Religiosity and impoverishment

[Blind groper]

http://www.alternet.org/story/144174/is ... ng_america

Researcher, Gregory Paul, has found a strong correlation between religiosity and social impoverishment across 17 western nations. In this, the USA stands out as being a nation that is too religious, and has suffered serious social consequences as a result.

[cronus]

When people are poor they wont readily feed the 1% given a rational explanation of their circumstance, a little fairytale and the promise of a good afterlife and they do. No mystery.

[Blind groper]

Gregory Paul also has an article in the latest Skeptic mag. In this, he analyses 17 western nations according to a number of variables, such as health care, life span, rate of teenage pregnancy, incidence of STD's, divorce rate, murder rate, and so on. From 24 variables, a measure is calculated known as the Successful Societies Scale. The USA is bottom out of the 17 nations, with a score of just under 3 (out of a maximum possible of 9). Top is Norway with a score just under 8. Second worst is Australia with a score of just under 5. Paul ascribes the abyssmal performance of the USA to a mixture of religion and libertarianism.

It is interesting to note that, inside the USA, their score drops to its lowest point in the Bible Belt (which has a lot more divorce, STP's, and teenage pregnancy, not to mention murders. Religion certainly is a great thing!).

The most progressive countries are those with lowest religiosity and libertarianism, and consist of Sweden, Japan, England, Norway, Denmark, France and Germany.

[Seabass]

and has suffered serious social consequences as a result.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Even the author acknowledges that the study reveals correlation, not causation.

The Union army burned the south to the ground in the 1860s, leaving it defeated, demoralized, and economically devastated. Not surprisingly, southerners found solace in religion, as people often do in difficult times. Moreover, I suspect that turning to religion may have also served as a way for southerners to reaffirm their own moral righteousness after having been the side that fought for slavery.

[Seth]

and has suffered serious social consequences as a result.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Even the author acknowledges that the study reveals correlation, not causation.

The Union army burned the south to the ground in the 1860s, leaving it defeated, demoralized, and economically devastated. Not surprisingly, southerners found solace in religion, as people often do in difficult times. Moreover, I suspect that turning to religion may have also served as a way for southerners to reaffirm their own moral righteousness after having been the side that fought for slavery.

"Popular religion," Paul proposes, "is a coping mechanism for the anxieties of a dysfunctional social and economic environment."

Indeed it is. And what, exactly, is wrong with that?

Moreover, his focus on "prosperity" impeaches his conclusions regarding the genesis and value of religion because, as many religions teach, prosperity for prosperity's sake is more often the road to ruin than an indicator of a happy life. His failure to determine whether or not "prosperity" is a good thing or a bad thing makes his research stink of observer bias, which appears to be an ongoing problem with him according to the article.

[Calilasseia]

It's also an "ongoing problem" for all those televangelists hoarding mansions, limousines and private jets ...

[Seth]

It's also an "ongoing problem" for all those televangelists hoarding mansions, limousines and private jets ...

It may indeed be exactly that, but the failure of one or more persons to adhere to the tenets of a religion does not impeach the value of the religion, it merely means that some people are imperfectly practicing their professed faith. The ultimate decision will, of course, be up to God to sort out...if God exists.

[cronus]

It's also an "ongoing problem" for all those televangelists hoarding mansions, limousines and private jets ...

It may indeed be exactly that, but the failure of one or more persons to adhere to the tenets of a religion does not impeach the value of the religion, it merely means that some people are imperfectly practicing their professed faith. The ultimate decision will, of course, be up to God to sort out...if God exists.

I think America is making the right decision going for poverty. It is greatly in Gods favour now. I'd like to help - if it could be arranged, a hopeless sinner in a hopeless foreign land like me, will take two gold bars, maybe any number later.

[JimC]

I will gladly pay you later for a hamburger today...

[Blind groper]

In Paul's 'Skeptic' article, he states that libertarianism leads to weak government, and weak government means those outside government with power (like corporate leaders) will exploit and harm those who are weaker. Strong government leads to lower crime rates due to better policing as well. The USA has the largest level of inequality between upper and lower socio-economic levels in society. This can be ascribed to due to the suppressing effect of wealthy people, unrestrained by strong government.

If you look at the top nations in the survey, like Sweden, England, and Norway, you see strong governments able to control those who would otherwise exploit and suppress the less fortunate people.

Libertarian USA has the widest range of wealth in its population, from ultra rich to ultra poor. The perception of being very poor when living in a wealthy nation is very harmful psychologically. It has even been found to cause epigenetic changes which are known to cause a reduction in intelligence. Not only are you more likely to be poor if you are stupid, but being poor makes you more stupid.

In these ways, a less libertarian system, which includes some socialist programs to assist the poor, will make for a fairer society, and one that is healthier, and creates broader welfare for a wider sector of society..

[Seabass]

Ha! Well, I must admit, Gropes, you actually had me fooled there for a minute. I mean, for a moment I actually believed that your intention was to have an earnest discussion about the relationship between religiosity and impoverishment. But now you're blathering something about libertarianism. True to form, your thread turned out to be another case of you taking every opportunity to tell us Merkins how awful and stupid we are.

Well, I'm just embarrassed that I actually took the time to give your OP a serious response. I won't make that mistake again.

