One nation under extreme dysfunction

October 1, 2005

Guest Post by Morbo

If you’re like me, a newspaper headline like “Societies worse off ‘when they have God on their side'” is bound to get your attention.

This story, from the Times of London, has been making the e-mail rounds lately. It deals with a study that appeared recently in the “Journal of Religion and Society” claiming that the more religious a society is, the more social problems it has.

The study concludes that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional.

It noted that the study’s author, social scientist Gregory Paul, “said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from ‘uniquely high’ adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.”

I have not been able to find the complete study online, but the “Journal of Religion and Society” is a real publication produced by a center of religious studies at Creighton University, a Jesuit-run school in Omaha. (Gotta love those Jesuits. Can you imagine a Protestant fundamentalist school allowing a study like this to see the light of day?)

While I love the irony of the study, I have to admit it sounds a bit like the old “post hoc ergo propter hoc” line of argument, a common logical fallacy. Just because two things occur together does not mean once caused the other.

Religious Right leaders are masters of this faulty argument. I’ve often heard them say something like, “Ever since we took prayer out of schools, the crime rate has risen.” While it may be true that the crime rate has risen since 1962, other factors are probably to blame, not the Supreme Court’s ruling in Engle v. Vitale. A good researcher knows that a relationship must be established.

Still, in this case, I think the findings are intriguing enough to warrant more study. I can see at least a casual connection between religiosity and some of the social ills underlined in the study.

For example, most European nations teach young people comprehensive sex education in the schools, and contraceptives are widely available. In the United States, sex ed must be “abstinence based” and is often anchored in a fear-based model that attempts to scare teens into not having sex by telling them things like, “If you have sex before marriage, you’ll go blind!” The teens can see right through this nonsense — after all, no one on “The O.C.” ever goes blind — and they have sex all of the time. But because they haven’t been taught much about condoms, many teens don’t bother to use them. Many have only a crude understanding of how the human reproductive system works. Not surprisingly, we have higher teen pregnancy rates, higher teen abortion rates and higher rates of VD among teens.

One could argue in this case that it’s bad social policy that is causing the problem. But if religion is the underlying motivation for the bad social policy, it must shoulder much of the blame.

I also think we can safely blame conservative forms of religion for the lousy state of our social safety net. Every major religion preaches that you must watch out for the poor. Jesus talked about it constantly, and once even told a rich young man who wished to become a disciple that he would first have to give away his worldly possessions. The Torah commands care for the poor and even suggests setting aside 10 percent of income for that purpose. One of the Five Pillars of Islam is zakah — the requirement to put aside some of your wealth for the less fortunate.

Yet despite all of this plain talk from holy books, we in America have contented ourselves with stamping “In God We Trust” on our coins, inserting “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance and tolerating massive amounts of “God talk” and prayer proclamations from our leaders. We get symbolism instead of substance.

While this goes on, 45 million Americans go without health care, and 12.7 percent of Americans live below the poverty line. A truly religious nation would not tolerate that.

In many ways, those godless heathens in Western Europe act more like Christians than most Americans.

With conceit, I contend that I am as religious as most anyone, and I also have a fairly rational and capable intellect. My conclusion is that while God gave us genatalia with which to reproduce ourselves and a brain to use the genatalia wisely, He also gave us free will with which to make our own INFORMED choices and thereby to suffer the consequences of our actions. Intentionally and knowingly keeping today’s youth ignorant of that which can harm them — in this life as well as the next — is both cruel and un-Christian in the extreme.

To ignore any one of the three — genatalia, intellect, or free will — at the expense of the other two, is to deny our basic humanity as well as any devine nature with which God created us. God does not expect blind, stupid and uninformed obedience; why should the Religious wacked-out Right?

Our God is a loving God; He is not vengeful, or hateful, or pitiless. He gives us the ability to determine our own course in our short stay on this Earth. God expects us to use our “talents,” our abilities, to further His devine plan for us, but not at the expense of sacrificing our humanity in the process. The fundamentalists that want to control our lives and our personal and private conduct are substituting their flawed, human judgment for that of the very God who created us and that the wackos allegedly profess to honor and worship.

Methinks that the likes of Falwell, Robertson, Bennett, and all the rest ought not to throw so many stones while living in their glass houses. Too bad that Jesus doesn’t send Abraham and other prophets — ala Jacob Marley’s “Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future” — to all the fundies to show them how far they have strayed from the teachings of Christ’s humility and care for his sheep. The Bible parable is clear that we have already had our “warnings”: when the rich man, suffering his torment in Hell for failing to care for the “lesser of these, my brethren,” asks Abraham to send someone to warn his still-living brothers of the “just recompense” that awaits them too, God’s reply is that the brothers “have Abraham and the prophets; them that have ears, let them hear.”

As for me, I choose to inform myself of both the secular aspects of biology as well as my responsibilities as one who falteringly attempts to follow the narrow path of a Christian; to be “in the world” while not being “of the world.” As it is, God keeps giving me many, many opportunities to gain humility; some day, I hope, I just might attain a small amount that will be like the grain of a mustard seed. Until then, I will continue to call a “spade” a “spade” with respect to the Lying.Fucking.Bastards.

  • If you want an extensive preview of this study, find a copy of Heinlein’s book Job: A Comedy of Justice.

  • The big problem with a society that is too “religious” is that religion by its very nature insists on tightly controlling both the thoughts and the actions of its members when it exists as the basis of governmental authority. Keeping in mind, of course, the vast difference between a ‘religious’ society and a truly ‘spiritual’ one, about which difference volumes can and should be written to make sure people understand it.

