Survey Says Politically Conservative States Are Most Religious

[ClydeR]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--States with the highest percentage of self-identifying political conservatives are also more likely to have a higher percentage of citizens who say religion is important to them, according to an analysis of two Gallup surveys.

Additionally, the most politically liberal states are least likely to be religious.

Gallup released results of a poll Aug. 2 showing Wyoming and Mississippi as tied for first in having the highest percentage of self-identifying political conservatives (53 percent). They are followed by Utah (51 percent), South Dakota (50 percent), Alabama and North Dakota (tied at 49 percent) and Idaho (48 percent). Rounding out the top 10 are four states tied at 46 percent: South Carolina, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Louisiana.

Among those, five -- Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Louisiana -- were in the Top 10 of Gallup's January 2009 survey of the most religious states in America. In fact, of the 11 most conservative states, only Idaho and Wyoming are not in the Top 20 of the most religious states.

More... (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=33453)

Consider yourself lucky if you live in one of those good places. The rest of the article talks about the undesirable parts of the country where liberals and heathens live in squalor.

[TheLastShamurai]

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/826a77t2-uiaboqv6hkdug.gif

Why the fuck do they all have to be in cold places? {Excepting parts of Nevada.}

[Atlanteax]

Heh, nevermind, originally read that chart as "Most Religious" instead of "Least".

[Cephalopod]

I love living in New England.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I love living in New England.

+1

The three states I've lived in the most made the "least religious" list (Washington, MA, and CT).. I am a little surprised WA made the list, there were a ton of Lutherans and Mormons.

[Rinualdo]

The awesome thing is those Republican, god-fearing states are also the ones who generally lead in unemployment, teen pregnancy, STD, and lots of other fun categories.

[Parkbandit]

The awesome thing is those Republican, god-fearing states are also the ones who generally lead in unemployment, teen pregnancy, STD, and lots of other fun categories.

What site are you using for these claims? I just looked up unemployment from the Labor Dept and it doesn't back up your claim.

I didn't bother looking at the other two because, quite frankly, I equate conservative to the fiscal aspects of the political belief, not the social.

[kookiegod]

I love living in New England.

+2

its funny that the area that was born for freedom of religion is now the least.

Heh.

Goes with the area so well.

[Celephais]

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/826a77t2-uiaboqv6hkdug.gif

Why the fuck do they all have to be in cold places? {Excepting parts of Nevada.}

That kind of cold confirms there is no good, and if there is, he doesn't give a shit about you.

[Gnome Rage]

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/826a77t2-uiaboqv6hkdug.gif

Why the fuck do they all have to be in cold places? {Excepting parts of Nevada.}

I'm on that list! Woo

[Rinualdo]

What site are you using for these claims? I just looked up unemployment from the Labor Dept and it doesn't back up your claim.

I didn't bother looking at the other two because, quite frankly, I equate conservative to the fiscal aspects of the political belief, not the social.

The lowest ten states listed as least religious also have the lowest teen pregnancy rates


In 2005, teenage birthrates were highest in Texas (62 per 1,000), New Mexico, Mississippi,
Arkansas and Arizona. The states with the lowest teenage birthrates were New Hampshire (18
per 1,000), Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001621.htm
http://www.americaforpurchase.com/republicans/divorce-teen-pregnancy-porn-rates-highest-in-red-states/

As far as unemployment, I am referring to pre-recession time. Obviously I neglected to factor that in.

If we take the '96 (a random year I picked) stats, http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lab_une_rat_jan_2006-labor-unemployment-rate-january-2006 you'll see a strong, but not exact, correlation.

The same holds true for most years pre-recession.

[Parkbandit]

As far as unemployment, I am referring to pre-recession time. Obviously I neglected to factor that in.


So, you had to go back 15 years to make it work for you?

Awesome.

[Valthissa]

The lowest ten states listed as least religious also have the lowest teen pregnancy rates



http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001621.htm
http://www.americaforpurchase.com/republicans/divorce-teen-pregnancy-porn-rates-highest-in-red-states/

As far as unemployment, I am referring to pre-recession time. Obviously I neglected to factor that in.

If we take the '96 (a random year I picked) stats, http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lab_une_rat_jan_2006-labor-unemployment-rate-january-2006 you'll see a strong, but not exact, correlation.

