Massachusetts was founded by religious zealots (burning “witches” and hanging Quakers) and we still have many “blue laws” on the books. Yet, this Gallup analysis finds that Massachusetts is one of the least religious states (reported on Boston.com). We are tied with Maine for third least religious. The only states in the nation where less than half of the population doesn’t consider religion an important part of their daily lives are in New England.
Is it a coincidence that Massachusetts also has one of the smartest populations? Are we too “intelligent” to believe in a supernatural power? Of course there are many very intelligent people who do believe in a higher power. Why do you think we live in one of the least religious states, and how do you feel about that?
Aren’t we also the third richest state… coincidence, I think not.
<
p>Obviously we are too smart to believe in God and are fighting like dogs to make as much money as we can and according to some people we are also 49th out of 50 states (or 57) on the generosity scale…
(Nicely stated, JohnD.)
<
p>I think it is fairly well-established that liberals donate less money than conservatives.
<
p>There could multiple explanations for that:
<
p>I don’t know what the explanation is, though.
liberals and conservatives are equally generous, but in different ways. Liberals want to help people out through taxation, while conservatives want to donate however much money it strikes them to do.
Liberals want to give other peoples money to charity through taxation and government programs, conservatives just cut to the chase.
What I’m suggesting is different.
<
p>No one thinks of crime prevention as something we contribute to individually. If Main Street is repaved and the water main replaced, it is not a result of a successful drive for contributions.
<
p>I think the question is what constitutes a social ill and what constitutes a problem whose eradication we can leave up to charity and chance.
<
p>Another side to it is what I think of as the bunny rabbits versus the moles.
<
p>Animal rights campaigners usually present us with pictures of totally adorable animals harmed in the way of commerce. They don’t show us pictures of ugly animals similarly harmed.
<
p>Likewise charity. Think of the bad-mouthed guy who has trouble getting his life together, the alcoholic who causes a circle of ruin in her family, the annoying ne’er-do-well with a narcissistic personality disorder. Who is going to feature pictures or stories for such folks? Who is going to help them — to the extent they can be helped? These are not bunny rabbits, innocent and adorable, but they are people.
I was going to reply earlier to this charge of how we differ on charity. I do agree with your metaphor and I will plead guilty. I do only want to help bunny rabbits.
<
p>And on a slightly different slice, I donate quite a bit to charity… but it is charity that I can see work. I donate money to youth programs (for sports activities, not to keep them from crime), to domestic violence programs (Daybreak)… I also take my younger ones shopping about once a week to find bags of items on sale which I donate to my church and a food kitchen here in town. My kids ask why we are giving people our food and I say because we can. My point is I want to be charitable to people I believe need the help and are not abusing the system and/or undeserving of the help. I understand that makes me sound very judgmental and I guess I am. My problem with the systematic approach is the overhead costs (state workers…) and the disbelief in many of the ways the money is actually spent.
<
p>My Aunt lives in the projects in South Boston and has lived there since 1962 (47 years). She has a single unit now and will probably die there in many years to come. Why are we paying for her (and so many others) to live her life there, as well as paying for her kids’ college tuition and many other benefits?. I think we have perverted the helping hand of charity and turned it into a crutch that society cannot get off. With memories of the Depression being conjured up, there has been a lot of talk about FDR. I wonder what FDR would think of social programs like my Aunt getting free housing (and all sorts of other free stuff) for 47 years and counting?
I share a concern about state programs inducing unnecessary dependency. I know people who get caught up in this kind of dependency. The motivation to retain benefits becomes a huge invitation to graft. Not pretty.
<
p>I suspect the answer involves some combination of teaching and of increasing doses of tough love. It all has to be administered shrewdly (so as not to be conned) but delicately (so as not to cause unnecessary harm).
<
p>This would all be much easier if the citizenry were more engaged and could be part of solving such problems.
