It'll probably come as a shock to most of you, but I often -- which is to say only a little more often than never -- begin work on my Sunday column pretty early in the week to ensure that I'm bringing you the high standards of journalistic excellence you've come to expect from me.
To that end, I thought I'd take a moment to share with you some of the preliminary research I've done for this upcoming Sunday's column, in which I'll address the recent Pew Research Center findings that Georgia is among the most religious states in the country.
According to the survey, Georgia ranked ninth in the nation with regard to the percentage of people who say religion is important in their lives, at 68 percent. (The national average is 56 percent).
Elsewhere, the survey ranked Georgia 14th in worship attendance, eighth in the frequency of prayer, and eighth in certainty of belief in God.
Good news, indeed. But it got me to thinking about how Georgia stacks up against the less-religious states in the union, so I got into the U.S. Census Bureau's 2010 Statistical Abstract and compared Georgia across a wide variety of metrics with the bottom three states in the Pew ranking.
According to the Pew survey, New Hampshire and Vermont tie for last place in the percentage of people who say religion is important in their lives, at 36 percent. Alaska is one rung up from the bottom, at 37 percent. The three states also rank at or near the bottom in worship attendance, frequency of prayer, and belief in God.
Here's how Georgia stacks up against those three states in other areas:
INFANT MORTALITY (2005)
- New Hampshire ranks lowest, in 45th place, at 5.3 deaths of infants under 1 years old per 1,000 live births.
- Alaska ranks 37th, at 5.9 deaths.
- Vermont ranks 30th, at 6.5 deaths.
- Georgia ranks ninth, at 8.2 deaths.
VIOLENT CRIMES PER 100,000 POPULATION (2006)
- Vermont ranks 48th, at 137 violent crimes.
- New Hampshire ranks 47th, at 139 violent crimes.
- Georgia ranks 19th, at 471 violent crimes.
- Alaska ranks sixth, at 688 violent crimes.
PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL (2007)
- New Hampshire has the lowest percentage of people below poverty level, ranking 51st (data included the District of Columbia) at 7.1 percent.
- Alaska ranked 45th, at 8.9 percent.
- Vermont ranked 40th, at 10.1 percent.
- Georgia ranked 13th, at 14.3 percent.
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME (2007)
- Alaska ranks fourth, at $64,333.
- New Hampshire ranks sixth, at $62,369.
- Vermont ranks 21st, at $49,907.
- Georgia ranks 23rd, at $49,136.
PERSONS 25 YEARS AND OLDER WITH A BACHELOR'S DEGREE OR MORE (2007)
- Vermont ranked seventh, at 33.6 percent.
- New Hamphsire ranked eighth, at 32.5 percent.
- Alaska ranked 21st, at 26.0 percent.
Georgia ranked 23rd, at 27.1 percent.
I'm not sure yet exactly how to think about this data, and it's offered here for you to make what you will of it.
Discuss ...
- Jim Thompson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Jim: Here's a suggestion.
Jim: Here's a suggestion. Don't think about the data at all until you answer these (very real) questions:
Why is it that at Stinson Beach, CA shark attacks increase when ice cream sales increase?
Why is the stock market much more likely to go up if the NFL/NFC wins the Super Bowl?
Why is it that men who shave less are more likely to suffer a stroke in England?
Why is it that, in at least one country, women who work at night are much more likely to develop breast cancer?
An easier question for you, that may give you a glimpse at what's going on here, why is it that the more cavities a child has, the larger the child's vocabulary?
Suppose I told you that studies have found that 80% of heroin users used marijuana before they used heroin. Many, statistically unsophisticated, people will immediately jump to the conclusion that marijuana use leads to heroin use, right? Then, suppose I told you that 95% of heroin users drank milk before they used heroin. I made up those numbers just to make a point (although at one time the percentages I cited were close to actual findings).
Sounds like you need to do a little study on correlational data. The fact that so many people misinterpret correlations should lead you to either consider another topic for your Sunday column or be very careful how you write it. And, by the way, today's dictionary be damned, it's best to say "these data," not "this data."
Datum, data, yada, yada ...
Seriously, though, GritsnGrins, thanks for pointing out that the word "data" is indeed a plural. It's one of my grammatical pet peeves, too, and I can't believe I let it get past me.
On to your larger point, I understand that there's not necessarily any correlation between the disparate data I'm citing above, and that the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy is very much in play. I'll plan on making that point in Sunday's column.
To my mind, the point of doing a column on these admittedly unconnected data is to suggest that being religious isn't enough, and that there is a documented need, based on the census data on poverty, infant mortality and crime, to put faith in action.