The same holds true for most years pre-recession.

ah, pregnancy statistics. Give me some data and I can tell almost any story that needs telling (so long as you are paying my salary).

Live births to teenagers in the US reached their peak in 1957, the year I was born. My mother was a teenager at the time, but married almost 20 months when I was born. She graduated from UVa nursing school later the following year so I don't seem to have been to much of a burden.

It would be nice to know how many of the 18-19 year old pregnancies were to married couples to help us evaluate the data.

C/Valth

[Rinualdo]

Do you get off by not reading or comprehending? Clearly I said I picked a year pre global recession at random.

Do you have some data that refutes the main point?

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lab_une_rat_2004-labor-unemployment-rate-2004

2004 pretty much shows the same thing.

If you are going to participate to a political discussion, I can't see why you waste your time rejecting other people's arguments, facts, or documentation without providing any counter facts, opinions, or documents of your own. Doesn't it get boring just being pedantic and offering no value added to the conversation?

[Ryvicke]

If you are going to participate to a political discussion, I can't see why you waste your time rejecting other people's arguments, facts, or documentation without providing any counter facts, opinions, or documents of your own. Doesn't it get boring just being pedantic and offering no value added to the conversation?

24,700 posts. I think he likes it.

[Paradii]

I can't believe even in the least religious states 50 percent of the population are still suckers.




Edit: nevermind, I can believe that.

[Parkbandit]

Do you get off by not reading or comprehending? Clearly I said I picked a year pre global recession at random.

Do you have some data that refutes the main point?

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lab_une_rat_2004-labor-unemployment-rate-2004

2004 pretty much shows the same thing.

If you are going to participate to a political discussion, I can't see why you waste your time rejecting other people's arguments, facts, or documentation without providing any counter facts, opinions, or documents of your own. Doesn't it get boring just being pedantic and offering no value added to the conversation?

You want facts? Fine, let's use your facts:

These are the states that were named in the OP article:

Wyoming
Mississippi
Utah
South Dakota
Alabama
North Dakota
Idaho
South Carolina
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Louisiana.

Of those 11 states... how many were in the top 10: 2

Top 20: 4

In fact, South Dakota ranked 49th, North Dakota ranked 50th, Nebraska ranked 45th, and Wyoming ranked 44th.

Shit, even the average rank isn't in the top half of the ranking.

So again.. where did you get your facts from? Your theory didn't work using today's figures.. and it sure didn't work using the 2004 numbers you provided.

Perhaps you should find a specific year and link those numbers.. thus "proving" you are right? I heard a rumor if you used the early 1930's during the dustbowl, it might just work!

[Parkbandit]

24,700 posts. I think he likes it.

740 posts.. and still no sign of intelligent life. You might be a bot.

[Parkbandit]

If we take the '96 (a random year I picked) stats, http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lab_une_rat_jan_2006-labor-unemployment-rate-january-2006 you'll see a strong, but not exact, correlation.

The same holds true for most years pre-recession.

By the way, do you even know how to read the chart you posted and used to back up your wild claim?

Again, let's go through the list of states:

Wyoming
Mississippi
Utah
South Dakota
Alabama
North Dakota
Idaho
South Carolina
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Louisiana.

Of those 11 states... how many were in the top 10: 2

Top 20: 3

Average rank: 31.5

Did you simply see Mississippi as #1 and assumed the rest were high? Of the 11 states, 5 were ranked at the very bottom 10. Maybe you read the chart upside down?

[Warriorbird]

http://myspace.roflposters.com/images/rofl/myspace/1235388714405.jpg.%5Broflposters.com%5D.myspace.jp g

[Parkbandit]

http://myspace.roflposters.com/images/rofl/myspace/1235388714405.jpg.%5Broflposters.com%5D.myspace.jp g

http://www.claytonmspaparazzi.com/_IMAGES/hypocrite_award-719767.jpg

[Warriorbird]

It wasn't for you.

He made you look something up. I had to give him something.

[Parkbandit]

It wasn't for you.

He made you look something up. I had to give him something.

Still makes you look like a flaming paper bag of hypocritical shit.

