Want to increase your chance of divorce? just be a religiously conservative Protestant

[Alceste]

A blessing until you get thrown into Hell, perhaps...ahem...

Actually, I find your hypothesis pretty believable, if unproven. And your point about socio-economic considerations, and marriage age is well made. It would be interesting (but perhaps too much to ask) for a similar 'heat map' on both socio-economic status, and average age of marriage to be overlain on the divorce and religiosity maps I suppose. I'm certainly too lazy to do it.

(Does anyone else just like the sound of 'religiosity'? Not the meaning so much...just sounds kinda....ummm....why are you all looking at me??)

There are a lot of correlations to consider. Red states are kind of a fascinating phenomenon. Are people poorer because they keep voting for republicans, or do they vote Republican because they are poor? Where does religiosity enter into it? What's the correlation between being religious and voting Republican and let educational attainment? What's the correlation between divorce and a lack of education?

There's just so much going on in those ultra-religious pockets of the US. It would take a lifetime to work it all out.

 

[Debater Slayer]

On RF, I think we atheists are treated quite well compared to Xian & Muslim fundies.
But no matter what the general climate towards a particular group, we ought not
over-generalize & demonize people. Tis better to object to particular beliefs & acts.

I don't know whether the same holds true where you are, but where I'm from, the vast majority of fundamentalists don't just object to things that go against their beliefs; they seek to enforce their taboos on other people through voting, supporting certain organizations and politic parties, and trying to spread their views.

I'm not in favor of overgeneralizatons either, but sometimes negative things are in fact done and/or supported by the majority of certain groups. (Again, though, note that I'm talking about what I've observed regarding fundamentalists where I'm from; I'm not sure whether the same things apply to those in the U.S.)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You are an American - an American communist who hates freedom!!!

Well, I do support communism. Damn, you have me all figured out.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know whether the same holds true where you are, but where I'm from, the vast majority of fundamentalists don't just object to things that go against their beliefs; they seek to enforce their taboos on other people through voting, supporting certain organizations and politic parties, and trying to spread their views.

Even then, it could be that there's a significant number of fundies who are more peaceful
& tolerant, but they escape notice because of the more shrill & intolerant ones.
To use the word "some" before naming a group guilty of sins is a good default.

I'm not in favor of overgeneralizatons either, but sometimes negative things are in fact done and/or supported by the majority of certain groups. (Again, though, note that I'm talking about what I've observed regarding fundamentalists where I'm from; I'm not sure whether the same things apply to those in the U.S.)

Things do vary considerably from area to area, but here on RF I find that fundies are diverse,
& that some treat us quite well. I venture to say that fundies treat me better in matters of
religious & scientific disagreement than fellow atheists do regarding economic & political
disagreements. (There are hot heads in both groups, eh.)

 

[4consideration]

I've been thinking about this, and I now believe you're right, 4consideration. Fundamentalists are probably too diverse a group to be properly characterized by one brush stroke, as I was doing. Thanks for bothering to correct my sloppy reasoning. I'll try to bear that in mind in the future and be more cautious about how I phrase things.

I've been thinking about this, too. I appreciate your response and willingness to clear the air. There are some statement that you made that I may or may not come back to, but first things first. I am presenting what I really think, and what I was really talking about first, rather than address the additional unwarranted insinuations made about me -- so that people can draw their own conclusions.

Much of my response to you was about your response to me. It was not about the actual point that I was making in my first post that you responded to. I'll explain what that was.

My post was about the conclusion presented by the author of the article:

"Divorce is higher among religiously conservative Protestants – and even drives up divorce rates for other people living around them, a new study finds." (my highlighting)

and, it was about this:

...What gets me is the next-to-last last statement.

"people living in areas with lots of conservative Protestants were at higher risk of getting divorced, even if they weren’t conservative Protestants themselves."

​

Just living by these folk has a negative impact!!! Now that's scary.

(my highlighting)

More religiously conservative Protestants? More divorce, study finds - latimes.com

The way I see it, there are some problems. (The first problem is there is no link to the actual study in the article.) Another problem I see is that the author of the article seems to be asserting a causal link on her own between the divorce of Protestants as having a direct and negative impact of causing, or increasing the number of divorces in non-Protestant couples.

