10 Most/Least Religious States in the United States

[Stevicus]

I had no idea that I've always been against education until today.
Thank you for informing me.

You notice that I said "typically," meaning it applies on average, but not to all?

 

[Revoltingest]

You notice that I said "typically," meaning it applies on average, but not to all?

I'm pretty typical.
And the capitalists I know are big on education.
Perhaps your broad brush's error is rooted in
disagreement on how to finance it, eh.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm pretty typical.
And the capitalists I know are big on education.
Perhaps your broad brush's error is rooted in
disagreement on how to finance it, eh.

Maybe they were at one time, but not much anymore. Capitalists routinely complain about the taxes needed to pay for education, as if they just don't want to pay for it. I interpret that as meaning they're against it.

One can also look at the results and how badly America is lagging behind other countries in this area.

One common complaint I see from businesses is that there aren't enough skilled applicants to take technical jobs. But whose fault is that?

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe they were at one time, but not much anymore. Capitalists routinely complain about the taxes needed to pay for education, as if they just don't want to pay for it. I interpret that as meaning they're against it.

One can also look at the results and how badly America is lagging behind other countries in this area.

One common complaint I see from businesses is that there aren't enough skilled applicants to take technical jobs. But whose fault is that?

Your interpretation doesn't match mine.
Consider....
- You might be hearing a small segment of "capitalists", & erroneously generalizing.
- Objection to taxation for education could be about taxation, not education.
- Some fields are more useful than others....surgeons vs philosophers.

Instead of telling us what our values are, why not pose questions to understand?

 

[Stevicus]

Instead of telling us what our values are, why not pose questions to understand?

I do. I also listen to capitalists when they speak and give their opinions on various proposals, including those involving education. I live in a very conservative, capitalistic state, so they're all around me. In my conversations with them and my general observations, I think I have a basic idea as to where they stand, even if it wouldn't apply to each and every capitalist out there.

But I'm not just looking at what they say, but also the results. We can look at how much we spend on education, graduation rates, higher education tuitions, test scores, and where we stand in relation to other industrialized nations. I've heard many people complain about the widespread lack of critical thinking skills, the rejection of scientific facts - and many blame the educational system.

You and I have discussed the voters and how they make foolish choices at the ballot box. Some people just think the voters are stupid, but how did they get that way? Many blame the educational system.

But okay, you asked for questions so I'll put one to you: What can be done to improve the US educational system across the board, especially in some of the poorer states in question?

 

[Revoltingest]

...you asked for questions so I'll put one to you: What can be done to improve the US educational system across the board, especially in some of the poorer states in question?

This is progress. Tis better to discuss the
issues than to criticize presumed views.

K-12 financing:
As we move more & more from a republic to more things being federalized,
it becomes practical for the fed gov to finance more of grade school education,
thereby ensuring a minimum standard. Dependence upon the states, & in
particular local property tax financing has been inadequate in some locations.

K-12 curricula:
1) Kids are woefully unprepared for life. Senior year should address practical
skills, eg, understanding a lease, handling money, legal issues.
2) Schools need to stop ignoring kids not bound for college.
Trade training should be available, with courses geared more for practical
application, eg, math, writing.

University:
No major changes here....that I can think of offhand.

 

[dianaiad]

That's not the reason why they shoudn't count. They shoudn't count because they are self serving. Charity is when you give to others not to yourself. Plus, as mentionned before, if you remove churches themselves, believer and non-believers give about as much to charities. Note that non-believers often fund religious charities like the salvation army for example just like believers fund secular charities like the Red Cross for example.

no, actually, they don't. And when they DO contribute, they are very careful, as you have just been, to differentiate between religious and non-religious charities, making certain that the ones they like are 'non-religious.'

BTW, the Red Cross, like it's comrade the Red Crescent, is very religious. Just so you know. They might not be devoted to one aspect of God, but that they are basically religious? Absolutely they are. Whether non-believers want to think so or not.

 

[epronovost]

no, actually, they don't. And when they DO contribute, they are very careful, as you have just been, to differentiate between religious and non-religious charities, making certain that the ones they like are 'non-religious.'

Being a non-believer living in aa area where 60% of population is of non-believer I think you are completely wrong and studies on charitable behavior and donation shows your opinion is at best unproven.

BTW, the Red Cross, like it's comrade the Red Crescent, is very religious. Just so you know. They might not be devoted to one aspect of God, but that they are basically religious? Absolutely they are. Whether non-believers want to think so or not.

Red Cross Fundamental Principles - Canadian Red Cross

Religion or worship of god or a higher power is not within their funsamental principles nor are they doing any religious activity.

