Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

[AmericanKestrel]

Another correlation of income inequality with prayer (religiosity)
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank ... y-nations/

Why does the U.S. have higher self-reported daily prayer than other wealthier countries? Some scholars posit that the lack of government interference in religion in the U.S. has created an open religious “market” – a landscape where different religions enthusiastically compete for new members. High levels of prayer also could be due in part to relatively high levels of income inequality in the United States; societies with more unequal income levels tend to be more religious.

while correlation is not causation, sometimes it is. The outlier place that US shares with Bangladesh is extraordinary and cannot be explained away with economic theories. Religion certainly plays a part.

[AmericanKestrel]

More correlation of GDP And income equality with religion. US is the oulier as more American poor turn to religion to deal with effect of poverty.
https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/w ... e-equality

[Ecurb]

The terms used instead of “safety nets” and hunger define the problem more comprehensively. If Bezos flying to the moon on a party spaceship or whatever and pays his employees minimum wage and allows them minimum pee breaks, we can viscerally see how a minimum wage worker’s life is like. Walmart pays minimum wage and instructs its workers how to apply for food stamps, on my taxes. We can see why minimum wage should be increased. We can see how working hard is not enough if you cannot afford rent. Income inequality covers a lot more ground. People are not asking for safety nets, they are asking for fair wages so they can live a reasonable standard of life, provide for their family. To be envious of Bezos one should also be a millionaire. If I am making minimum wage i will be envious of the guy making 20 an hour, or has an apartment instead of living in a shelter. It is all relative.

Same with Food insecurity. It is not about getting food, but how you are getting it, what quality, enough calories, do you worry a about running out of food before the next pay check and go without a meal. Ifvthose conditions exist it goes without saying they are malnorished, eating unhealthy. Many poor go without medicine.

Unfortunately, GE Morton is correct in asserting that many (most) companies will pay workers as little as is necessary to keep them working. The time tested answer to this problem is unionization. How Amazon was able to fight off the unions in that warehouse in Alabama remains a mystery to me. I'm sure they spent a fortune on propaganda, but why were the workers so gullible? "Can't get much without a union..." as the song goes.

The problem with "food insecurity" is the same as that with "inequality of wealth". It almost begs people to start whining. Oh, no! Some people are rich! Who cares? "I have plenty of food, but I worry about getting more." OK. Quit worrying so much.

On a personal note, I lived for years well below the poverty line (including some as a single father). They were some of the happiest years of my life. Also, I never prayed.

[Ecurb]

Thanks. That's what I thought when I first read Morton's posts, and there's something to it. But I changed my mind because ancient societies were likely more "classed." The slaves see the wealth of Pharaoh, but there is no democratic or egalitarian ideal, they know they are of a different class, and therefore there is no real envy involved in their perception of that disparity. In America it's not like that at all. The lines between the classes are all blurred, and even after you get another promotion and move to a wealthier neighborhood, there will always be that one neighbor who is just a little bit wealthier than you are. That smooth spectrum of wealth disparity, along with the greater visibility created by media and social media, creates more comparison, envy, and inferiority complex.

That's standard thinking. Americans are supposedly victims of insecurity because instead of being born into social classes, their "status" is determined by wealth, which can change rapidly. I agree that there's some validity to it, and that the media hypes this notion with constant references to inequality, which exacerbates the envy and the fears.

The American Dream, however, is of a classless society, rejecting the rigid social classes of Europe (which were not based on wealth, although they were correlated to it). Apparently, Americans don't find this dream appealing.

[Ecurb]

Another correlation of income inequality with prayer (religiosity)
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank ... y-nations/

Why does the U.S. have higher self-reported daily prayer than other wealthier countries? Some scholars posit that the lack of government interference in religion in the U.S. has created an open religious “market” – a landscape where different religions enthusiastically compete for new members. High levels of prayer also could be due in part to relatively high levels of income inequality in the United States; societies with more unequal income levels tend to be more religious.

while correlation is not causation, sometimes it is. The outlier place that US shares with Bangladesh is extraordinary and cannot be explained away with economic theories. Religion certainly plays a part.

