# 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:** 3
**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, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/41 "2005-09-28T02:40:41Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > 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. We could argue forever, each of us cherry picking whatever quotes shore up our position. I tend to go more for the “do unto others”, and “thou shalt not kill” and “judge not” and “whatsoever you do for the least” etc. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/42 "2005-09-28T02:45:56Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > 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? 1. Absolutely not. Dobzhansky, who pretty much _created_ Neo-Darwinism was a devout Christian. de Chardin, (who was an odd duck, but clearly supported evolutionary theory) was a devout Christian. There are many other examples. 2. Not sure of the question. The largest group of people who adhere to biblcal literalism happen to be in the U.S., but the U.S. is also home to many Christians and Jews who are not literalists. 3. I know of no _group_ of religious people who have “discarded” portions of the bible, but there are certainly large numbers of Christians and some number of Jews who no longer hold to a literalist interpretation. 4. You’d have to ask a Unitarian, but I see no reason to doubt any person’s claim to be devout. 5. The largest number of (conservative) Muslims posting on the internet in English appear to be opposed to evolutionary theory, but that is a self-selecting group that cannot be shown to be a statistically valid sampling. I have never seen a world-wide survey of Muslim belief regarding creation or evolution, and I suspect that there may not be one available. ---
**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, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/43 "2005-09-28T02:49:54Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > We could argue forever, each of us cherry picking whatever quotes shore up our position. I tend to go more for the “do unto others”, and “thou shalt not kill” and “judge not” and “whatsoever you do for the least” etc. Actually, I think you just countered your own argument. > [@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. 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. The world’s holy books teach nice stuff; they also teach bad stuff. Like you just said, you can cherry pick what you want from them, which means there _is_ no “real” Christianity/whatever for people to follow. A Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps is just as much a “Real Christian” as anybody else; the difference is, they just cherry picked different aspects of Christianity than nicer people cherry pick. ---
**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, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/44 "2005-09-28T02:55:25Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 1. Absolutely not. Dobzhansky, who pretty much _created_ Neo-Darwinism was a devout Christian. de Chardin, (who was an odd duck, but clearly supported evolutionary theory) was a devout Christian. There are many other examples. > 2. Not sure of the question. The largest group of people who adhere to biblcal literalism happen to be in the U.S., but the U.S. is also home to many Christians and Jews who are not literalists. > 3. I know of no _group_ of religious people who have “discarded” portions of the bible, but there are certainly large numbers of Christians and some number of Jews who no longer hold to a literalist interpretation. > 4. You’d have to ask a Unitarian, but I see no reason to doubt any person’s claim to be devout. > 5. The largest number of (conservative) Muslims posting on the internet in English appear to be opposed to evolutionary theory, but that is a self-selecting group that cannot be shown to be a statistically valid sampling. I have never seen a world-wide survey of Muslim belief regarding creation or evolution, and I suspect that there may not be one available. Thank you. With #4 I meant from the PoV of a devout Christian/Jew/Muslem creationist. Not well written, I apologize. ---
**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, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/45 "2005-09-28T03:00:45Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Actually, I think you just countered your own argument. > > The world’s holy books teach nice stuff; they also teach bad stuff. Like you just said, you can cherry pick what you want from them, which means there _is_ no “real” Christianity/whatever for people to follow. A Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps is just as much a “Real Christian” as anybody else; the difference is, they just cherry picked different aspects of Christianity than nicer people cherry pick. I don’t think so. Phelps and Robertson (and some others) are just hucksters, liars and scumbags who thrive on misery and use it to line their pockets. They deliberately pull things out of context, and when they can’t do that, they pull it out of their asses. They are false prophets, charlatans, and a boil on the ass lips of humanity. They don’t represent anyone but themselves. There are plenty of christians out there who can’t stomach them and would resent any association with them. Barry Goldwater once recommended that all good christians should kick Falwell’s ass. It sounds like a great plan. ---
**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, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/46 "2005-09-28T03:10:23Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I