It does seem like many programs we have lead to dependency on such programs and create a cycle vs. a plan to independence. These programs are like “empty calories” when you’re on a diet (they feed the appetite but do nothing for your diet). I would support plans with end goals vs. just free lunches. I think even the more heartless than me people amongst the right would support programs to help people but we are very wary and even vengeful of the abuses those programs are and provide. Thus, I will keep doing what I am doing and not supporting the wasteful programs (IMO) since “but for the grace of God…”
<
p>This is true, though I also think the findings say (I know Arthur Brooks at the American Enterprise Institute, who is quite conservative himself, has written about this) that it is actually moderates who give the least as compared to liberals and conservatives. Additionally, when you control for religious belief, there is no difference between liberals and conservatives on charity. This would seem to support your first contention, as opposed to your second.
<
p>Also, I would note that when you control for cost of living, Massachusetts is one of the most generous states, as this study indicates.
To say nothing of a bunch of alliterates!
Massachusetts gets back $0.82 for every federal tax dollar paid.
Mississippi gets back $2.02.
<
p>Explain to me again which state is more generous?
The state is dirt-poor, with huge problems of poverty, malnutrition and unemployment. Federal aid to support such a population has been part of this country since I was in short pants, and that’s a very long time.
<
p>Yet in spite of this, in terms of per-capita charity and giving, Mississippi ranks first in the country. Those folks take tithing (giving 10% of one’s income to church and charity) rather seriously. Those who have, give. And in my observation, having grown up around folks just as poor, those who have not often give as well.
<
p>If ever there was a state that could be home to the widow who gave the Widow’s Mite, it would be Mississippi.
<
p>And besides, while you won’t find many of them in Mississippi, wasn’t it the liberals who invented forced redistribution through taxation?
<
p>Best,
Chuck
(DISCLAIMER: These are going to be very broad brush-strokes of comparison, but I think the conclusions, on that basis, are valid. Also, my tables wiggle a little bit, but, having grown up with a slide rule, I am computer-challenged.)
<
p>I found your Generosity Index website interesting. http://www.catalogueforphilant…
<
p>Mass is 3rd in the country in having, 39th in the country in giving. You are thus 49th in the generosity index.
<
p>As a general observation (I did note some exceptions), those who rank highest in the Generosity Index are states who have the least. They also have the greatest level of (I believe your quaint term for it is) religiousity. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/go…
<
p>Of those in the top 50 percent in generosity, less than one in four rank in the top 50 percent of “haves.” I also discovered an interesting correlation between who gives the most, and who has the least. Below are two columns. They represent the ten states that give the most, and the ten states where religion is important to the residents. Seven states appear on both lists.
<
p>Give Most Religion Important
<
p>Mississippi Mississippi
Arkansas Alabama
Oklahoma South Carolina
Louisiana Tennessee
Alabama Louisiana
Tennessee Arkansas
South Dakota Georgia
Utah North Carolina
South Carolina Oklahoma
Idaho Kentucky
<
p>Now, here are the ten states where religion is least important, and the ten states that give the least.
<
p>Religion Unimportant Give Least
<
p>Vermont Pennsylvania
New Hampshire Michigan
Maine Colorado
Massachusetts Connecticut
Alaska Minnesota
Washington Wisconsin
Oregon New Jersey
Rhode Island Rhode Island
Nevada Massachusetts
Connecticut New Hampshire
<
p>Only four states appear on both lists. Obviously there is little negative correlation, in spite of the strong positive one. One could conclude that presence of a faith-based populace drives compassion, where lack of a faith-based populace pretty much drives indifference.
<
p>The Judeo-Christian heritage, along with those of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, is one of compassion. This, I think, is a good thing. Christ taught the necessity of “rendering unto Caesar.” So religious people pay duly levied taxes, and still find something to give.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
It doesn’t have a “u”.
After a quick & dirty look at the data, compare the generosity index with the cost of living, and you’ll find pretty solid correlation along the top and bottom of the list. The original data uses only Adjusted Gross Income with no COL adjustment. With a few outliers (e.g. NY gives more than expected, WI less) the conclusion really could be, “people who have more money after expenses, give more.” Or, we can ask how importance of religion in the population reduces the cost of living in an area.