And he didn't "make" me look something up.. given that his own data makes him look downright retarded, I would say he was hoping no one would call him on it.

[Warriorbird]

What's hypocritical about me cheering him on for trolling you?

Are you living in your own little world again?

[Parkbandit]

What's hypocritical about me cheering him on for trolling you?

Are you living in your own little world again?

Do you even know what a forum troll is?

It's someone who lends nothing to the conversation at all.. and snipes little snarky comments or pictures to elicit a response.

In other words... you.

[Warriorbird]

So like both of us. Why would it by hypocritical for me to cheer him on again? It'd seem the core of pragmatism.

In your own words you post in the politics folder to draw responses for you to mock and laugh about.

But once again you must've failed logic 101 in some weird effort to call me a hypocrite.

[Parkbandit]

So like both of us.


No. Like you. Exactly.



Why would it by hypocritical for me to cheer him on again? It'd seem the core of pragmatism.

It is hypocritical for you to "cheer" him on by calling someone a troll, when, that is exactly what you did. You added zero to the conversation that was on topic.



In your own words you post in the politics folder to draw responses for you to mock and laugh about.

I post in the political folder because it interests me. I mock and laugh at stupid people like you.. but that's just an added benefit.

Just think... if you didn't post such stupidity, it would take that benefit away from me.



But once again you must've failed logic 101 in some weird effort to call me a hypocrite.

It might just be that it's intellectually over your head.

[Gan]

lol

Texas is nowhere on any of the lists above.

I count that as a win.

[Parkbandit]

Do you get off by not reading or comprehending? Clearly I said I picked a year pre global recession at random.

Do you have some data that refutes the main point?

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lab_une_rat_2004-labor-unemployment-rate-2004

2004 pretty much shows the same thing.

If you are going to participate to a political discussion, I can't see why you waste your time rejecting other people's arguments, facts, or documentation without providing any counter facts, opinions, or documents of your own. Doesn't it get boring just being pedantic and offering no value added to the conversation?

Counter stated... no response to my claim that your facts weren't supporting your theory?

:(

[Rinualdo]

I like how you glossed over completely the teen pregnancy portion.

Oh, and the number three state on that list leads the country in porn subscriptions!

I could pull a PB and state how I made clear it wasn't exact, but you'd ignore it as you do any points or counter points other people make.

As a general rule, you're not really worth responding to. You rarely make any points of your own, as far as I can see you don't acknowledge anyone else's points, and generally you ignore the posts and facts of people who call you out for being wrong and/or insult their intelligence in some way.

Forgive me if I find little value in a political discussion with that type of individual.

[Warriorbird]

No. Like you. Exactly.



It is hypocritical for you to "cheer" him on by calling someone a troll, when, that is exactly what you did. You added zero to the conversation that was on topic.



I post in the political folder because it interests me. I mock and laugh at stupid people like you.. but that's just an added benefit.

Just think... if you didn't post such stupidity, it would take that benefit away from me.



It might just be that it's intellectually over your head.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I thought it was hilarious after your constant source QQing. I'm sorry that you can't grasp the concept that a troll on the Internet is somebody who makes fun of people for their own amusement which is what you've self admittedly done countless times.

It might just be that it's intellectually over your head.

I love that you think you 'contribute' something. The entire thread was made by a fake Republican. This isn't exactly the Harvard Political Science Department. Maybe you had a sudden hallucination you were a pundit.

[Parkbandit]

I wasn't being sarcastic. I thought it was hilarious after your constant source QQing. I'm sorry that you can't grasp the concept that a troll on the Internet is somebody who makes fun of people for their own amusement which is what you've self admittedly done countless times.

It might just be that it's intellectually over your head.

I love that you think you 'contribute' something. The entire thread was made by a fake Republican. This isn't exactly the Harvard Political Science Department. Maybe you had a sudden hallucination you were a pundit.

Actually, that isn't the definition of a troll. If it was, everyone would be a troll, and then your talent wouldn't be a talent then... would it? The only thing you could fall back on at that point is your ability to be wrong on a consistent basis.

And regardless of the OP, there is most certainly a topic and you've managed to do what you do 2nd best.. troll it completely off topic.

Successful troll is successful. Grats?