    The problem really arises when fallible mortals claim to be able to interpret the will and desires of the Almighty ( insert name of deity here ) and insist that anyone who does not comply with their interpretation is somehow evil, when their interpretation is really only a reflection of their own flawed character.

    If only people would stop taking their personal cultural mythology so darn seriously and just be kind to each other for a change. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

  • religion gives one an out to be nasty all week and be forgiven on Sunday only to repeat this nasty/forgiven process over and over

    No one needs to be kind or understanding others – Dog will forgive you – Ha!

  • In the United States, sex ed must be “abstinence based” and is often anchored in a fear-based model that attempts to scare teens into not having sex by telling them things like, “If you have sex before marriage, you’ll go blind!”

    I thought this might be a reasonable commentary until I read this statement. This is so blatantly false its stupidity ruins whatever point you felt you were trying to make. Which I didn’t catch because I couldn’t read any more past this comment.

  • Yeah! Everyone knows you get hair on the palms of your hands. Oh! You mean with another person, LOL.

    So, Gandolph, let me guess – you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, don’t you?

  • why do you assert the post hoc ergo propter hoc? you mentioned nothing about causality in the post, only correlation. post hoc…only applies to causal arguments.

    from the paper:
    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.

    so, morbo, you appear to be utilizing one of the right wing’s time-honored propagandist tricks, whether knowingly or not – make an assumption that is not contained within the study and then point it out as fallacious, casting doubt on the rest of it.

    what gives?

  • Our corporate, right-wing media long ago adopted the narrative meme that concern with “moral values” is a monopoly enjoyed by the religious right. We heard it repeated in the conventional wisdom analysis of the last Presidential election. As a meme, the identification of “religious” with “moral”, tends to function like an oft-repeated hypnotic suggestion, which lulls us into slumber. A few moments of critical thought about the reality of religion on the religious right, would suggest considerable decay, decadence and, perhaps, impending collapse.

    That fundamentalists rail against reality should concern us. This is willful schizophrenia. It cannot be good for society, when large numbers of individuals feel compelled to protest the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in high school biology class.

    Religion has always asked that believers accept fantastic claims on faith. By itself, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Human psychology benefits from accepting without question a variety of propositions, which would not pass muster as “objective” truth. People, who survive a terrible accident, are always told earnestly, that they are “lucky,” because they escaped so narrowly a worse outcome. As an objective assessment, it is silly, but people need to feel that they are lucky, that they are cared for by the universe, that they are safe, etc. That need is a fundamental aspect of human psychology, and any spiritual philosophy or religion must address it effectively.

    People also need a philosophical framework and social support to behave morally, which is to say, to do the “right” thing — the cooperative thing, which makes for a kinder, gentler society — rather than an individually expedient, selfish and socially destructive thing.

    Religion, functioning well in a well-functioning society, helps to do both of these things. It provides comfort and meaning, telling people that they and their lives and sufferings are important. And, it encourages socially cooperative, “moral” behavior — concern for the poor, for example, and ethical behavior in business dealings, as well as encouraging fidelity in marriage and family life.

    Religion has always been subject to corruption, decay and misuse by those in power. I would not say that religion, today, is in any worse state than in the days in which the Pope sold indulgences or the days of witchcraft trials. All to the contrary. But, something is seriously wrong with “fundamentalist” right-wing Christianity in the U.S.

    Sexual hypocrisy scandals among politicians seem to be a virtual monopoly held by Baptists, particularly Southern Baptists. Clinton, Gingrich, even that congressman from California, whose intern-mistress disappeared in the park. That’s weird.

    The BTK killer is a active Lutheran. That’s weird.

    The core authoritarianism of the anti-abortion, pro-death penalty crowd is weird. The transparent corruption of many television evangelists is weird. That the President of the United States, who appeals to the “moral values” voters also pushes his authority to torture prisoners is deeply weird.

    The demands for public peity, whether it concerns prayer in schools, an anti-flag burning amendment, or the pledge of allegiance, are strangely strident. We should take notice that the most strident demands come from people, shown to be most corrupt.

    The political energy devoted to the silliness, which is “intelligent design” is deeply weird, but may not be harmless, if the people behind it are genuinely fearful in their own personal psychology, that acceptance of modern science, entails abandonment of spiritual meaning and acceptance of a moral vacuum.

    In short, the study referenced may not be finding a spurious correlation to religion, so much as a causitive correlation to the decay of fundamentalist, anti-modern Christianity.

  • so, morbo, you appear to be utilizing one of the right wing’s time-honored propagandist tricks, whether knowingly or not – make an assumption that is not contained within the study and then point it out as fallacious, casting doubt on the rest of it.

    Now, now. There’s no need to accuse me of that. As I mentioned in the post, I had not read the study and my comments were based on a single newspaper article about it. And I merely said the study might be an example of the post hoc fallacy, not that it definitely was. If the study avoids the post hoc trap, then I am glad to hear it.

  • so, this brings up to the question:
    when someone posts the article link, and your guess turns out to be false or irrelevant, do you have a responsibility to put an addendum saying so above the fold?

    in print publishing you can’t actually put an addendum to the article there, you have to publish a retraction. the intarwebnet is instantaneous, less discrete than dead tree media. could i maybe get some thoughts on this from you, either in this forum or privately?

  • US is morally bankrupt with GWB as leader. For example, the detainee mess smears the US now and will continue indefinitely with tragic repurcussions.

    • Comments are closed.