Is Religion Making Things Worse?
The chart below is an informational graph that organizes the “religiousness” of each state in America. (This was determined in a 350,000 Gallup Poll Daily poll as a percentage of those who answered “yes” to the question, “Is religion an important part of your daily life?” You can read more about it HERE.) Basically this graph suggests that the more religious, the state in turn holds a lower IQ; higher poverty, murder, crime, and divorce rates; higher conservative percentage (which isn’t a surprise); and is in generally worse health as opposed to states who are less religious. (The category of “Generosity” was kind of all over the board) This would be a strong case for those who believe that the world, or at least America, would be better without religion.
photo by Jez Page
Click for a larger image
One thing that this tells me is that the job of the church is not done yet. The work in the life and heart of the Christian has yet to be perfected. We know this. We understand that any kind of change has to start with one person, and the only person you can change is yourself. But let me ask you this, Do you consider your church and/or Christian life a work in progress? Or is it just work? We have a lot to do for both others and ourselves. We know the need. Are we stepping up to meet that need?
So what do you think? Would this be a failure on those who identify with the church, but don’t live out its pure practices and principles? Are the higher murder, theft, and divorce rates a sign of the bad evangelism of the church to its community? Does this stem from an improper balance of religion and a “love God, love others” relationships in Christians’ lives? An odd coincidence? All of the above? Sound off in the comments!
Note: I understand that “religion” could mean more than just Christianity, but being that this is was a poll on America, the majority would be that of Christianity. (Over 78% Christian, 16% Unaffiliated, 1.7% Jewish, 0.7% Buddhist, 0.6% Muslim, 0.4% Hinu, and etc.)
via Digg
Related posts:
I'm glad you posted this. I stumbled across this chart and was gonna do something with it as well. I think I'll digress on that; however, I don't even know where to start with answering some of this stuff.
First off, I will say I'd rather see the chart in black and white. The colors make it too easy to generalize by simply looking at the graph. Green = good, red = bad. That's just how it works (at least here in America), so that's what we think when we see it.
Secondly, on some level I do think religion screws things up. I take that back. It's not religion, it's people. People use their religion to screw things up. That's why we've got Christians bombing abortion clinics, going on their own personal crusade to rid the world of "bad people," why we've had suicide bombers (not typically Christians, but still), and why the Crusades were fought. It's why college football games bring people that condemn people to hell for drinking, and why the news has such a field day with providing coverage on religious events.
Finally, the intellectual aspect of it is something I struggle with especially coming from a heavily science-based education (and because I tend to lean in that direction as it is). I've heard some people say that it takes more faith to believe that all of universe has just kind of happened this way versus being created intentionally. I dunno if I fully agree with that. Of course, on the flipside, faith asks people to believe in something they cannot see and cannot audibly hear. That can be a huge thing that shouldn't be underestimated. I can see why people would argue that it's more ignorant to believe in God than to put faith in science, but science has been wrong and is subject to change. We've messed up who God is really is so much that I get why people wouldn't wanna follow who he alledgly is, either.
And just in case I came across on some sorta vague way, I absolutely believe that Jesus is who He said He was and I believe that things were designed in some way. To be brutally honest, there are certain things that I'm not totally sold on (such as the age of the earth and things like that), but they aren't deal breakers for me.
Okay, I've ranted too long.
My recent post Taking Responsibility For Your Life – Embracing Your Response Ability
Definitely! I noticed that same about the colors too. The one thing that I kept thinking about when writing this was when Christ was on earth, who is unsportsmanlike rivals were: The religious.
You're absolutely right that people pollute religion. It's unfortunate that they represent Christianity. Also makes me think of what kind of representation that I give Christianity as well.
Please remember that Christianity covers a broad spectrum: from Catholic to Protestant; from Baptist to Church of Christ; from Four Square to Mormon. Just because they claim to be Christian does not make them one. I have knocked on nearly every door in four towns and almost every person I was able to talk to stated they were a Christian, but did not see the need to go to Church or read the Bible.
The question is somewhat vague: "Is religion an important part of your daily life?" What does that mean? To be honest, when you listen to people at the store you would think most everyone IS religious from the number of times I hear "Oh, God" or "God _ _ _ _." Obviously, I am being facetious there, but what this country needs is less "religious" people and more "obedient to Christ" people.
Absolutely. "Christian", though very defining, can also be very fluid at the same time.
"what this country needs is less "religious" people and more "obedient to Christ" people." – I completely agree.
I think suspect that a part of the problem may be institutional.
If you look at most church financial records, I've read that the average church gives 15% of it's tithes and offerings to the poor and social programs. When the church #'s are dropping, that 15% gets lower. Conservatives and religious persons (myself included) expect the church to work for the good of a community, and so religious-conservatives oppose government social programs. This can create an environment where the church, weighed down by its own budgetary needs, is not and cannot do its expected part in the community.
For some reason, I don't think most American's have understood the social failure of the church in comparison to their own expectations. I have a few friends who have been hurt by the lack of support by their church when they have fallen ill etc… and these are people consistently serving from Sunday to Sunday.