One problem facing Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches is that of membership. If Faith alone is sufficient to grant membership in the Born Again community, the problem is clear. There is no way to actually know whether someone else has Faith. The rituals (confession, communion, etc.) that are common in Roman, Orthodox and some Protestant churches serve (among other things) that purpose.

The result is that Evangelicals are required to state some orthodoxies regularly to confirm membership. These include having Jesus as a "personal savior", holding certain political positions (on abortion, for example), and (yes) claiming to pray every day. Perhaps they do pray every day.
Still, I'll bet devout Catholics who pray just as often answer the question differently.

For some reason, I don't think I know a single person who prays that much, despite having lived in America for more than half a century.

Also, I looked it up and the U.S is middle-of-the-pack in economic inequality, although it has more inequality than almost all European countries. Six of the top ten most economically egalitarian countries are (unsurprisingly) former communist states.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

By this measure, South Africa is the most stratified nation, and Slovenia the most egalitarian. 75% of South Africans are Christians, but I hve no idea if they pray every day (or even if they say they do).

[GE Morton]

Many of us seem to have a double standard in judging the way people allocate their resources. People who are not poor also spend a lot of money on things that are not good for them and do a lot of foolish things. But, we declare that we need to protect their freedom to live their own lives. When it comes to the poor, many of us wish to paint a picture that says they are fully responsible for their own plight. So, when they do something foolish with their limited resources, we claim it as 'proof' that they have created their own problems.

There is no double standard. All are equally free to live their own lives. But YOU --- not taxpayers --- are responsible for the consequences of your foolish choices and decisions, whether you're rich or poor.

[AmericanKestrel]

[

Unfortunately, GE Morton is correct in asserting that many (most) companies will pay workers as little as is necessary to keep them working. The time tested answer to this problem is unionization. How Amazon was able to fight off the unions in that warehouse in Alabama remains a mystery to me. I'm sure they spent a fortune on propaganda, but why were the workers so gullible? "Can't get much without a union..." as the song goes.

The problem with "food insecurity" is the same as that with "inequality of wealth". It almost begs people to start whining. Oh, no! Some people are rich! Who cares? "I have plenty of food, but I worry about getting more." OK. Quit worrying so much.

On a personal note, I lived for years well below the poverty line (including some as a single father). They were some of the happiest years of my life. Also, I never prayed.

You seem to discovered something that many strive for - that the source of happiness is within you and the knowledge to know that.

[GE Morton]

It is true that Marshall's and Parks' influence was not religious, and played a large role in the Civil Rights movement. It cannot be said that Martin Luther King Jr's influence was not religious. His writings and speeches were deeply rooted in Christianity and love of enemy, and it is undeniable that his non-violent protests empowered Blacks.

An ambiguity there re: "Martin Luther King Jr's influence." I agree that King was influenced by religion, but deny that his influence on others was due to religion. His public speeches were not sermons; if they had been they would not have resonated with the many young whites who traveled South and actively supported his cause. He appealed to their belief in the "American Dream," not to their fear of the wrath of God.

[GE Morton]

So what's your point? Do you think that it makes sense that those most likely to have trouble putting nutritious food on their family's table also happen to have the lowest incomes? If not those folks, whom else would be in that category?

Yes, that makes sense. The point, however, is that nearly all of those folks do, in fact, manage to put food on the table.

As to how folks choose to spend their money, I agree with you that the poor should prioritize towards nutritious food instead of many of the things on your list. But if they did, your list would have much lower percentages, and you probably wouldn't have posted it since it would no longer make your point. Which is my point.

I wouldn't have posted it because the "food insecurity" argument, to which it was a response, would not have been made.

[GE Morton]

People are not just one more tool to be put to use or one more obstacle to be overcome. They need to be treated as ends, not means, if we are ever going to build a society that works in the long run. The fact that we have learned the equations of finance does not allow us to ignore all the other realities of life. It is a convenient lie of finance that we have a duty to ignore 'externalities'--if an outcome is 'external' to the profit and loss analysis, it is never our concern.