The statistic you provide says we are not a religious state. However, you immediately point out that we are a smart state and choose to use this as the only thing to justify the lack of religion. This is the most ignorant way of starting a conversation and is quite offensive to me.
<
p>Washington DC has an extremely high murder rate. Washington DC has a high % of black population. Therefore, Washington must have a high number of murders because of all the black people? Of course there are many blacks who don’t murder. See how this reasoning fails?
<
p>I think it’s very unfortunate, but also very telling that someone who stands on the front line fighting the ignorance of fundamentalists would subscribe to the same type of petty cause and effect that one would expect from that crowd.
The biggest problem with the poster’s argument, as you allude to, is that he looks at statewide poll numbers and then uses that to make judgments about individuals.
<
p>Just because a state population as a whole may be non-religious/intelligent doesn’t mean that the link exists with particular individuals.
I am asking for ideas. Why do you think we are such a non-religious state? Apparently you do not think that the IQ of the population is any factor. OK. What are your ideas?
<
p>The DC comparison is weak. Are you saying that African-Americans are more likely to commit murder? That is outrageous and makes no sense. I know you are trying to make a point, but…yikes.
<
p>I’m talking about whether more intelligent people, like the folks in Massachusetts, are less likely to be religious. Studies seem to show that people with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God. This is interesting to me.
<
p>What other factors do you think come into play in our state? I’m sure there are many.
because that is essentially the same as your argument.
<
p>
<
p>Oh do you? Is that why your diary pointed out so many? Nope, just intelligence. You are looking for someone to comment that “yeah! those stupid hicks believe in God!” but no bites, thus backtrack.
I was looking for intelligent discussion.
<
p>Any ideas on why the majority of our state in not religious?
<
p>The snow?
<
p>The history?
<
p>The geography?
<
p>Do you have any ideas? It’s called a discussion.
<
p>You seem hurt by my pointing out that some research shows that people with high IQs don’t believe in God. Why do you think that is? Maybe “smarter” people try to rationalize everything and can’t let go, can’t have faith? I really don’t know. But I’m not trying to attack you, or anyone else, for believing in God. Perhaps you have assumed that I do not believe in God?
It’s the snow. The goddamn snow.
…that intelligence and education positively correlate with lack of religiosity?
<
p>Paul Bell concluded in a Feb. 2002 Mensa Magazine article:
<
p>
<
p>So there are 39 studies that support what chirsmasson is saying.
<
p>Now, for an explanation as to why Mass is one of the least religious states, I find this nation-wide Harris Poll that shows:
<
p>
<
p>Looking at the above and comparing it with what we know about Massachusetts: MA has a relatively low African American population, a very low Republican population, and MA is the state with the highest percentage of college graduates (35%). So I suspect that the reason Massachusetts is one of the least religious states is because it lacks large numbers (relative to other states) in the demographics of people most likely to believe in God, including a smaller population of non-college educated people.
Catholicism. It’s the dominant religious culture of Massachusetts. It’s also the one that is least likely to shame you for leaving or ostracize you for non believing — at least today.
<
p>The problem with your poll and chris’ poll is that they don’t mesh with each other. The Zogby poll is asking if religion is important in your life, yours is regarding the existence of God. I know and you know that there are many many people who believe absolutely in a God, but aren’t practicing in religion nor consider it important or are part-timers.
<
p>I don’t know if you’re a church-going man, but for shits and giggles, go to a Catholic Mass on say, the 5th Sunday in Ordinary Time, and then go on Easter or Christmas. You will see abundantly clear the difference between people who consider religion important in their lives but still share a common faith.
…about Catholicism can be applied to Mainline Protestantism in Massachusetts, especially about shaming ostracization. Additionally, although I have attended Catholic mass on average Sundays and on Easter, I was raised in a UCC congregationalist church; Palm and Easter Sundays always added an extra service due to the additional people attending.