[Warriorbird]

Actually, that isn't the definition of a troll. If it was, everyone would be a troll, and then your talent wouldn't be a talent then... would it? The only thing you could fall back on at that point is your ability to be wrong on a consistent basis.

And regardless of the OP, there is most certainly a topic and you've managed to do what you do 2nd best.. troll it completely off topic.

Successful troll is successful. Grats?

Actually... if you were a bit more in touch with the rest of the Internet you might grasp that that is indeed the definition in many cases. Something Awful and 4Chan (much more successful forums than this) are pretty much devoted to the concept.

You might consider this a talent. I don't. You're not all that much different from Backlash after all.

The topic was politically conservative states are more religious. How many posts did you make on that? Were you just embarassed?

[Parkbandit]

I like how you glossed over completely the teen pregnancy portion.

Oh, and the number three state on that list leads the country in porn subscriptions!

I could pull a PB and state how I made clear it wasn't exact, but you'd ignore it as you do any points or counter points other people make.

As a general rule, you're not really worth responding to. You rarely make any points of your own, as far as I can see you don't acknowledge anyone else's points, and generally you ignore the posts and facts of people who call you out for being wrong and/or insult their intelligence in some way.

Forgive me if I find little value in a political discussion with that type of individual.

You stated that the states on the list were also the states that were generally the states with the highest unemployment. Using your past historical data, I proved that your assumption was unfounded and completely false.

Did you want to revise your theory, in light of someone actually looking at the data you provided?

[Parkbandit]

Actually... if you were a bit more in touch with the rest of the Internet you might grasp that that is indeed the definition in many cases. Something Awful and 4Chan (much more successful forums than this) are pretty much devoted to the concept.

You might consider this a talent. I don't. You're not all that much different from Backlash after all.

The topic was politically conservative states are more religious. How many posts did you make on that? Were you just embarassed?

Who posted more on topic in this and most political threads... you or me?

That's what I thought. You've yet to make a single post on topic... something you tend to do with great regularity.

[Gan]

Did I mention that Texas was not on that list?

[Parkbandit]

Did I mention that Texas was not on that list?

BUT THEY RATE HIGH ON STDS AND THEY EAT THE MOST CHESTNUTS IN THE WORLD!!!

[Rinualdo]

I believe they are also the fattest state.

Awesome what they're doing with their school textbooks as well.

[radamanthys]

I believe they are also the fattest state.

Awesome what they're doing with their school textbooks as well.

That's Mississippi, actually.

[Rinualdo]

That's Mississippi, actually.

You're correct. I mistakenly confused the fattest city (Houston) with State.

[Gan]

Fattest City is Corpus Christi, TX.

[Parkbandit]

You're correct. I mistakenly confused the fattest city (Houston) with State.

:rofl:

WB's going to be pissed if you break his single thread record.

[Rinualdo]

Fattest City is Corpus Christi, TX.

Teach me to not look up new data. Houston was from '03.
I think there are a couple different polls out with fattest city, I've seen a couple different answers for the current year, but CC seems to be the most popular one.

[Gan]

Teach me to not look up new data. Houston was from '03.
I think there are a couple different polls out with fattest city, I've seen a couple different answers for the current year, but CC seems to be the most popular one.

Relax, you're only 7 years behind.

[Rinualdo]

It was a smart ass, off hand comment meant in jest- not some overarching political point I was making where the most current data was central to the point.

Would it help if I put a smiley face next time?

[Gan]

I know it was a smart-ass comment specifically aimed at me. I'm returning the comment with a little mockery for taste. ;)

[Paradii]

I think we can all agree Texans suck ass, though.

[Parkbandit]

Teach me to not look up new data. Houston was from '03.
I think there are a couple different polls out with fattest city, I've seen a couple different answers for the current year, but CC seems to be the most popular one.

Maybe you were trying to correlate it to pre-recession levels?

[Gan]

I think we can all agree Texans suck ass, though.

Says the schmuck from Nevada.

[Paradii]

Says the schmuck from Nevada.

In Nevada, not from. I am from Delaware, and you can make fun of that place to your hearts content.

[Gan]

In Nevada, not from. I am from Delaware, and you can make fun of that place to your hearts content.

So we'll call that 2 strikes then.


Grats.