No, there is no duty to ignore externalities. On the contrary, there is a duty to avoid them, and when they occur, to mitigate them. But you seem not to understand what an externality is: it is a consequence of private transaction which imposes some sort of cost, or loss, on parties not involved in the transaction:

"In economics, an externality is an indirect cost or benefit to an uninvolved third party that arises as an effect of another party's (or parties') activity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Workers are parties to every employment contract, which contract they have freely entered into. Thus what they are paid, and any costs that may ensue to either party from that contract, are not "externalities."

As for treating workers as means, yes, employers treat their employees as means to their ends. Employees likewise treat their employer as a means to their ends. Employees have no more concern for the welfare of their employers than the employer does for their welfare, which, for both, is usually limited to the effect the other's welfare will have on their own (such as an employee being sick and unable to work, or an employer going out of business).

The Kantian formulation of that principle, the "categorical imperative," holds that one must never treat other persons as means only, but also as ends. Both parties to a contract satisfy the latter clause by recognizing that the other also has interests, and hence they must reach an agreement satisfactory to both.

It makes me realize how far we are from building a just society, and that we may never get any closer to doing so when so many lack empathy.

Well, you're still enmeshed in the organic fallacy, idealizing a social structure lost to history and unrecoverable. This universal empathy you long for is not realizable in a racially, religiously, and culturally pluralistic, individualized, civilized society, which is a "society of strangers." That longing is an atavism, and efforts to re-create it by force are inevitably destructive.

A just society, BTW, is not a materially equal society. It is one in which each person receives what he is due, i.e., what he earned or otherwise merits:

"1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler.
"2. Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.
"3. Properly due or merited: just deserts."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=just

[Leontiskos]

It is true that Marshall's and Parks' influence was not religious, and played a large role in the Civil Rights movement. It cannot be said that Martin Luther King Jr's influence was not religious. His writings and speeches were deeply rooted in Christianity and love of enemy, and it is undeniable that his non-violent protests empowered Blacks.

An ambiguity there re: "Martin Luther King Jr's influence." I agree that King was influenced by religion, but deny that his influence on others was due to religion.

The simple fact of the matter is that the kind of non-violent resistance motivated by love, which was the hallmark of Gandhi and King, come straight out of the gospels. As King clearly articulates in An Experiment in Love, loving your enemies—especially when they are beating you with a billy club—is not the sort of thing that has any credibility apart from a religious worldview.

His public speeches were not sermons; if they had been they would not have resonated with the many young whites who traveled South and actively supported his cause.

Why think that?

In any case, your line is beside the point. If you want to make a fine distinction between inspiring and empowering, then I would reiterate the point I already made. It is specifically King’s non-violent protests, sit-ins, and marches that were empowering. We can leave the speeches and sermons aside for the sake of argument.

He appealed to their belief in the "American Dream," not to their fear of the wrath of God.

Do you see what your anti-religious bias caused you to do here? It caused you to blatantly misrepresent a historical fact in order to try to score a point against religion. Anyone who has read King's sermons knows that they are not appeals to "the fear of the wrath of God." Either you are especially ignorant of King's preaching, or else your anti-religious bias is hijacking your critical judgment.

[Ecurb]

On a personal note, I lived for years well below the poverty line (including some as a single father). They were some of the happiest years of my life. Also, I never prayed.

You seem to discovered something that many strive for - that the source of happiness is within you and the knowledge to know that.

Perhaps. I also had advantages, though. Despite making fun of "food insecurity" I was more secure than many (I had a well-off family I could have turned to had I needed and a couple of college degrees from top colleges). Still, with custody of a 4-year-old, I had no car, no TV, and no extra money. I also had no problems getting by on $600 a month (this would probably be $1200 or more in today's money). I rode my bike everywhere, with my son in the bike seat. We really don't need all the "stuff" everyone has, per GE's list of possessions that poor people own. Still, I'm happy that I'm now relatively rich.

[AmericanKestrel]

On a personal note, I lived for years well below the poverty line (including some as a single father). They were some of the happiest years of my life. Also, I never prayed.