My cousin always joked that the 11th commandment is “thou shalt not scalp tickets to the high holidays“
If there’s one religion that is losing adherents most quickly, it’s Catholics. So a region heavy in Catholics is going to see the greatest change, especially as we’re around the epicenter of the abuse scandal.
Catholics and Puritans tend not to make a big display of their faith. Same with the Brahmin Episcopalians. The Baptists and Pentecostals of my childhood are all about the splash. Big churches, big hair, big showy displays of their faith in JEY-E-SUS. Worship is a very public spectacle.
<
p>It even translates into zoning laws. You can’t rail against sin without some sin nearby. So dry counties have private gentlemans clubs you can drink at while their preachers rail against the bars and strip clubs in the next county.
<
p>I like it here.
I think that the fact that Catholicism makes your religion something that is more private causes people to think that their religion isn’t as important in their daily lives as it really is. When you see these Pentecostals going batshit loony in their religious actions, who wouldn’t say to themselves “well…they see it as more important than I.”
… about ‘what it really is’ and therefore, lets not make comparative assertions about ‘what it really is’. I propose to that when someone asserts the ‘importance’ of religion in their daily life, that we take their word for it and not try to assert that they are wrong and that the ‘real’ importance is actually higher.
In Texas, religion, like country music, is much more a part of people’s daily public experience.
I just objected to anyone ‘knowing’ how ‘important’ religion is to any given person better than they themselves know and report. It’s dangerously close to defining how religion ‘should’ relate to our individual lives. Claims to objectivity are the first step to claims that individual’s religious opinions are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
I’ll remember that, next time I am charged with religious discrimination.
I’m one of the staunchest defenders of religious freedom around here, and I feel your statement doesn’t pass the smell test.
<
p>First of all, a fair bit of that education comes through religious communities, in guises such as Holy Cross, Boston College, and the excellent Catholic high schools around Boston.
<
p>I personally believe one of the reasons this region is so areligious is that aside from the historical aberration of the Puritans, New Englanders largely belong to non-proseltyzing groups. This is a region where church is church and reallife is reallife. Thus, there is no harassment and social pressure to pick a religion, as you get in the Midwest and the South especially.
<
p>Furthermore, since this is a dense, homogeneous population through much of the region, churches aren’t as important as social centers. It is possible to have a social life without going to church, again unlike many regions of the country. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the presence of a government safety net means that you don’t have to be Godded at in order to get the help you need (despite Obama’s and Bush’s wishes to the contrary).
I moved here from Texas. Evangelical Protestantism is the dominant culture. As a result Church and church groups are very much part of the social fabric. People ask what church you belong to the same way people here ask where you went to school. Membership in the right church can be important as membership in the right golf course is here.
<
p>A good example is GWB naming Jesus as his favorite political philosopher. Northerners saw it as something of deep political significance. Most Southerners saw it as the conditioned response of a certain breed of politician.
I second Sabutai’s point. I don’t think intelligence explains our lower level of religion so much as does our culture (one that also makes a big deal out of intelligence.) A heavily academic and artistic culture provide much of what religion offers: deep questions, social and ritualistic ways of expressing them, institutional hierarchies, study groups, cultlike followings, etc. Pastors in very Protestant communities, for example, are its public intellectuals. Every Sunday they discourse, from the authority of their position, on the events and ideas of the day. We have other people and institutions to do that for us.
<
p>This dates at least to the Unitarian tradition in Boston, whose liberalism, when exposed to the broader evangelical revolution, produced the Transcendentalists, who explicitly argued that art and secular culture and personal emotion can provide much of religion’s goods.
Invert the question I say.
<
p>Generally, the more affluent the country the less religious. The religiosity of the United States matches that of about Brazil. (Trying to remember where I saw this chart.)
<
p>So, in a sense, Massachusetts’ low level of religiosity is more in line with expectations. Its the U.S.’s high level that requires explanation because that’s the exception.