![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The religion maps
Here is a set of maps of religious affiliation in the United States by county. (Michael Bacon says that they're "all over the blogosphere", but I guess I'm not as much on the ball as he is, since I just saw them now.)
Anyway, the maps are not so surprising except for the first one, which is extremely surprising if you imagine that American organized religiosity falls along red state/blue state lines, because it doesn't. There's basically a belt of heavy religious affiliation running north-south through the middle of the country from North Dakota to Texas, and a big unsurprising splotch of Mormons in Utah and eastern Idaho (though the rest of the Great Basin is pretty secular); but mildly liberal Minnesota and swing-state Missouri are about as religious as heavily Republican Nebraska, and Massachusetts far more so than Pat Robertson's stomping grounds in Tidewater Virginia! What's going on? Where did the Southeastern Bible Belt go?
I think Bacon's got it basically right: it's all about the dominance of different churches. In the Southeast, the Southern Baptists overwhelmingly dominate religious discourse and consequently are very powerful in spite of the overall moderate degree of religious practice. In most of the rest of the country, Catholics have a plurality, though in most places that's a mild illusion: Protestants are probably the majority, but are fragmented into different denominations. In the Northeast, the Catholics have a particularly strong presence (and generally have values that don't comfortably fall into American liberal/conservative categories), but there's a lot of other stuff going on too; around Boston there's a lot of activity in the extremely liberal UU and UCC churches, for instance.
I also think it's interesting that that actual Bible Belt running north/south through the middle is not made up of any one particular church; it's Lutherans up north, Southern Baptists in Oklahoma and Texas, and Catholics nearer the Mexican border.
Anyway, the maps are not so surprising except for the first one, which is extremely surprising if you imagine that American organized religiosity falls along red state/blue state lines, because it doesn't. There's basically a belt of heavy religious affiliation running north-south through the middle of the country from North Dakota to Texas, and a big unsurprising splotch of Mormons in Utah and eastern Idaho (though the rest of the Great Basin is pretty secular); but mildly liberal Minnesota and swing-state Missouri are about as religious as heavily Republican Nebraska, and Massachusetts far more so than Pat Robertson's stomping grounds in Tidewater Virginia! What's going on? Where did the Southeastern Bible Belt go?
I think Bacon's got it basically right: it's all about the dominance of different churches. In the Southeast, the Southern Baptists overwhelmingly dominate religious discourse and consequently are very powerful in spite of the overall moderate degree of religious practice. In most of the rest of the country, Catholics have a plurality, though in most places that's a mild illusion: Protestants are probably the majority, but are fragmented into different denominations. In the Northeast, the Catholics have a particularly strong presence (and generally have values that don't comfortably fall into American liberal/conservative categories), but there's a lot of other stuff going on too; around Boston there's a lot of activity in the extremely liberal UU and UCC churches, for instance.
I also think it's interesting that that actual Bible Belt running north/south through the middle is not made up of any one particular church; it's Lutherans up north, Southern Baptists in Oklahoma and Texas, and Catholics nearer the Mexican border.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm not sure whether or not Robert Bly's 'expressive men's movement' has a religious component or not, and am also not sure how creepy it is. The Landmark foundation would be a creepy example of a secular group that does this kind of revival stuff.
no subject
By and large, American liberals and progressives just aren't joiners any more; we find big pep rallies and collective action suspect. When we do get involved in activism, there's a sense that it's an alliance of convenience on a specific issue; we want that freedom to back out and not be compelled to assent to everything the organization does and says.
But collective action in alliances is traditionally how you gather and wield power. And the conservative movement certainly knows a lot about how to keep people in if they don't necessarily sign onto everything the larger organization believes (that may be disintegrating now, but it'll take a long time). On the left, the liberal churches are the only organizations that are really good at this.
I'm not sure how to get around this. I recall Mark Schmitt wrestling with it some time ago, talking about how the decline of labor-union power was related to this decline of what he called membership-based organizations in favor of what he called transaction-based ones. Maybe it's possible to build transaction-based alliances that are effective, but so far the big problem seems to be that they fall apart once the cause of the moment passes.
no subject
I think this will probably become more common, although I would hesistate to predict how effective or significant it will ever be in the larger political or social scene.
A lot of the stuff that gets written is distorted or kind of dumb, but I think that that is probably inevitable for this sort of thing (regardless of whether it is online or not).
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Secular Humanist Religion
Happy Darwin Day!
Re: Secular Humanist Religion
Talking of Clarence Darrow.
no subject
I'm going to say a massive demographic shift that began taking place in the past 15 or so years, first noticed by meself during the first(2nd?) Bush election. I remember being gobsmacked when I saw the red/blue political map for the first time and I wondered what happened too.
When I'd lived in Oregon and Washington they were firmly Republic and now, that I5 corridor is now shown as Democratic Blue. I'm theorizing it's from the massive migration of ex-Californians who are usually Democrats.
BUT I HAVE NO PROOF! (other than the fact that I myself was one of those migrating Californicans.)