 

[dianaiad]

This is progress. Tis better to discuss the
issues than to criticize presumed views.

K-12 financing:
As we move more & more from a republic to more things being federalized,
it becomes practical for the fed gov to finance more of grade school education,
thereby ensuring a minimum standard. Dependence upon the states, & in
particular local property tax financing has been inadequate in some locations.

K-12 curricula:
1) Kids are woefully unprepared for life. Senior year should address practical
skills, eg, understanding a lease, handling money, legal issues.
2) Schools need to stop ignoring kids not bound for college.
Trade training should be available, with courses geared more for practical
application, eg, math, writing.

University:
No major changes here....that I can think of offhand.

I can think of at least one change at the university level, and that is true freedom of speech, Right now there isn't any. If a student or teacher or guest speaker isn't liberal thinking to the max, s/he'll get censored. I KNOW this; my own recent history in academia is pretty clear. There was more than one class I would have flunked had I said wnat I truely thought. Certainly the 'disinvitation' of conservative speakers/thinkers is evidence enough to show this absolute aim at liberalism at any cost. Let's face it....that lawsuit against the university that allowed it's faculty and encouraged it's students to ruin a multigenerational bakery because it had the effrontery not to allow two black students to shoplift...as if being dark skinned gave them privileges to steal wine that lighter skinned students do not have...is pretty good evidence. The charge of 'racism' and "white supremacist' were thrown around, and blithely accepted, even when the students involved admitted their culpability and it was proven that the bakery wasn't any easier on 'white' shoplifters' than it was on black ones. Didn't matter.

And it seems that most universities lean very much left. Mine certainly did, to the point that different opinions were simply not allowed to be spoken Period. Now, I understand academia. The professors have never had to deal with the real world, and in reality, neither have their students. They deal in the world of their own making and thinking. You know, the way things SHOULD be, not the way they actually are. That's fine...but there MUST be freedom of speech. There MUST be competing ideas. That's what universities are for, aren't they? I always thought so, any way. So, when I see a school....and they mostly are like this...which supports one point of view (extreme liberalism) and censors any other point of view, it makes me realize that there really is a problem which must be fixed.

And I would feel the same way about a school which supported conservative thought and censored liberal thought. The idea is to teach the concepts and allow students to make up their own minds, not to indoctrinate them.

 

[columbus]

no, actually, they don't. And when they DO contribute, they are very careful, as you have just been, to differentiate between religious and non-religious charities, making certain that the ones they like are 'non-religious.'

Why do you believe this?

It's the opposite of what I've seen, and personally done.

In my experience, churchgoers consider their donations to their church charity. Because they get a tax deduction. But they don't give as much to real charities as non-churchgoers because they spend it on their church.
Tom

 

[Stevicus]

This is progress. Tis better to discuss the
issues than to criticize presumed views.

K-12 financing:
As we move more & more from a republic to more things being federalized,
it becomes practical for the fed gov to finance more of grade school education,
thereby ensuring a minimum standard. Dependence upon the states, & in
particular local property tax financing has been inadequate in some locations.

This sounds promising. I would even suggest that some criticisms may not be directly about the amount of money, but how they're using it. Some districts seem top-heavy in administration and there's a certain mistrust of the bureaucracy. Here, the school board is an elected body, and the elections can get pretty nasty. One of the problems they're facing is with the rise of private school alternatives, some schools are facing low enrollment.

I actually favor a more centralized system so that funding can be distributed equally.

K-12 curricula:
1) Kids are woefully unprepared for life. Senior year should address practical
skills, eg, understanding a lease, handling money, legal issues.
2) Schools need to stop ignoring kids not bound for college.
Trade training should be available, with courses geared more for practical
application, eg, math, writing.

There are some schools which seem more geared towards teaching trades.

University:
No major changes here....that I can think of offhand.

I would say the tuitions are a bit high, even at public institutions. The Arizona Constitution says that education at public institutions should be "as nearly free as possible," and calls for the legislature to make the necessary appropriations to ensure they are maintained and financed. But that's not really the case anymore.

 

[dianaiad]

Why do you believe this?

It's the opposite of what I've seen, and personally done.

In my experience, churchgoers consider their donations to their church charity. Because they get a tax deduction. But they don't give as much to real charities as non-churchgoers because they spend it on their church.
Tom

It's because non-believers simply do not think that supporting the infrastructue to a church should be considered 'charity." You kknow, pastor's salaries, mortgage payments, monies that support services, etc,, as proper non profit...even as they have no proble whatwoever with supporting the salaries and fundraising efforts of their persoanal, choices, like 'Kars for Kids" or whatever. Antything that has to do with the idea of 'God' or church services is suspect, even when the overhead for their own pet causes is just fine.