(I emailed Dr. Glass directly today to ask if the article is a valid representation of her research and the conclusions that may, or may not be, justified from that research. I don't know if I'll get a response. I'll let you know if I do.)

The quotes the author provided from Dr. Glass are in no way conclusive as to having identified how (or that) there is a direct causal link between the divorces of Protestants being a driving force in an increased rate of divorces of others in the community. The quotes provided are purely speculative.

(my highlighting)

"County by county, for every 1% increase in the share of conservative Protestants compared with mainline Protestants, the divorce rate increased 0.02%, the study found. Glass argued that community institutions in such areas might encourage early marriage, affecting divorce rates for everyone who lives there.

“Pharmacies might not give out emergency contraception. Schools might only teach abstinence education,” Glass added. On top of that, “if you live in a marriage market where everybody marries young, you postpone marriage at your own risk. The best catches … are going to go first.”

More religiously conservative Protestants? More divorce, study finds - latimes.com

The way I read that, that's all speculation. I assert that if there were definitive findings that Protestant divorces drove up divorce rates for non-Protestant couples, there would be some certainty as to real, actual and in some way observed causes. Otherwise, all we have is something like, well yeah, it impacts them...it drives those rates up...but we're guessing about how.

I'm inclined to think the article presents a misrepresentation of Dr. Glass's actual presentation of her research in order to put speculative quotes regarding possible contributing factors to some increase of rate into the same position as evidence of definitive findings.

I still think the conversation that it is scary and that there is a negative impact one might expect on one's own marriage due to the presence, or divorces, of conservative Protestants to be a load of crap that justifies bashing and pointing to a group as some sort of enemy. And, BTW, I defend plenty of groups that I am not a part of when I see this sort of thing if I think I can identity a valid point of contention.

The way I see, it's one thing to joke around a bit -- but when people start coming out with real arguments that it may in some way be dangerous to live around a group of people that poses no real threat to them, I think it's time to speak. So I did. It was much shorter the first go-round.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Even then, it could be that there's a significant number of fundies who are more peaceful
& tolerant, but they escape notice because of the more shrill & intolerant ones.
To use the word "some" before naming a group guilty of sins is a good default.

Fair point. Unfortunately, the loudest and most intolerant voices usually seem to attract a lot of attention, be it atheist or fundamentalist ones. It's especially problematic when a group has many of those loud voices among its ranks.

Things do vary considerably from area to area, but here on RF I find that fundies are diverse,
& that some treat us quite well. I venture to say that fundies treat me better in matters of
religious & scientific disagreement than fellow atheists do regarding economic & political
disagreements. (There are hot heads in both groups, eh.)

RF has some cool self-identified fundies. I'm even friends with a couple of them (the horror!).

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair point. Unfortunately, the loudest and most intolerant voices usually seem to attract a lot of attention, be it atheist or fundamentalist ones. It's especially problematic when a group has many of those loud voices among its ranks.

Tis best to decry those individuals. As an example, priests aren't all pedophiles, but
some priests are, & they are lightning rods for attention, so I must be careful not to
paint all of them with a broad brush.

RF has some cool self-identified fundies. I'm even friends with a couple of them (the horror!).

I know! They put the "fun" in "fundie".
You understand that disagreement needn't mean dislike.

 

[4consideration]

And don't worry , I am certain that nothing I have ever said on this board has ever stopped even one single fundamentalist from dumping on a gay couple. So, you can call it bashing all you want, but the fundamentalist agenda is in no danger from me.

edit: This is a complete revision of this post, because the first one was a snarky and poor attempt at humor, in order to make a "WTF" point. I did not feel right about having made that post.

My feelings felt hurt when I read this, and I became very angry because I read it as in insinuation that I would worry about something you said stopping someone else from mistreating or imposing on a gay couple. The implication I read here was that you see me as supporting the mistreatment of gay people, which I really have no idea what you could possibly have observed in anything I have said on this forum to justify such a thing. Additionally, with my own person political philosophy being constitutionally based, with heavy focus on the secular aspect being a necessary thing that guarantees individual freedom, tying my concerns in this situation to some fear of interfering with a bible-literalist or fundamental political agenda isn't even close to reality as I see it to be.

I wanted to let it go, but to do so would create an impression that what was implied was correct, or passably close -- and it grated on me as something that needed correction.