[Hermit]

You beauty. Seabass versus groper. I hope the commotion in the ocean will be even better than the rumble in the jungle.

Speaking for myself, I regard the following remarks as fair comment:

libertarianism leads to weak government, and weak government means those outside government with power (like corporate leaders) will exploit and harm those who are weaker. Strong government leads to lower crime rates due to better policing as well. The USA has the largest level of inequality between upper and lower socio-economic levels in society. This can be ascribed to due to the suppressing effect of wealthy people, unrestrained by strong government.

If you look at the top nations in the survey, like Sweden, England, and Norway, you see strong governments able to control those who would otherwise exploit and suppress the less fortunate people.

Libertarian USA has the widest range of wealth in its population, from ultra rich to ultra poor. The perception of being very poor when living in a wealthy nation is very harmful psychologically. It has even been found to cause epigenetic changes which are known to cause a reduction in intelligence. Not only are you more likely to be poor if you are stupid, but being poor makes you more stupid.

In these ways, a less libertarian system, which includes some socialist programs to assist the poor, will make for a fairer society, and one that is healthier, and creates broader welfare for a wider sector of society.

One would have to be pretty fucking stupid to disagree. Also, repeatedly voting for the likes of Bush(s), Reagan et al, and never learning from those mistakes is a sure sign that the majority of US citizens is an incorrigibly gullible lot of utter cretins.

[Seth]

I will gladly pay you later for a hamburger today...

It's "I will gladly pay you Wednesday for a hamburger today." Wimpy.

[Seth]

In Paul's 'Skeptic' article, he states that libertarianism leads to weak government, and weak government means those outside government with power (like corporate leaders) will exploit and harm those who are weaker.

The point of Libertarianism is that government is supposed to be weak, to keep it from becoming despotic and tyrannical, and that individuals are responsible for enforcing acceptable social behavior themselves, or in cooperation with others.

Strong government leads to lower crime rates due to better policing as well.

Really? So why is the crime rate in Russia astronomical despite decades of rigid and ubiquitous law enforcement? Why is the crime rate in the UK higher than it is in the US despite the supposedly "better" law enforcement?

I'll take weak government and the right to enforce the law myself over a despotic and tyrannical government (which is what ours is becoming) with a militarized police force (which ours is well on the way to) that can terrorize and abuse the public with utter impunity like, oh, let's say the Waffen SS or Pinochet's goons.

The USA has the largest level of inequality between upper and lower socio-economic levels in society.

Which means that hard work and innovation are rewarded while sloth, idleness and ignorance are not. The solution is for people to work hard and educate themselves so as to raise their socioeconomic status. Of course there is little motivation to do so in a welfare state where it is more profitable and more comfortable to live on the government dole than it is to take risks and work hard at education and work to succeed.

This can be ascribed to due to the suppressing effect of wealthy people, unrestrained by strong government.

Complete bullshit.

If you look at the top nations in the survey, like Sweden, England, and Norway, you see strong governments able to control those who would otherwise exploit and suppress the less fortunate people.

No, what you see are a panoply of welfare states that will inevitably crumble to chaos and anarchy as soon as the OPM runs out.

Libertarian USA has the widest range of wealth in its population, from ultra rich to ultra poor. The perception of being very poor when living in a wealthy nation is very harmful psychologically.

Actually it's a great stimulator of industry and hard work, because the examples of great economic success that surround the poor demonstrate that anyone who had the talent, education and drive to succeed economically has the opportunity to do so. There are no legal constraints that prevent even the penniless from becoming a success. The most corrosive and corrupting factor that keeps poor people poor is the welfare system that deliberately and with malicious intent keeps them dependent on government for their very survival. This is an entirely cynical and pre-planned agenda of Democrats and other liberals who wish to enslave the poor to the will of government in order to secure the votes of the poor for extending the practice of government support, which creates a vicious cycle that produced nothing but generational poverty and dependency.

It has even been found to cause epigenetic changes which are known to cause a reduction in intelligence. Not only are you more likely to be poor if you are stupid, but being poor makes you more stupid.

You need to learn the difference between stupidity and ignorance.

In these ways, a less libertarian system, which includes some socialist programs to assist the poor, will make for a fairer society, and one that is healthier, and creates broader welfare for a wider sector of society..

...and chains more and more people to generational poverty and servitude to the elite political class.

Fuck that.

[Blind groper]

Let me make a point for Seabass and Seth. My comments here about religiosity and libertarianism are the result of reading the article in Skeptic magazine, in which the author ascribes the very poor rating of the USA to the strength of those two influences. I tend to agree with the author, but he is the one who carried out the detailed study, not me.

The reality is that Gregory Paul, the researcher, is himself American, and he is America's worst critic. Paul labels the USA as the most dysfunctional of the 17 western nations in his study. The factors involved include murder rates, teenage pregnancy rates, divorce rates, the rate of gonorrhea and syphilis, health care, longevity, the gap between rich and poor, and a number of other factors to the total of 24. The final score was as close to objective as the author could make it, using standard methods.

The author blames high levels of religiosity and libertarianism for the fact that the USA scores as highly dysfunctional.

If you disagree, perhaps you could suggest other causes.