Then they do not consider that MOST of the money they contribute goes directly to the 'end user,' such *** homeless people, or thrift store customers, or whatever this relibion actually supports.

My own faith is constantly criticised because we pay tithing...which is a lot more than any non religious person forks over, and mor than a lot of religious people do. We are criticzed because none of it goes to charity. Well, it doesn't. Not a single penny. It all goes to infrastructure; we own all our own buildings, for instance, pay our oen bills, pay for the overhead for our charitable stuff...and we KNOW that already. BECAUSE we tithe, everything donated to our charitable efforts goes straight to the 'end user.' By the way, BYU, a top tier universary with a law school (among others ) degree as respected as one from Harvard or Yale, is a whale of a lot cheaper to get than one from Yale or Harvard....aa in something like a hindred times less expansive, for non-members. We know that, too. We own businesses. We have huge investmetnt funds. We own ranched and farms and storehouses...all of which goes to the 'end usr.' Every penny. Do you think that people who pay tithing are NOT 'contributing to charity?" I think they are, just as much as the guy who contributes enough to pay the salary of the game warden in Tanzania is. The only difference I see is that n on-believers don't think that God should enter into the equation, period, They are constantly threatening IRS tax exemptions simply because the target is religious, even though the results are precisely the same; pay for infrastructure so that those folks can deal with the charities.

A little honesty would go a long way here, y'know? Now me, I do support, with real cash, a local rescue effort. I don't care what the folks involve believe...but some other contributors care a lot. That is, if God is involved even a little bit, they won't be. It's prejudice. It's stupid, and it's counter productive. I don't care didley whether the Presbyterians are running the local homeless shelter. Someone is, and I'll hand over money to help them do it, even if some of that money pays the pastor's salary and I don't agree with their beliefs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

no, actually, they don't. And when they DO contribute, they are very careful, as you have just been, to differentiate between religious and non-religious charities, making certain that the ones they like are 'non-religious.'

It's been found, time and time again, while the religious tend to give more, they tend to give to their own church. Thats supporting their on community, not so much charity (where people give knowing it doesn't come back to them).

It's because non-believers simply do not think that supporting the infrastructue to a church should be considered 'charity."

Under any other circumstances its called business expenses and not considered charity. It's the cost of doing business.
You arent donating money to charity causes, you are paying your church's bills.

 

[dianaiad]

It's been found, time and time again, while the religious tend to give more, they tend to give to their own church. Thats supporting their on community, not so much charity (where people give knowing it doesn't come back to them).

Under any other circumstances its called business expenses and not considered charity. It's the cost of doing business.
You arent donating money to charity causes, you are paying your church's bills.

and for any other nonprofit, it would be considered 'charity.' the contributions to the local rescue center are all considered charitible even though they ALL go to supporting the infrastructure and very little goes to actually rescuing the animals. It's only when the 'infrastructure' is religious that the non believer objects.

Shoot, nobody argues with contributing to the local stamp club, even when the money goes to buying tickets to the regional stamp collectors' group for the organizer. No problem; it's non-profit and non religious, so it's fine

Never mind that the money going to churches also pays for infrastructure AND most of it goes to supporting missions (to find water for impoverished villages) and the local homeless shelters. It goes first through a religous filter, so it doesn't count.

My own faith system..well we are upfront about this. We pay tithing, and not one penny of it goes to charity. It all goes to infrastructure, and WE KNOW THAT. It's the point. Church welfare is handled differently, and nobody can tell us that we aren't good at it, Because we are very good at welfare. Very good. However, the money that goes there, even though not one penny goes to infrastructure, is criticised simply because a religion does it.

That's what I am tired of. I honestly dont see the difference between supporting the infrastructure of some museum (100%) is somehow more charitible than giving money to one's church (probably 60% infrastucture and 40% charity) is somehow 'more' charitable because the museum is not religious.

....and when a religious organization is very upfront about this....'this' money goes to infrastructure and education only, but 'that" money is only for charity, I honestly don't see a problem. Non-profit is non-profit. It all "counts."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Never mind that the money going to churches also pays for infrastructure AND most of it goes to supporting missions (to find water for impoverished villages) and the local homeless shelters. It goes first through a religous filter, so it doesn't count.

Then make them prove it. From what I've seen, many of them spend tons more on gaudy churches and comfortable offices. It shouldn't be an issue then if religion loses it's non profit status (because it is severely abused) and has to demonstrate that the money is factually going to charity, and not being kept in their own community beyond what is necessary.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Non-profit is non-profit. It all "counts."

