Religious people are "better neighbors"

Is religion toxic or a tonic for our nation's civic life? The question often inspires passion, and vitriol, on both sides. Professional atheists like Christopher Hitchens argue that "religion poisons everything," while advocates for religion, like Glenn Beck, see faith in God as the antidote to all that ails America.

To understand religion's role in America today, we have spent the last five years exhaustively examining the many ways that religion affects American society — from our families to our politics to our communities. We have done so with what we believe to be the most comprehensive survey of religion in America ever done, supplemented by every other source of relevant data we could find. The result is our new book, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. Our objective is not to take sides on religion, but only to report what the data say.

The data provide fodder for both sides. On the one hand, religious Americans are somewhat less tolerant of free speech and dissent. As just one example, in our survey we asked Americans whether someone should be allowed to give a speech defending Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda. While most Americans said yes — we are indeed a tolerant people — religious Americans were slightly less likely to say so. The same pattern is true for many other measures of tolerance: While, in general, Americans are quite tolerant, religious Americans are less tolerant than their secular neighbors. Furthermore, the "tolerance edge" among secular Americans cannot be explained away by some other attribute that they share. Statistically, we have accounted for every imaginable way that religious and secular Americans differ from one another. When we do so, the story stays the same.


Go to http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm to read the whole article.

A vodoun priestess I know always says 'everybody believes in something, whether they admit it or not.'

These paragraphs from the USA Today link in the OP are intriguing:


"However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue.

Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.

As with tolerance, we wondered whether religious people's do-gooderism is owing to something else about them. Maybe it is because women are more religious than men, and women are better neighbors. Or maybe it is because religious people are older — and so on. Again, the results hold steady even when we account for these potential counter-explanations. In fact, the numbers we report above already adjust for the demographic differences between religious and secular Americans."

They state that the data seem to indicate that it's not religiosity that leads to volunteerism and civic engagement so much as it's belonging to, and participating with, a religious congregation. Even non-religious people who attend church regularly, secular spouses of believers for example, score higher in volunteerism etc.

What this may show is that it's not religion itself that leads to being better neighbors, but simply being regularly involved with a congenial group of people.

What it may show is that if secular people had similar institutions they might score better in volunteerism, etc. Our religion centered society lacks similar secular institutions where people gather and get involved.

The American Cultural Union is such an organization. Creed Before Deed. The Union exists as a collective of community activists whose mission is volunteerism in the area where each Society is located. An example would be donating food or volunteering at a soup kitchen for Thanksgiving.

Here is their website: http://www.aeu.org/

and religion conveniently provides that (among other things). Partisianship can do that also, of course. It's hard for people to come together "just because."

has nothing to do with it.

Attending a church is participating in a community. Modern life tends to isolate people rather than build any sort of community. It would be interesting to see if there is the same type of community participation among non-church organized communities. Just based on the article, I'd bet there is.

"Trust". It dealt with social capital. Doesn't have to be 100% to be useful.

Religion was the first set of laws which made for people acting peacefully toward one another.

It enabled them to live in closer proximity. Cities were borne from the religions.

I've always thought that people who are most religious, if they had no such ideas, would be the worst of humanity.