My recent post Top 20 Album Covers of 2009
And what was the support that your friends were expecting?
What is the correct role for the church in society? And what is the Biblically correct role for the church in society?
Sadly, what I have seen in a couple of churches is that there may be many members, but few are active in the "programs." This can cause problems in reaching out to those in need, but what do you see as the first need to be met by people, aCoJ?
Well, the sharing of resources for one. Please refer to the link below for reference for what I'm about to say.
http://www.relationaltithe.com/pdffiles/Embezzlem...
If a person serving within the church becomes ill (ie loss of job due to backpain) and the church doesn't contact them after a couple of weeks or offer some sort of support for their situation (regardless of family support), then I would say there is a problem. Granted, many small community churches would pull together some sort of system for cooking meals, but I think this is a small indicator of the bigger picture.
I don't think christians want the government running shelters and soup-kitchens, or offering financial aid to these persons. This is viewed as the church's job. But when the church can't even take care of their own, don't even have adequate internal relationships to address specific problems, how is the church going to address issues of civic importance?
I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I'll elaborate more if you like.
My recent post Top 20 Album Covers of 2009
I am sorry, aCoJ, I did not phrase my last question correctly. What do you see as the first need that the church should meet for people?
I agree that churches should try to offer support — be it financial, food, shelter and there many churches around here that do offer that. We are to care for each other and bear each others burdens, not just paying lip service, as James wrote:
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
(James 2:15-16)
However, these churches do not provide the most important thing to those in need. And that should be the main focus of any food, supplies, monetary outreach — giving out the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And I see that I answered my opening question. Churches need to focus on the Gospel first, then the spiritual feeding of the flock and when those two needs are met — the food, supplies, monetary, support outreach will occur. Read all of James chapter 2.
I think would disagree with you in approach, but agree in spirit. It is my understanding that unconventional love displayed through the meeting of needs like food, water, supplies, monetary outreach – is the gospel. Isn't that the good news? That Christ was killed but rose again to continue his mission of peace and reconcilliation? To care for the poor and the least-of-these? I see the church partnering with God to create relationships with the poor in our cities with only their good in mind, regardless of whether they pray a prayer or even have a conversation about faith. The good news is that God has empowered good neighbors. If we don't embody it, who will want to join it?
My recent post Top 20 Album Covers of 2009
aCoJ, The Gospel of Jesus Christ is spelled out by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: (1Co 15:1-4)
That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Now if a person is a believer, they will show their faith by caring for those in need — I hope you read James chapter 2 as I encouraged you to do. I would urge you to read the 4 Gospel accounts of Jesus Christ and you will see why He came to die on the cross, was buried and rose again three days later.
aCoJ, you stated: That Christ was killed but rose again to continue his mission of peace and reconcilliation? To care for the poor and the least-of-these?
Jesus Christ's main mission during His earthly ministry was to glorify God. Alongside that, He came to preach the Kingdom of Heaven and reached out to the Jews for salvation — in other words. how they could be reconciled with God. This same message went out to the Gentiles as well. Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no man cometh unto the Father but by Jesus Christ (see John 14:6). In Luke19:10, Jesus Christ stated: For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
Matthew records about the time the Pharisees saw Jesus sitting and eating with tax collectors and (in the Pharisee's eyes) other lowlifes.
And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Mat 9:11-13)
If believers only care for the physical needs of those in need, and do nothing for their spiritual need, then they are not truly helping that person. How is that done? Of course, you would still feed them whether they have accepted Jesus Christ or not, but the Gospel still needs to be given. If you feed a person today, you have met a temporary need. If you feed that person AND give them the Gospel, then you have at least planted a seed for their eternal need. We can only have their good in mind when they are fed and given the Gospel. If they choose to reject the Gospel, then continue to feed them, continuing to show God's love to them.
As for Jesus Christ's mission of peace and reconciliation, please carefully read Matthew 13:10-17 and let me know what you discover.
My recent post Psalm 116 part two
I am curious how the others here would respond…
My recent post Psalm 116 part two
As a sociology student, I think their research is badly flawed. Firstly the question is way too vague. People could mean hundreds of different things when it comes to what religion is. That lumps in everything from Christianity to Islam to New Age to Flying spaghetti monsterism. Then there is the hugely different ideas about what it means to consider religion important- people could be thinking anything from it being important to occasionally offer a prayer and attend church at christmas right through to people for whom it consumes their every thought and action. They need to define their terms a lot better if they want to have a chance at coming up with anything meaningful.
The second big problem is that it is likely too simple to make religion the variable that makes the difference. The fact that there is a correlation does not always mean that one causes the other. Issues like the ones they mention are incredibly complex and often had many contributing factors such as economics, other demographic factors and prevalent non religious ideologies (materialism ect.). This data can't tell us if it is religion making people exhibit negative characteristics- it could well be the non-religious in each state that are contributing the most to negative rankings.
Also, IQ is a questionable criteria to use, especially since the results fall in a quite narrow band. IQ tests tend to measure how people process particular types of abstract logic. They don't show us how much a person knows about the world or how well they bother to think through their decisions in real life.
My recent post Notes on reviews, endorsements and advertising