don’t think so. Phelps and Robertson (and some others) are just hucksters, liars and scumbags who thrive on misery and use it to line their pockets. They deliberately pull things out of context, and when they can’t do that, they pull it out of their asses. They are false prophets, charlatans, and a boil on the ass lips of humanity. They don’t represent anyone but themselves. > > There are plenty of christians out there who can’t stomach them and would resent any association with them. > Barry Goldwater once recommended that all good christians should kick Falwell’s ass. It sounds like a great plan. Your are argueing from the assumption that nice = Christian; there is no evidence of that. Plenty of Christian leaders ( and followers for that matter ) have been as bad or worse than those two; I can’t see how you can plausibly claim they represent the Christian religion any better than some nice guy who happens to be Christian. And they do represent other people than themselves; Pat Robertson especially represents a good chunk of American Christiandom. ---
**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, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/47 "2005-09-28T03:29:28Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Your are argueing from the assumption that nice = Christian; there is no evidence of that. Plenty of Christian leaders ( and followers for that matter ) have been as bad or worse than those two; I can’t see how you can plausibly claim they represent the Christian religion any better than some nice guy who happens to be Christian. > > And they do represent other people than themselves; Pat Robertson especially represents a good chunk of American Christiandom. You are arguing from the assumption that bad=christian. I can’t say there have never been some really lousy “representers”. There have been, and they should have never existed. The Inquisition, Crusades, the “burning times”, witch trials. I am aware of these things. Still, you can’t paint everyone with the same brush. It would be like me saying all atheists suck because of Joe Stalin and Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot. They were pretty fucked up, and I am not aware of religion being part of it. But I know more atheists who are good people. The psychos I mentioned do not represent them. It would be like saying all America sucks because of Joe McCarthy or Richard Speck or saying all of France sucks because of the Robespiere and the Reign of Terror. I’m not religious. I am what you would rightly call a backslider. However, to blame all the country’s ills on religion is false. Our ills are due to selfishness, greed, ambition, and the desire for “something for nothing”. We want it all and we want it now. We want it cheap, and we want it to be easy. We are lazy and spoiled. Even without any religion at all, we would still be our own worst enemies. We would just find something else to blame, because nothing is ever our fault. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/48 "2005-09-28T04:41:38Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I’m not religious. I am what you would rightly call a backslider. However, to blame all the country’s ills on religion is false. Our ills are due to selfishness, greed, ambition, and the desire for “something for nothing”. We want it all and we want it now. We want it cheap, and we want it to be easy. People in other countries aren’t selfish, greedy, or ambitious? They don’t want things to be cheap or easy? Seems to me like you’re just describing human nature. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/49 "2005-09-28T09:30:20Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Support for evolution = “Darwinism?” Grrr. Apparently, the I.D.ots are winning in Britain. What? Why isn’t support for evolution Darwinism (or, if you want to be persnickety, neo-Darwinism)? Also, I.D. is extremely rare in Britain. What makes you think they are winning anything there? Kindly explain your comments, which I find cryptic. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/50 "2005-09-28T09:57:12Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > 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? Look at the title of the journal! It’s _The Journal of Religion and Society_, not _The Journal of Difference In Governments_! > [@Liberal](#): > > Paul lumps the US in with Europe as “democracies”, but neglects to point out that the US is uniquely federalist, while Europe is parliamentary. What possible difference could _that_ make on this issue? He’s not speaking of governments, he’s speaking of the relative devoutness of the citizens. > [@Liberal](#): > > It seems to me that if he is going to consider religion as the only difference… Holy Bob, man, the journal he did his research for is dedicated to studying the effect of religion on society! That’s his job! That’s what this is all about! If he had studied something else, it would not be published by _The Journal of Religion and Society_! > [@Liberal](#): > > For another, he has arbitrarily created a dichotomy between religion and evolution. I see no evidence for that. The _Times_ article simply said: > [@](#): > > Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality. > [@Liberal](#): > > Again, where has he established a correlation at all between belief in a creator and the tendency to commit murder or contract syphilis? He bever claimed to make any such correlation. You’re spinning wildly. According to the _Times_ article, he established a correlation between the general level of devoutness of a country’s citizens and the murder and syphilis rate, not something so broad as “belief in a creator” > [@Liberal](#): > > Perhaps the correlation (if indeed there is any correlation at all) is between rates of poverty or one of a bazillion factors in which the US differs from Europe. Perhaps. Do your own study and find out. > [@Liberal](#): > > In fact, it can be argued that religion in the US is [on the decline](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States), and so we should be seeing a marked decrease in sexually transmitted disease and head smashing. I may have missed it, but I saw no evidence for a decline in religion in the US in that article. Where might it be? