# Report Says America Worse Off Because Of Strong Religious Beliefs **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 27, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715 "2005-09-27T18:14:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/21 "2005-09-27T20:04:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What gave you the impression we were talking about what people say? > > Regards, > Shodan The phrase “But it is a far cry from arguing that something is beneficial to arguing that its absence is a disaster.” just plain catches my eye, that’s why. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/22 "2005-09-27T20:07:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > A report that refers to the US as a “developing” democracy, or makes remarks like does not suggest a rigorous approach was taken to the subject. Slight hijack here in regard to the United States as a “developing democracy”. The U.S. didn’t guarantee civil rights until 1964, and is now engaged in attempting to, IMHO, take them away from gay couples who wish to marry. I’d say we are most definitely a developing democracy. In fact, I’d say we’re pulling up the rear in a few ways. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/23 "2005-09-27T20:21:45Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The study definitely shows that there is no demonstrable _advantage_ to religion in a culture as well as that the lack thereof will not doom it. Until you demonstrate causation, all that he is saying is “unrelated factors are unrelated”. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Comparisons to communist atheism as examples of “secular cultures” are specious, since communism itself filled the same social role as religion, since the atheism was forced rather than voluntary (and was in large part insincere) and since those societies contained far worse pressures than a lack of (public) belief in gods. Then the author would have to show that nothing took the place of religion in the other societies he prefers. And that forcing atheism makes a difference of some sort. And the other pressures you mention did not exist in any form elsewhere, as well. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The headline here is basically that religion cannot be shown to be _necessary_ in order for a country to function successfully. The use of the word “because” implies causation, which has not been demonstrated. And, as I said, the author seems to confuse creationism with religion in general. And the other shortcomings mentioned as well. > [@Mach Truck](#): > > The U.S. didn’t guarantee civil rights until 1964, and is now engaged in attempting to, IMHO, take them away from gay couples who wish to marry. Well, you are probably right. This is (I expect) the sort of argument by definition common in discussions of gay marriage and related causes. The author did mention France and Japan as other “developing democracies”. I wonder if the treatment of, for example, women in Japan or Jews or Muslims in France would affect the definition. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/24 "2005-09-27T20:40:38Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Maybe so, but then Paul’s entire comparison of religious versus non-religious is equally specious, since lots of things — like poverty, for example — fill the social roles of high crime regions. I might agree with this if “poverty” had scriptures, articles of faith, or required rituals. This paper is extremely limited. Though the author claims to have calculated cross-national correlations, he does not report them nor does he report sampling statistics. Instead he expects us to draw our own conclusions from pictures without numerical axes and whose scale is not indicated. Actual data might have made his “first look” much more convincing. It would have at least allowed others to perform the same tests to replicate his results or to have taken his research further. This struck me as absolutely bizarre: > [@](#): > > Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions. The first objection is irrelevant, the second is the reason why we do regression analyses in the first place, and the third is probably code for “if I did this analysis, I would actually have to report my findings.” As an aside, Japan presents an interesting case. Survey questions like, “Do you believe in God?” are not likely to shed very much light in Japanese spirituality. Ask an average Japanese person if he believes in the _kami_ or has a shrine in his household and you might be able to do a more nuanced analysis. The survey questions are only relevant to countries dominated by Abrahamic languages. But if you toss everyone who doesn’t fit out of your sample, then you are sinfully selecting on the dependent variable. This isn’t really junk science. There isn’t any science here at all. It is a superficial review of the literature and a superficial examination of some data sets. No theory, no hypotheses, no testing, no results. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/25 "2005-09-27T21:16:50Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I might agree with this if “poverty” had scriptures, articles of faith, or required rituals. I do take your point, but I’m not sure any of that is required for filling a social role. The role imposed by poverty, at least in our society, is as onerous and imposing as any formal creed. There is, for example, the ritual of checking balances every other day if you’re lucky enough to have a bank account. The ritual of scrimping for coupons, bargains, special deals and close-outs — things that people free of poverty’s impositions do as hobbies. The ritual of carrying a gallon of water and two cans of oil in the trunk of your junker. And so on. