The religion maps

[mmcirvin]

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.

Comments

[jwgh]

Oh, I see.

Suppose liberal secularists got together on Saturday or Sunday mornings to hear moving and energizing sermons on the progressive moral and even spiritual outlook; to network with like-minded friends and comrades; to recommit themselves emotionally to their cause; to experience heartfelt "conversion" or "rebirth" experiences; to sing uplifting and morally invigorating songs; to contribute money; to strengthen their sense of being part of a broader and more powerful community; to develop plans for proseletyzing others and converting them to the cause; and to confer on strategy.

Man, that would be creepy.

[jwgh]

I suppose labor unions are a traditional non-creepy example of this. (I guess some people would disagree with me about whether or not unions are creepy, though.) I recorded an IWW song just the other day!

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.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

I find the idea creepy too, but I wonder if that isn't a problem—not just with regard to religion, but a big problem for progressive politics in general.

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.

[jwgh]

The other thing I would say about this is that it seems like some (liberal secularists) use, or try to use, the web for this kind of thing -- writing 'moving and energizing sermons', networking with like-minded folks, recommitting themselves emotionally to their causes, developing plans for proseletyzing others, conferring on strategy. (And to a much lesser extent contributing money, although it tends to be to particular candidates rather than to a centralized organization. I don't know how singing songs applies on the web.) Of course this isn't restricted to progressives.

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).

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

YOU of all people don't know how singing songs applies on the web?

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

...sorry, couldn't resist; I know what you were getting at...

[jwgh]

That's OK, you managed to confuse me anyway! (Are Interrobang Cartel songs an example of an Internet-mediated singalong?)

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Sort of! Also your podcasts, though they're sort of one-way.

Secular Humanist Religion

[infrogmation.livejournal.com]

In meeting halls with stained glass windows of Bertrand Russell and Clarence Darrow.

Happy Darwin Day!

Re: Secular Humanist Religion

[jwgh]

In the room the women come and go
Talking of Clarence Darrow.