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/51 "2005-09-28T10:15:45Z")
> [@Anne Neville](#): > > :eek: > > I reeeeeally hope you meant Mendel here and not Mengele… 😃 Yes, thank you! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/52 "2005-09-28T10:38:21Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Like **Diogenes the Cynic** said, Communism basically took the place of religion, it didn’t get rid of it. How does A take the place of B without B being displaced? > [@](#): > > 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. I think your correlations are similar to those drawn by George Paul. You know, the sun is a lot like a tennis ball. Spherical in shape: check. Yellow in color: check. Susceptible to the laws of gravity: check. > [@](#): > > Secularism is not the same as stated enforced pseudo-atheism. And you coin the term “pseudo-atheism” why? Whose argument have you taken on? > [@](#): > > 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. I’m not sure why you think you can have it both ways. On the one hand, you seem to say, atheism cannot be blamed for the deeds of politicians like Stalin, Mao, and Pot Pot, but on the other hand, religion can be blamed for the deeds of politicians like Urban II. Why is that? > [@](#): > > 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. Sure, if we define religion to mean “everything under the sun”. And if we assign to religion a mystical power to bend the will of otherwise benevolent men. But I reject your premises. Amerigo Vespucci did not murder and enslave Indians as a means of giving all he had to the poor to follow Jesus; he did these things because he wanted power and wealth. But if you’re going to insist that religion motivated Hitler’s Holocaust, then you do not get the luxury of denying that atheism motivated Stalin’s Holocaust. It seems to me that a more reasonable view is that a lust for power motivated both. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/53 "2005-09-28T11:17:27Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Look at the title of the journal! It’s _The Journal of Religion and Society_, not _The Journal of Difference In Governments_! > > What possible difference could _that_ make on this issue? He’s not speaking of governments, he’s speaking of the relative devoutness of the citizens. > > Holy Bob, man, the journal he did his research for is dedicated to studying the effect of religion on society! That’s his job! That’s what this is all about! If he had studied something else, it would not be published by _The Journal of Religion and Society_! If I understand your argument correctly, you’re saying that the reason Paul published his report in the JRS is because it had to do with religion and not, say, government or poverty. Why that is a rebutal of points I made, however, is unclear. I did not argue that Paul failed to find the proper journal for his report. > [@](#): > > I see no evidence for that. The _Times_ article simply said: Actually, we’ve moved beyond the Times article, and are critiquing Paul’s actual report. The Times article clearly misunderstood the report, as Maeglin, Diogenes, and others have shown. > [@](#): > > He bever claimed to make any such correlation. You’re spinning wildly. According to the _Times_ article, he established a correlation between the general level of devoutness of a country’s citizens and the murder and syphilis rate, not something so broad as “belief in a creator” As I said, the Times article has already been thoroughly thumped and discredited. And that’s because of statements like this: “It [Paul’s report] compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority \*\*believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution \*\*.” Emphsis mine. > [@](#): > > Perhaps. Do your own study and find out. Frankly, I would settle for Paul doing a study which, as Maeglin has shown, has yet to happen. > [@](#): > > I may have missed it, but I saw no evidence for a decline in religion in the US in that article. Where might it be? It might be in the +6.6% increase in Atheism/Agnosticism between 1990 and 2001. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/54 "2005-09-28T12:20:10Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Any assertion that something else has taken the place of religion is someone else’s burden to prove, not Paul’s to disprove. Well, since you made the allegation, I await your proof. And just to forestall your usual response, yes you did say that. > [@DtC](#): > > … communism itself filled the same social role as religion… > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 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… Then why did you say it? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 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. And the same can be said for the USA, so again, no real point has been made. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What use of the word “because” are you referring to and who is alleging that anything “causes” anything? The title of the OP, as I mentioned. Try reading for comprehension. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/55 "2005-09-28T12:56:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Try reading for comprehension. > > Regards, > Shodan Yea DTC, debate the inaccurate summation in a thread title, not the substantive content of the original paper. This is Great Debates you know. I mean. Sheesh. How long have you been here? ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/56 "2005-09-28T13:08:36Z")