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/26 "2005-09-27T21:24:10Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > This isn’t really junk science. There isn’t any science here at all. It is a superficial review of the literature and a superficial examination of some data sets. No theory, no hypotheses, no testing, no results. Good thing he does not disagree with you > [@Gregory S. Paul](#): > > [2] This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research and debate on the issue. Translation A: I will really study this subject later. Translation B: I don’t want to do a four year study of the subject. I want others to explore it though, and perhaps make a real study of their own. Perhaps if I try and destroy the taboo around this subject, dipping my toe in the water, others will. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/27 "2005-09-27T21:46:22Z")
> [@](#): > > The same problems remain. Paul argues, for example, from the premise that there is a “widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster” (Section 19). He apparently derived this premise from the fact that “a strong majority from conservative to liberal [believe] that religion is beneficial for society and for individuals”. (Section 8). But it is a far cry from arguing that something is beneficial to arguing that its absence is a disaster. Given that there are plenty of people, prominent and non, who argue that it’s absence is a disaster, isn’t this a moot point? Isn’t he correct that there is a widely held belief that lack of religion is disasterous regardless of whether or not that belief is connected to the belief that religion is good for societies? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/28 "2005-09-27T21:50:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Until you demonstrate causation, all that he is saying is “unrelated factors are unrelated”. Who’ alleging causation? Not me and not the author of the study. What the study does is _rebut_ the popular meme that society can’t function without religion. No conclusion whatever is drawn about whether religion causes social problems. > [@](#): > > Then the author would have to show that nothing took the place of religion in the other societies he prefers. And that forcing atheism makes a difference of some sort. The author has to show neither. All that has to be shown is that a a country can function without religion. Any assertion that something else has taken the place of religion is someone else’s burden to prove, not Paul’s to disprove. My point earlier was that it can’t be said with any honesty that the problems of the Soviet Union could be blamed on atheism, and Communism cannot be pointed to as proof that non-religious countries cannot function. And of course forcing atheism makes a difference because if it’s forced, it isn’t real. People were prohibited from _practicing_ religion but that doesn’t mean they actually stopped believing it, so it can’t be said that the people were genuinely non-religious or secular. > [@](#): > > And the other pressures you mention did not exist in any form elsewhere, as well. Well, it’s pretty easy to prove that England is not a totalitarian dictatorship, that people don’t have to fear being hauled off to gulags, that they have they don’t have to stand in line for toilet paper, they don’t have to live in shitholes, etc. > [@](#): > > The use of the word “because” implies causation, which has not been demonstrated. What use of the word “because” are you referring to and who is alleging that anything “causes” anything? The study itself makes no claim of causation, it _rebuts_ popular claims of causation, to wit: That a society can’t be healthy without religious faith. > [@](#): > > And, as I said, the author seems to confuse creationism with religion in general. And the other shortcomings mentioned as well. I mentioned this myself. The author’s distinction between religion and evolution is too binary, however, in the US it’s almost warranted. As I said before, a majority of Americans claim not to believe in evolution and I doubt that very many of those people are atheists. Anyway, the point of the STUDY, is that tecahing evolution instead of creationism does not lead to the downfall of societies as so many fundies would have us believe. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/29 "2005-09-27T21:50:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > But it might be interesting to find out why the author of this study believes that religious faith in the US is responsible for all the bad differences\*, but is not involved in any of the good differences. What good differences are you speaking of ? I know your politics are much different than mine, so I’m not even sure what you would consider “good.” > [@F. U. Shakespeare](#): > > I’m not sure that’s true either, but I’d say it’s more likely than religion causing the problems. Why is it unlikely ? Religion has always tended to be nasty, irrational and in general a bad influence. > [@Liberal](#): > > For one, Paul does not explain why he has selected religion from among the numerous differences between the US and Europe as apropos of anything at all. Why not choose, say, the difference in governments? I can think of two obvious reasons. First, the difference between secularism and religiousity is much larger than the difference between two flavors of democracy. Second, religion has a millenia-long history of outright craziness, brutality, intolerance and general nastiness; modern democracies tend towards much milder behavior ( as a rule ). Frankly, even a casual study of history sows that democracy works much better than the alternatives; there really isn’t much debate over that. Where