I have worked for a non-profit. It's not black and white like that. It all counts, but it's not all going to charity, and there is a good deal of waste, excess, and negligence where needed.

 

[Valjean]

no, actually, they don't. And when they DO contribute, they are very careful, as you have just been, to differentiate between religious and non-religious charities, making certain that the ones they like are 'non-religious.'

The religious often donate generously to their churches or church affiliated businesses. Some tithe.
In the old days the religious community was the only social co-operative available. Government was not particularly concerned with individual prosperity or security. People supported the church as a socialist, community service organization. Apart from that, they depended on God's grace and hoped for the best.
That tendency continues, but it's fractionated and tribal. The Catholics have their organizations, the Mormons theirs, and the Muslims theirs.

We non-believers see the value of co-operation as well, but we're more cosmopolitan. We realize we're on our own, and that no-one has our back. To that end, we're more OK with taxes administered by a non-tribal, community wide co-operative, ie: government -- of, by, and for, The People.

BTW, the Red Cross, like it's comrade the Red Crescent, is very religious. Just so you know. They might not be devoted to one aspect of God, but that they are basically religious? Absolutely they are. Whether non-believers want to think so or not.

Your definition of religious must be very broad. How do you see the Red Cross as religious?

 

[Valjean]

I can think of at least one change at the university level, and that is true freedom of speech, Right now there isn't any. If a student or teacher or guest speaker isn't liberal thinking to the max, s/he'll get censored. I KNOW this; my own recent history in academia is pretty clear. There was more than one class I would have flunked had I said wnat I truely thought. Certainly the 'disinvitation' of conservative speakers/thinkers is evidence enough to show this absolute aim at liberalism at any cost. Let's face it....that lawsuit against the university that allowed it's faculty and encouraged it's students to ruin a multigenerational bakery because it had the effrontery not to allow two black students to shoplift...as if being dark skinned gave them privileges to steal wine that lighter skinned students do not have...is pretty good evidence. The charge of 'racism' and "white supremacist' were thrown around, and blithely accepted, even when the students involved admitted their culpability and it was proven that the bakery wasn't any easier on 'white' shoplifters' than it was on black ones. Didn't matter.

And it seems that most universities lean very much left. Mine certainly did, to the point that different opinions were simply not allowed to be spoken Period. Now, I understand academia. The professors have never had to deal with the real world, and in reality, neither have their students. They deal in the world of their own making and thinking. You know, the way things SHOULD be, not the way they actually are. That's fine...but there MUST be freedom of speech. There MUST be competing ideas. That's what universities are for, aren't they? I always thought so, any way. So, when I see a school....and they mostly are like this...which supports one point of view (extreme liberalism) and censors any other point of view, it makes me realize that there really is a problem which must be fixed.

And I would feel the same way about a school which supported conservative thought and censored liberal thought. The idea is to teach the concepts and allow students to make up their own minds, not to indoctrinate them.

But this 'liberal bias' is supported by facts. The 'conservative' position is supported by doctrine.
Academics tend to be fact motivated, and teach what's indicated by the preponderance of evidence. They're suspicious of untested "facts."

These facts tend to support a liberal viewpoint. That, more than politics, is probably why your opinions were unwelcome.

 

[dianaiad]

But this 'liberal bias' is supported by facts. The 'conservative' position is supported by doctrine.
Academics tend to be fact motivated, and teach what's indicated by the preponderance of evidence. They're suspicious of untested "facts."

These facts tend to support a liberal viewpoint. That, more than politics, is probably why your opinions were unwelcome.

That is your opinion. I disagree, and so do many others. You are here supporting, not freedom of thought, but the idea that liberal thinking is the correct way to think, so conservative thinking should be censored. In other words, you are defending the position of a one-sided academe, and supporting the idea that any other ideology should be suppressed because you are politically correct and therefore it's perfectly fine to suppress all other points of view.

And you don't see any problem with that at all, do you?

 

[Valjean]

That is your opinion. I disagree, and so do many others. You are here supporting, not freedom of thought, but the idea that liberal thinking is the correct way to think, so conservative thinking should be censored. In other words, you are defending the position of a one-sided academe, and supporting the idea that any other ideology should be suppressed because you are politically correct and therefore it's perfectly fine to suppress all other points of view.

And you don't see any problem with that at all, do you?

But liberal thinking is not a product of 'correctness', it's a product of critical analysis of facts. Academics will support any position -- left or right -- that is congruent with the facts. If academe is one-sided, it's not because of any right-wing conspiracy.

Academe should -- and usually does -- welcome challenge. Alternative viewpoints = progress. But alternatives will be challenged, and tested. If they don't fit the facts they'll quite rightly be dismissed.