You seem to discovered something that many strive for - that the source of happiness is within you and the knowledge to know that.

Perhaps. I also had advantages, though. Despite making fun of "food insecurity" I was more secure than many (I had a well-off family I could have turned to had I needed and a couple of college degrees from top colleges). Still, with custody of a 4-year-old, I had no car, no TV, and no extra money. I also had no problems getting by on $600 a month (this would probably be $1200 or more in today's money). I rode my bike everywhere, with my son in the bike seat. We really don't need all the "stuff" everyone has, per GE's list of possessions that poor people own. Still, I'm happy that I'm now relatively rich.

in that case you were in a privileged position with no psychological burden. you had options. it is the lack options that can lead to depression, addiction and other mental health problems.

[GE Morton]

The simple fact of the matter is that the kind of non-violent resistance motivated by love, which was the hallmark of Gandhi and King, come straight out of the gospels.

Gandhi, an Hindu, was motivated by the Christian gospels?

As King clearly articulates in An Experiment in Love, loving your enemies—especially when they are beating you with a billy club—is not the sort of thing that has any credibility apart from a religious worldview.

Oh, sure it does. Passive resistance is as old as politics, employed by the soldiers' wives in Aristophanes' Lysistrata. Nor does it require, or is typically motivated, by any love for one's enemies. It is a tactic calculated to win public sympathy by forcing the enemy to resort to visible violence, while the protesters remain peaceful.

In any case, your line is beside the point. If you want to make a fine distinction between inspiring and empowering, then I would reiterate the point I already made. It is specifically King’s non-violent protests, sit-ins, and marches that were empowering. We can leave the speeches and sermons aside for the sake of argument.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was the first, and triggering, event of the civil rights protests of the '60s. It was organized by Parks and her colleagues at the local chapter of the NAACP. King, at the time the pastor of one of Montgomery's black churches, quickly signed on, as did the leaders of other black churches in the city.

"Although Parks used her one phone call to contact her husband, word of her arrest had spread quickly and E.D. Nixon was there when Parks was released on bail later that evening. Nixon had hoped for years to find a courageous Black person of unquestioned honesty and integrity to become the plaintiff in a case that might become the test of the validity of segregation laws. Sitting in Parks’ home, Nixon convinced Parks—and her husband and mother—that Parks was that plaintiff. Another idea arose as well: The Black population of Montgomery would boycott the buses on the day of Parks’ trial, Monday, December 5. By midnight, 35,000 flyers were being mimeographed to be sent home with Black schoolchildren, informing their parents of the planned boycott."

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/rosa-parks

"The Women’s Political Council (WPC), a group of Black women working for civil rights, began circulating flyers calling for a boycott of the bus system on December 5, the day Parks would be tried in municipal court. The boycott was organized by WPC President Jo Ann Robinson."

https://www.history.com/topics/black-hi ... us-boycott

No religious arguments or appeals appear in that flyer. The appeal is to equal rights. Thomas Jefferson, not Jesus, is the guru lurking there.

Do you see what your anti-religious bias caused you to do here? It caused you to blatantly misrepresent a historical fact in order to try to score a point against religion. Anyone who has read King's sermons knows that they are not appeals to "the fear of the wrath of God." Either you are especially ignorant of King's preaching, or else your anti-religious bias is hijacking your critical judgment.

I've read none of King's sermons. But I've read several of his public speeches, and religious appeals are rare in them, and entirely absent in most. What "fact" did I misrepresent?

[AmericanKestrel]

The simple fact of the matter is that the kind of non-violent resistance motivated by love, which was the hallmark of Gandhi and King, come straight out of the gospels.

Gandhi, an Hindu, was motivated by the Christian gospels?

Yes he was inspired by Jesus's life and his message. His idea of Non-violence resistance was borrowed in fact from Tolstoy. Religion was motivating factor among the New England abolitionists as well. I am shocked as to how poorly informed you are. This might bring you up to speed on the role of the Black church in keeping up the morale and hope of Black people.
https://www.pbs.org/show/black-church/