is the evidence that religion is a net benefit, or just breaks even ? Given the history of religion, I think it’s a sensible hypothesis that the root of most of America’s problems involves it’s religiosity. Really, given all the nasty and stupid things done in the name of religion, I find it odd that so many still follow it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/30 "2005-09-27T22:47:12Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Given that there are plenty of people, prominent and non, who argue that it’s absence is a disaster, isn’t this a moot point? Isn’t he correct that there is a widely held belief that lack of religion is disasterous regardless of whether or not that belief is connected to the belief that religion is good for societies? Sure, but what he’s correct about doesn’t contradict anything. The opposite is also true: there is a widely held belief that lack of religion is beneficial. There are widely held beliefs of all kinds about almost everything under the sun. What I was trying to ascertain was how and why he picked one particular widely held belief over another, and all I could find in his report was the section I mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/31 "2005-09-27T22:55:25Z")
The idea that people need religion to be good is probably the _most_ widely held meme on earth. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/32 "2005-09-27T23:11:50Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I can think of two obvious reasons. > > First, the difference between secularism and religiousity is much larger than the difference between two flavors of democracy. > > Second, religion has a millenia-long history of outright craziness, brutality, intolerance and general nastiness; modern democracies tend towards much milder behavior ( as a rule ). Frankly, even a casual study of history sows that democracy works much better than the alternatives; there really isn’t much debate over that. Where is the evidence that religion is a net benefit, or just breaks even ? > > Given the history of religion, I think it’s a sensible hypothesis that the root of most of America’s problems involves it’s religiosity. Really, given all the nasty and stupid things done in the name of religion, I find it odd that so many still follow it. Conspicuously absent from your response is the other conditions that could be said to correlate and differ as well, including geography and demographics other than religion, like poverty and class. Government was only one, offered as an example. But your premises seem flawed to me. There is hardly a more peaceful and uneventful society on earth than North Korea. And although some materialists don’t like examples given of Marxist regimes like the Soviet Union in discussions like these, they are nevertheless arguably applicable. Marx made the elimination of religion a prerequisite for happiness. As he wrote in his critique of Hegel’s _Philosophy of Law_, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.” Regarding benefits from religion, there are too many to list. Music, art, literature, architecture, and yes, even science (like Mengel and others), not to mention great acts of philanthropy and charity that have built hospitals, hospices, and shelters all over the world. I don’t think it’s really productive to have an argument over which side has bested the other. People can use religion as a weapon or as an olive branch. They can use atheism the same way. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/33 "2005-09-27T23:23:35Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The idea that people need religion to be good is probably the _most_ widely held meme on earth. There are lots of contenders for most widely held meme. By what authority or knowledge you can select one to hold the title of “most” is unclear. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/34 "2005-09-27T23:44:26Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > yes, even science (like Mengel and others), :eek: I reeeeeally hope you meant Mendel here and not Mengele… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/35 "2005-09-27T23:56:51Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > There are lots of contenders for most widely held meme. By what authority or knowledge you can select one to hold the title of “most” is unclear. By life experience, study and common sense, and I said “probably.” I’d be hard put to think of a _more_ common meme. Can _you_ name one. Would you honestly claim that there is any widespread belief even among atheists that religion is necessarily bad? I would hazard a guess that number of people in the US who would say that people need faith to be good is at least 80%. It’s also a meme that is perpetuated by the loudest and most powerful of theists in this country. Can you name a promonent Christian leader who would say that you can do just fine without faith of any sort? Can you name a politician who would say that? Can you name a politician who says that religion is necessarily bad? Can you name one who will say anything negative about faith whatsoever? (I can think of one and he got destroyed for it). ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/36 "2005-09-28T01:14:11Z")
