 |
| Click image to enlarge |
Time and time again I've looked at the link between the lower economic performance of U.S. states deemed "conservative" and where religion is deemed "important." The more religious and conservative a state's citizenry, the worse off economically the state is and the less competitive it is in recruiting new and lucrative business. Now some new analysis shows that this tie between the level of religiosity also correlates to lowers societal well being. The question is which came first? High levels of religiosity that have caused lower social well being or vice versa. The authors of the studies put the blame on religion. Just like some of Richard Florida's analysis that indicates the liberal states are winning out over the conservative sister states for increased business development and improved standards of living. The map above looks at the levels of religiosity by state. The map below looks at the so-called "Human Development Index" that considers things such as life expectancy, education, and income corruption, income disparity, child mortality, access to medical care, suicide rates, and so on:
 |
| Click image to enlarge |
The South and the Bible Belt over all score the highest and also score the lowest when it comes to life expectancy, access to health care and over 20 other categories. Texas, Georgis and North Carolina manage to dodge a dead last finish on the Human Development Index most likely because the large cities in those states counteract the abysmal results for the remainder of the state. Mississippi and Alabama in contrast have no such major progressive cities and not surprisingly they land in the lowest category.
The author of the piece reaches a kinder conclusion toward religion than I do. I would argue that the author has it backwards and that religiosity leads to low human development and regressive social well being. Yes, the Christianists talk a good game about helping other and caring for their "neighbor," but in truth they don't follow through. Meanwhile the best and brightest flee from the area - as is happening in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia - because of the backwardness of their surroundings and the depressed opportunity for advancement. Here is the author's wrap up:
As you see, we have the same negative relationship between well-being and religiosity that we saw for different countries of the West. The correlation here is r= – 0.66897, and the probability (“p”) that this correlation would arise by chance is p = 0.00000012. (A value of p less than 0.05 is conventionally used to show a significant relationship.) This relationship, then, is not only striking but very highly significant in a statistical sense. Harry put a least-squares regression line through the data; its slope is also highly significant.
Why the correlation? Again, it could mean—but I am not pushing this interpretation as dogma—that people tend to either become more religious or retain a historical religiosity in areas where they are not very well off. There may also be ethnic differences that contribute to this (the population of blacks in America is concentrated in the south, for instance, and educational attainment is lower in general), but education itself is likely negatively correlated with indices of well being, and poverty is a component of both the HDI and SSS. Although I’m not a Marxist, Marx may have gotten it right when he said, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
The problem, in my view is that until regions throw off religiosity, they are NOT attractive to would be businesses and employers who want to be able to attract the most able and innovative personnel. That simply will not happen when regions and states are primary known for the knuckle dragging Christian extremist and bigoted social views. It's a concept that has yet to be grasp by the Republican Party of Virginia and The Family Foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment