Some demographics relative to religion and politics
|
|
I like to read a thoughful book slowly. Hence, I've been reading Sam Harris's thin Letter to a Christian Nation for several days but am only halfway through it. I just came across this passage, with some demographics relative to religion and politics:
But I recommend the whole book, and also Harris's The End of Faith: Religion, Terrorism, and the Future of Reason, which puts the current situation of terrorism squarely within a religious perspective.
While political party affiliation in the United States is not a perfect indicator of religiosity, it is no secret that the "red states" are primarily red because of the overwhelming political influence of conservative Christians. If there were a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and societal health, we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don't. Of the twenty-five cities with the lowest rates of violent crime, 62 percent are in "blue" states and 38 percent are in "red" states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities, 76 percent are in red states, 24 percent in blue states. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the United States are in the pious state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red. Twenty-four of the twenty-nine states with the highest rates of theft are red. Of the twenty-two states with the highest rates of murder, seventeen are red.I excerpt a few more demographics relative to religion, but not to politics, in today's post on my main blog (Link).
But I recommend the whole book, and also Harris's The End of Faith: Religion, Terrorism, and the Future of Reason, which puts the current situation of terrorism squarely within a religious perspective.
While political party affiliation... Link (Pew Research Center)
three of the five most dangerous... Link (FRI Uniform Crime Reports)
Of the twenty-two... Link (It Affects You: Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community)
The thing I notice most about the south is that few people are republicans because they care about small government and trickle down economics and other poltical issues, they are republicans because they are racists and homophobes. They will accept anything as along as gays are stopped from marrying. And these are not just the ignorant fools you exspect, but really intelligent people that feel this way. It makes me sad to see the potential being wasted. There are few admirable qualities in southern soceity or politics anymore.
You can find the nearest congregation at Link, and if there's not a nearby congregation you can join the UU Church of the Larger Fellowship, which is a distance/virtual fellowship from all over: Link.
Here's a bit about the book (from Wikipedia: Link ):
Moral Politics has two different purposes as a book. On one hand, Lakoff attempts to use the techniques of cognitive linguistics to better understand the mental frameworks that lie behind contemporary American politics. He strives to describe which mental concepts make up a "liberal", and which a "conservative"...On the other hand, in the last few chapters of the book, he also attempts to justify why "liberal" morals and politics (of which the author admits to partake) are superior to "conservative" morals and politics.
The book is an objective study of the conceptual metaphors underlying conservative and liberal politics although the closing section is devoted to the author's personal views...
Lakoff wrote Moral Politics soon after the Republican Party's "Contract With America" takeover of Congress under the Clinton presidency, and his usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" is strongly correlated with how those labels might have been used in the 1994 elections, the former having much to do with the Democratic party and the latter with the Republican party; indeed, chapter 9, "Moral Categories in Politics", presents Hillary Clinton as a prototypical "liberal" and Newt Gingrich as a prototypical "conservative." (Lakoff actually puts this somewhat differently, suggesting that Clinton is the prototypical arch-nemesis of conservatives, while Gingrich is the prototypical arch-nemesis of liberals.)
No, I don't really believe that either. But my point is that Mr. Harris reports an actual correlation, then puts a spin on it that only reflects his own prejudices.