Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism. For example, the degree of ethnic homogeneity correlates with the government’s share of gross domestic product as well as the average wealth of citizens. Case studies of the United States, Africa and South-East Asia find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure. Moscow beggars receive more gifts from fellow ethnics than from other ethnies [sic]. A recent multi-city study of municipal spending on public goods in the United States found that ethnically or racially diverse cities spend a smaller portion of their budgets and less per capita on public services than do the more homogenous cities.

Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how multiculturalism affects social trust. [ Putnam, Robert D., “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century — The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize,” Scandinavian Political Studies 30 (2), June 2007.]

He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities “don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” writes Putnam. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that

“We hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who don’t look like us.”

What a crock. You can say stuff like this. Republican presidential candidates can say that poor black Americans would rather have food stamps than jobs. Companies can discriminate against the unemployed. And that’s just dandy.

But when the Occupy Movement points to the growing disparity between the 1 percent and the rest of us, that’s “class warfare.” Bull.

Remember, friend, it wasn’t Tiny Tim or Bob Cratchit who said that people should die “so we can decrease the surplus population,” it was good old 1 percenter Ebenezer Scrooge.

Yes, it’s true, tearing down the institution that God ordained (marriage) to be a blessing in providing for man’s social needs, and preserving the purity of society will always result in misery and crime. A stable society will lead to a stable economy one would think.

A lot of “modern” Christian religionists are not “Christian” people at all, in reality. For to call oneself a Christian means that you are a follower of Christ. If you call yourself a Christian and your religion does not resemble the religion of Jesus Christ then you have taken the name in vain and have broken the 3rd commandment. That said, greater light rejected becomes greater darkness. No one will sink so low as someone who has had great light, opportunity and privileges, and who has turned from the light and is fallen. They may hold on to all the “forms” of religion, keep all the outward trappings and cerimonies, but become hypocrites. As Jesus said, “whitewashed tombs.” So Beelzebubs astute observation that “Christian” nations are in worse shape should tell us something. It’s not profession(what you call yourself) that determines destiny, but character.

The Bible has predicted that in the last days men would have a form of godliness but denying the power (to overcome sin).

Grow up..liberty is fleeting when commies and social consevatives want to rip you any way they can…

The comparison in religous beliefs or non-beliefs between W. Europe and America haven’t changed much since 1960. Murray’s study didn’t go back to 1860. Only 1960. I would just like an explanation from Mr. Murray why the divorce rates and crime rates are lower in those w. european nations that are much more secular than the United States.

I understand your explanation about why Murray studied only white americans. But it just leaves a huge void to only study white americans in such a racially diverse nation. It skews the results. But maybe that’s what he intended.

Mr. B.: Just two things. You wrote, “50% of more of the people in the majority of nations of western europe do not believe in a traditional religion or god.” That’s today. Not 1960 or 1860.

You wrote: “And I am disappointed that Mr. Murray elected only to study the white population in California, considering that non-hispanic whites are actually in the minority (47%) according to our latest 2010 census.”

But as Lusvardi pointed out, Murray wanted to compare two fairly similar groups, whites in 1960 and whites in 2010. He did so for all of America, not just California. And he did so to exclude such factors as recent immigration or racial discrimination; that allowed him to concentrate on how the changes affected just one group. Moreover, in 1960, Hispanics weren’t yet a labeled group. Instead, they were Mexican-Americans, Cuban-Americans, etc. The “Hispanic” designation began to be used by the U.S. Census Bureau and other demographers only in the early 1970s. I remember going to school with Mexican-American kids in the 1960s and early 1970s in Michigan, and they were not called “Hispanics.” In fact, they were considered somewhat like Italian-American or French-American kids — that is, as whites. And they blended into the American “melting pot.”

— John Seiler

Okay. Let me clarify. 50% of more of the people in the majority of nations of western europe do not believe in a traditional religion or god. And what’s interesting is that all of the PIIGS in europe (with the exception of Iceland) have populations that are noted to be very religious and staunch believers in the Christian God (ie. Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain). Each one of those nations are either insolvent or teetering on the edge of bankrupcy. The other w. european nations with over half of their populations not practicing a traditional religion or believing in a traditional god (Germany, France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Holland, etc…) are all in much better financial shape than their counterparts (PIIGS).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Again, I am not anti-church or anti-religion. I believe organized religion does some good things. I am simply arguing that Murray’s thesis of belonging to a church or believing in a god would help restore prosperity to the working class is flawed.

I believe the growing ‘social divide’ between the elite and the working class is top-down generated by corporate and government policies that encourage offshoring jobs, bailing out crooked and failed TBTF corporations with working class tax dollars, having two books of law: one for the elite corporate crooks and another for the working class, unlimited corporate campaign contributions that effectively purchase politicians to gain favorable legislation that must be subsidized by the consumer and the working class, flawed enforcement of immigration laws that have driven down working class wages and stole millions of jobs and taxdollars from working class citizens, etc….

Mr. Murray seems to imply that a significant portion of the working class wealth drain is of their own making or a bottom-up problem. I disagree. I believe that it is overwhelmingly a top-down problem and an intentional ploy on part of government elite and the richest Americans to transfer more of the working class wealth into their own greedy pockets. And all the churches in the world won’t remedy that problem.

The crime rate in America is off the charts compared to the crime rate in western Europe, John. My point was that traditional religious participation and belief in God is MUCH higher in the USA than in most western european nations. Yet our crime rate is much higher here.

And I am disappointed that Mr. Murray elected only to study the white population in California, considering that non-hispanic whites are actually in the minority (47%) according to our latest 2010 census. Blacks and hispanics traditionally have higher participation rates in traditional religions and social institutions than do white Americans. Yet blacks and hispanics have much higher rates of poverty and crime.

The high crime rates in Russia are primarily due to a corrupted government and business environment, John. If secular societies were doomed to high crime rates – Sweden, Norway and Netherlands would be meccas for crime. They aren’t. They are among the safest societies in the world.