I was thinking about writting a letter to the article’s author. Calling is a faster way of getting in touch though, so I called him. (No, I will not post his #, as per board rules.) I haven’t reached him, but his answering machine is pretty funny. “Hello, you have reached the Mesozoic Era. No one is here right now, as humans have not evolved yet, but if you would like to get in touch with one later, please leave a message.” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/37 "2005-09-28T01:52:16Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Conspicuously absent from your response is the other conditions that could be said to correlate and differ as well, including geography and demographics other than religion, like poverty and class. Government was only one, offered as an example. > > But your premises seem flawed to me. There is hardly a more peaceful and uneventful society on earth than North Korea. And although some materialists don’t like examples given of Marxist regimes like the Soviet Union in discussions like these, they are nevertheless arguably applicable. Marx made the elimination of religion a prerequisite for happiness. As he wrote in his critique of Hegel’s _Philosophy of Law_, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.” Like **Diogenes the Cynic** said, Communism basically took the place of religion, it didn’t get rid of it. Frankly, Communism has alway reminded me of archaic Christianity. Constant pushing of the dominant ideology on pain of death : check. Rhetoric about how the impoverished/workers are favored by God/inherently noble, while the elite live in luxury : Check. Leader with absolute power and a personality cult : Check. Constant search for unbelievers and heathens to convert : Check. Secularism is not the same as stated enforced pseudo-atheism. > [@Liberal](#): > > Regarding benefits from religion, there are too many to list. Music, art, literature, architecture, and yes, even science (like Mengel and others), not to mention great acts of philanthropy and charity that have built hospitals, hospices, and shelters all over the world. I don’t think it’s really productive to have an argument over which side has bested the other. People can use religion as a weapon or as an olive branch. They can use atheism the same way. First, religious folk have destroyed vast amounts of art, music, and so forth; easily enough to make up for any that has been made in it’s name. Christianity has systematically destroyed entire cultures to eliminate it rivals. Second, the evil deeds of religion easily outweigh the good. Do hospitals make up for the Catholic Church’s suppression of condom use against AIDS in Africa ? What about the Inquisition ? The extermination of the Native Americans ( they were unbelievers and therefore deserved to die ). The constant pograms against Jews. 9-11. The Crusades. The Holocaust. The Thirty Years War. The religiously motivated misogyny you see all over the world. The enslavement of the blacks. All of these things were either caused, encouraged or excused by religion. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/38 "2005-09-28T02:09:13Z")
Maybe I am misreading something, but it seems that the word “religiosity” was popping up a bit. According to one definition, that can be totally different from true religious beliefs. re·li·gi·os·i·ty Pronunciation (r-lj-s-t) n. 1. The quality of being religious. 2. Excessive or affected piety. I think a lot of what we are seeing lately in this country is the second meaning. It is affected and fake, purely for votes and for show. It is also what fuels the problems that are then attributed to religion in general. Take any of the major religions. What is easier? Is it easier to follow what they teach? Or is it easier to pretend, and then start shitting on anyone else who does not follow whatever brand of crap they are imposing on someone else? It is easier to condemn the Other Guy. Any Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Whatever, who really follows the teachings as written in their holy books would not act like the fire and brimstone thumpers or the jihadists. They would not judge, attack, smear and demand. They would not twist the truth. They would not lie (as some “religion superstars” do). They would not cheer natural disasters and catastrophes. They would not call for the shunning or killing of nonbelievers. It isn’t the religions that are at fault, it is the bullshit artists. Religion vs. religiosity. Real vs. fake. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/39 "2005-09-28T02:12:06Z")
Just some questions on the whole subject. 1. Does believing in Evolution have to be counter to being very religious? 2. Is this a case of believing the bible is the word of God and is right in all things? 3. If so, hasn’t other portions of the bible been discarded over the years even by the devout? 4. Are Unitarians not devout by definition, because they are open to many ideas and science? 5. What is the Moslem take on Evolution vs. Creationism? I am very pro Evolution, I can’t wrap my mind around the God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th bit. Nice myth but hard to take seriously. It just doesn’t add up. I can accept the merits of the concept that “God” is the intelligence behind Evolution and all physical laws. I think Einstein said, “Behind the great mysteries of science, God is waiting” (Paraphrased, I don’t remember the exact quote) I hope someone can answer my questions; I am genuinely ignorant on them. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/40 "2005-09-28T02:24:58Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Any Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Whatever, who really follows the teachings as written in their holy books would not act like the fire and brimstone thumpers or the jihadists. Cite? Aside from wishfull thinking, I don’t believe you can provide one. It seemms to me that relgious texts don’t just teach what sounds pretty, but also that it is ok to slaughter those who disagree with you. Sure, you can claim that the loving words are the most important ones, but the books don’t actually bear that out. Lot’s wife, for example. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715.md?page=3)