I’d love to think that the article was well written… I personally beleive religion gets in the way of having a better society. But the article’s arguments are terrible and badly founded. The US shouldn’t be compared to Europe for starters straight out. Comparing European countries might make more sense… and we know that the poorer countries tend to be more religious… with the exception of the USA. American social statistics suck due to other factors in american way of thinking about poverty. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/57 "2005-09-28T13:59:56Z")
A few little remarks are all I have. I am constrained by my need for sleep, alas. > [@Liberal](#): > > It might be in the +6.6% increase in Atheism/Agnosticism between 1990 and 2001. This just may indicate an increase in survey honesty or be attributable to random variation. Do you have a source for this statistic? > [@](#): > > I think your correlations are similar to those drawn by George Paul. You know, the sun is a lot like a tennis ball. Spherical in shape: check. Yellow in color: check. Susceptible to the laws of gravity: check. This is not really fair, and I think you know it. Religion and poverty both involve people, constrain behavior, and are commonly found in large groups of people. This is not the kind of correlation that Paul (or we) are talking about. There are also tests that can be performed to determine whether or not the correlation is a product of random variation or an artifact of the data. The real problem with the article is not that Paul doesn’t push his analysis further but that he does not really report his actual findings. I find this sort of thing extremely frustrating. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/58 "2005-09-28T14:10:28Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > This just may indicate an increase in survey honesty or be attributable to random variation. Do you have a source for this statistic? I gave the source in the original post to which Ambushed responded. Just click that link. > [@](#): > > This is not really fair, and I think you know it. Please restrain your remarks to what you know, and not what I know. > [@](#): > > Religion and poverty both involve people, constrain behavior, and are commonly found in large groups of people. This is not the kind of correlation that Paul (or we) are talking about. Or me either. That’s why I gave it as an illustration of a bad correlation. Why you are arguing with me, since it so happens that I have consistently agreed with you, is unclear. ---
**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 28, 2005, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/59 "2005-09-28T14:39:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, since you made the allegation, I await your proof. > > And just to forestall your usual response, yes you did say that. What does that have to do with _non_-Communist, secular countries. I don’t think you’re getting what I’m saying at all. Just to be clear, I am not making any assertion or suggestion about the effects of religion at all. I am saying that this study refutes the popular meme that societies need religion to be healthy. I am also saying that the social problems in the Soviet Union were not caused by secularism because it wasn’t really secular and there were much more obvious problems than an artifically imposed godlessness. Countries like England are healthy and sincerely secular and there is absolutely nothing like > [@](#): > > Then why did you say it? I DIDN’T say it. > [@](#): > > And the same can be said for the USA, so again, no real point has been made. But the US is religious. The study is trying to make a point about NON-religious countries. The study shows that non-religious countries can function as well or better than religious countries. It does not say that religion is bad, is says that secularism is NOT bad…or at least that the religiosity of the US cannot be demonstrated to give it an advantage over godlessness when it comes to social ills, and that it may- MAY- sometimes make things worse. > [@](#): > > The title of the OP, as I mentioned. Try reading for comprehension. Who gives a shit about the OP title? I was commenting on the actual study. I said in my first post that the study did not prove or even _allege_ anything causal about negative effects of religion on culture. I was under the impression that we had all moved past the misleading thread title a long time ago. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715/60 "2005-09-28T14:39:34Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Yea DTC, debate the inaccurate summation in a thread title, not the substantive content of the original paper. This is Great Debates you know. I mean. Sheesh. How long have you been here? Interesting that you trimmed off, and did not respond to, those parts of my posts in which I debated the substantive content of the original paper. Low on straw, yet? Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-says-america-worse-off-because-of-strong-religious-beliefs/323715.md?page=4)