That reminds me: Upon first arriving in Idaho in 1985 I was greeted by many signs and bumper stickers that said:
"Welcome to Idaho, now go home" and " Don't Californicate Idaho".
no subject
no subject
I don't know how much that's the case in other professions, but I wouldn't be surprised if those which rely on a population to serve in an intellectual capacity (teachers and librarians, for example) are expanding in such a way as to draw workers from outside the region. It'll be interesting to see what effect this has.
no subject
no subject
And, of course, a lot of American Catholics are somewhere to the left of the church hierarchy on the sex-and-culture issues too. (But on the other hand, there are those conservative guys like Bork, Bennett, Brownback and Santorum who seem to be somewhere to the right of Opus Dei. Some of them are recent converts to Catholicism from various hardcore Protestant churches; it's an interesting and strange trend.)
Also, the variants practiced in Louisiana, in the Southwest, and in the Northeast may be somewhat different because of the different ethnic groups they're associated with.
no subject
I know plenty of conservative Catholics who are staunchly Republican and thank God for Bush. And I know plenty of liberal Catholics who are staunch Democrats and God damn Bush.
There's a range, and I've taken to thinking in terms of "Roman Catholics" and "American Catholics" (aka Catholics with Condoms.)
no subject
Cat'lick
The GOP has done a good job of making abortion a wedge issue with Catholics who otherwise agree more with the Democrats on most issues.
Re: Cat'lick
I'd dearly love to know myself. Maybe it's just me but lately I've been fascinated not by the shifts themselves, but rather how rapidly they are occurring. Right now as we speak Idaho has gone under an accelerated shift with a massive influx of relocation and building taking place which began almost as soon as I left just 2.5 years ago.
What's different this time around is that it's not just Californians, these are people coming in from _everywhere_and I wonder how fast the metro Boise area political maps will turn blue, (if they turn that is.) Should be interesting to see what happens as Idaho has always been a die hard red state.
Re: Cat'lick
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
CLAYTON CRAMER
Re: Cat'lick
no subject
I must say these numbers do seem extraordinarily high even accounting for what I as a foreigner would interpret as the distinct American religiousity so I wonder what they count as "adherents".* More than 75% of the population in some zones which must include sick, old, very young, people away from home, and just non-believers. More than 50% in what must be major cities.
As a Scando-atheist I also see that my completely prejudiced like of the Pacific Northwest is strengthened by the light color of that area... ,-)
*I'll give a local example of how weird numbers can be. Sweden is often in stats reported as being what, 80-90% Lutheran faith. That's a joke, because it is based upon how many people are members of the church, something you basically was by birth not long ago. It certainly does not mean 90% of Swedes 1) go to church or 2) believe in the Lutheran faith. Lots of people not believing in Lutheran Christianity has simply not bothered to leave or they like the church in their village and some of the stuff the church does, or they want to be able to marry for free. But they are not Lutherans or in many cases even believers in any sort of Christianity. Actual church-going rates are much lower, and even more so if you discount people who go to church by tradition twice a year at Christmas and Easter.
no subject
Countries with some sort of established church, or a church that is in some sense the default, get a lot of the phenomenon you describe in which a lot of people are sort of nominal members but never darken the church door. Here, I mostly hear it with secular Catholics and Jews, who tend to regard their religion as akin to or part of an ethnic category: something you are rather than something you believe. These people probably get counted as Catholics and Jews in statistics, because they were born that way, but they're not particularly religious.
no subject
no subject
On the other hand, I guess religious concepts in a way stick and shape society and citizens regardless of their faith. I'm a fourth-generation atheist but I suspect I do have some Lutheran concepts shaping me and guiding me. Atheist Protestant?
no subject
Though I was basically raised nonreligious (my parents sent me to Sunday school once or twice when I was a wee tot, I asked a lot of embarrassing questions, and they were pretty much lapsed anyway so they decided it was a bad idea), I figure the Yankee Baptist concepts of Soul Freedom and the Priesthood of Every Believer are ingrained somewhere deep in my brain firmware. You can try to figure out on your own whether that is inherently paradoxical or not.
no subject
You wouldn't be the first, considering how many people of Scandinavian descent we have around here. :)
I work for a Lutheran educational institution in the region, and a highly liberal one. It's definitely a religious school, but does not require students or most employees to be Lutheran or even Christian (there are some obvious exceptions, such as the institutional pastor).
Chas Clifton's comment is interesting, but I think the omission he mentions may be explained by "the distribution of the larger and more regionally concentrated church bodies" characteristic of the source information. My own religion is too small, too weird, and too fragmented to be included, which is fine with me.
no subject
And this morning, sitting waiting on my computer, here it is! (NC does appear a little more Methodist than VA by land area).
Tonight when I go to sleep I'm going to hope for world peace.
no subject
no subject
I knew that the Methodists have a fairly strong presence in PA, since when my grandparents moved there from Iowa, they converted from American Baptist to Methodist on the grounds that there was an easily accessible church. I guess doctrinal issues weren't paramount.
no subject