomes suffieciently large, the resources of the government becomes stretched. With borders like the United States and the volume of people going in and out through airports, security becomes an issue. With mega metropolis such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City, crime and poverty are much, much, much more of a problem than the backwoods of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. You look at the United States carefully... the areas considered most religious are places that is too thinly populated to even have crime problems. The cities tend to veer more secular than the rural areas. I'm not trying to make the comparison... but it is fairly hard to find a large number of religiously orientated cities similar to, at least, Salt Lake City. And without such fair comparisons, no comparisons can be made without raising questions as to whether the comparison is valid or not.

This is slightly ridiculous. America's problems stem from the number of people going in and out of the country? Cities are not "more secular than rural areas" it just seems as though that's the case in a community where there are say 2500 people and everyone attends one of 2 churches.

The comparisons were based on more than the graphs show. If you read up, it is more about how much secular education the kids get in comparison to how much parents rely on faith to teach them.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies."
And as any good scientist knows, correlation is always causation.

I can't believe so much comment has been made about such an obviously bogus study. Just because two things occur at the same place at the same time does not mean the one is the cause of the other. It doesn't even mean that they are even related.

My city is predominantly liberal. Our crime rate is higher then the suburbs which are more conservative. Therefore Democrates cause crime. If we just got rid of all those Democrates we could rid the country of their hatred. The world would be a peaceful utopia without them.

Okay, sorry for the sarcasm, just trying to make a point about how ridiculous the argument is. But the argument is a lot worse then that. It incites hate against the religous and has a scape goat attitude where we are to blaim the religous for soceities problems. When are we going to come to our senses and realize we are all responsible for the problems of the world. Why don't we stop the finger pointing and start working on a solution.

Edit, I take it back. After carefully reading the study it very clearly is bogus and unscientific and shows a complete lack of knowledge of statistics. Notice this guy isn't a professional and does not have a doctorate (does he have a degree at all, I am having trouble finding other work done by him). This is not a pear reviewed journal to the best of my knowledge. If you really wanted to correlate religion to societies ills you would looks at crimes/pregnancies/etc and wheater they involved the religous or not. Even then you have to prove the cause effect relationship.

Yet we all go to hell for not believing. How's that for inferiority?

And we love each other enough to try to help save you from hell. Of course we cant force you to become Christians but we will try to help you.