My position remains as it is. I think is wrong to take these studies where some slight increase in divorce rate is observed for others living in higher conservative Protestant areas, and without (in my understanding) sufficient evidence of causation, conclude that it is dangerous in any way to one's own marriage, or scary, to simply live around them. (I know you did not in any way present that argument.) However, it was that discussion IMO that opened the door to other comments that I think were simply gossip about a group that is an easy target. I strongly reacted, and if I over-reacted, please accept my apology that my actual feeling at that time may have shown through in an amplified and negative way. I would like for all to be well between us.

I think I am applying the exact same philosophical principle here to conservative Protestants that I do with gay people and just about any other group I can think of at the moment -- that is, without sufficient evidence that they pose a real danger, I think it is best to just butt out of their personal business.

 

[Alceste]

Well, I do support communism. Damn, you have me all figured out.

Aw, I was totally joking. There's no rational way to connect a discomfort with guns and a fondness for communism. It's just an ironic coincidence.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Aw, I was totally joking. There's no rational way to connect a discomfort with guns and a fondness for communism. It's just an ironic coincidence.

Lol. I know. I was being sarcastic.

Guns make me uncomfortable because they're made to take life and that bothers me. But if I had to use one, I would.

 

[4consideration]

(I emailed Dr. Glass directly today to ask if the article is a valid representation of her research and the conclusions that may, or may not be, justified from that research. I don't know if I'll get a response. I'll let you know if I do.)

Since I said I would, here is the status of that, which I do not expect to change at this point. For the sake of space, and because I do not think it right to quote someone without their permission, I'm going to paraphrase it as precisely as I can.

1. In the email I included a link to the article, quoted the first sentence of the article as part of my concern, and indicated my inquiry was specifically regarding whether or not the research showed that non-Protestant divorces drove up divorces in the way it was indicated by that first sentence. I asked for an answer to this question: Do you think this article is a valid representation of your research and conclusions that may, or may not, be drawn from it?

2. I received a reply the same day asking me what organization I was representing, and inquiring as to the purpose of my inquiry. She stated that she had not read the article in depth, but did verify that she had spoken with the reporter at length.

She included a general response that the research showed an increase in the rate of divorces in the counties as the proportion of conservative Protestants increased. She further indicated that some, but not all, of this comes from early ages for first marriage and first birth -- and pointed to the tendency for early diminishing of "marriage pools" in these counties with higher concentrations of conservative Protestants as encouraging earlier age for marriage across the board.

3. I sent a reply answering her questions about who and why, and included my personal concerns as reason for my inquiry. I have not received an additional response. Since it has been about 2 days, I am assuming that completes our conversation.

I have no issue with what she stated to me, but the reply didn't answer my question about the conclusion presented in the first sentence of the article. So I see no reason to change my thoughts on the matter at this time.

 

[Alceste]

Since I said I would, here is the status of that, which I do not expect to change at this point. For the sake of space, and because I do not think it right to quote someone without their permission, I'm going to paraphrase it as precisely as I can.

1. In the email I included a link to the article, quoted the first sentence of the article as part of my concern, and indicated my inquiry was specifically regarding whether or not the research showed that non-Protestant divorces drove up divorces in the way it was indicated by that first sentence. I asked for an answer to this question: Do you think this article is a valid representation of your research and conclusions that may, or may not, be drawn from it?

2. I received a reply the same day asking me what organization I was representing, and inquiring as to the purpose of my inquiry. She stated that she had not read the article in depth, but did verify that she had spoken with the reporter at length.

She included a general response that the research showed an increase in the rate of divorces in the counties as the proportion of conservative Protestants increased. She further indicated that some, but not all, of this comes from early ages for first marriage and first birth -- and pointed to the tendency for early diminishing of "marriage pools" in these counties with higher concentrations of conservative Protestants as encouraging earlier age for marriage across the board.

3. I sent a reply answering her questions about who and why, and included my personal concerns as reason for my inquiry. I have not received an additional response. Since it has been about 2 days, I am assuming that completes our conversation.

I have no issue with what she stated to me, but the reply didn't answer my question about the conclusion presented in the first sentence of the article. So I see no reason to change my thoughts on the matter at this time.

Thanks for going the extra mile.