I'll admit that including the median household income data here, with its less-than-subtle suggestion that this isn't exaclty the land of milk and honey, is a bit snarky. Ditto for the education data, and it's none-too-subtle suggestion that people of faith aren't necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Another datum for you--
"VIOLENT CRIMES PER 100,000 POPULATION (2006)
- Vermont ranks 48th, at 137 violent crimes.
- New Hampshire ranks 47th, at 139 violent crimes.
- Georgia ranks 19th, at 471 violent crimes.
- Alaska ranks sixth, at 688 violent crimes."
That would be Vermont, with the most liberal handgun laws in the nation.
You can't commit that many
You can't commit that many violent crimes when there is THAT much maple syrup around. It's too yummy and you forget you want to kill someone :)
Thanks, Ghost!
I was wondering how long it would be before the gun rights argument was made in connection with the crime statistics.
And of course, the comparatively very low crime rate in Vermont wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that its population is comparatively better off economically, and comparatively better educated, than most of the rest of the country.
Also, New Hampshire, one of the other states included here, has an interesting way of handling concealed-carry permits, according to the Web site for Pro-Gun New Hampshire:
"With some rare exceptions, anyone who isn’t prohibited by law from possessing a gun is generally issued a License to Carry. State law (RSA 159:6 and 159:6-c) provides that if you’re denied a license, the issuing authority must give you the reason(s) for denial in writing within 14 days of the application; you have 30 days to ask the local district or municipal court for a hearing; the court must hold a hearing within 14 days after that; and “during this hearing the burden shall be upon the issuing authority to demonstrate by clear and convincing proof why any denial, suspension, or revocation was justified, failing which the court shall enter an order directing the issuing authority to grant or reinstate the petitioner's license.”
Here's another datum for you
"And of course, the comparatively very low crime rate in Vermont wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that its population is comparatively better off economically, and comparatively better educated, than most of the rest of the country."
HEY!!, don't jump on me --you're the one making the faulty associations, I'm just providing more information.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that the population of Vermont is 96.4% of one ethnicity, and New Hampshire 95.5% and nothing at all with guns. And maybe that's why they are wealthier, better educated, and better armed.
BTW, Vermont, like University of Georgia Football, has been slipping in the rankings as is now 50th out of 51 in violent crime.(2008)
Georgia, unlike university of Georgia Football, is climbing the charts with a bullet (obscure 50's reference intended), so that it is now 18th in violent crime overall, and a fast rising 10th in murders. (2008)
Correlation != Causation
"And of course, the comparatively very low crime rate in Vermont wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that its population is comparatively better off economically, and comparatively better educated, than most of the rest of the country."
No, it could mean that they can afford more guns and are smart enough to know how to use them.
Nit picking
Reference your response to my post, first I'm not sure "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" applies here at all. Although logical fallacies are most certainly possible/probable, no temporal sequence has been established among the variables you cited. Secondly, the problem is not that there are no correlations among the data. I suspect there may well be correlations in the data. I realize that it's silly to do so, but I did a quick pencil-and-paper computation of the rank order correlation for the variable pairs you cited. As just one example, there was a pretty strong, positive correlation between belief that religion is important in one's life and violent crimes. Again, if that were a valid statistical calculation, it could lead to a wrong conclusion. Trust me, there are many who would interpret such a finding as, "religious beliefs lead people to commit more violent crimes." One must be very careful in presenting such data and ruminating over such data. In point of fact, there are no logical conclusions that can be derived from correlational data unless you simply want to speculate on the reasons for the association (such as ghost did above) and discuss potential third variables (and the occasional coincidence).
OK, Ghost ...
So what are we to conclude from your associations? If less-restrictive gun laws produce a lower crime rate, then no restrictions would result in an absence of crime? If that's the case, why don't we just change the law in Georgia to allow anyone, regardless of age, mental fitness, etc., to carry a concealed weapon anywhere, at any time?
You have me confused with ........................
Actually, I don't believe I made any associations. But this being a blog and all that we certainly don't want to be caught picking nits.
Reading the police blotter over the last week or so, between our local "yewts" shooting their foot or best buddy off, the scenario you propose is probably more factual than theoretical.
However, it is a fact that the states with the most liberal carry laws and concealed weapon laws (not necessarily the same thing) tend to have the lowest crime rates, and especially violent crime.
It is also true (and documented in a couple of books and several articles) that over the last 10 years or so as more states have allowed the carrying of concealed weapons, that there is a downward trend in violent crimes that follows the state action.
On the other hand, it is also true that the states with the most liberal gun laws and lowest crime rates tend to have a very homogeneous population with very little ethnic diversity. In both Vermont and New Hampshire, the non-white population is less than 4%. So if we are just going to reach into the air and grab numbers and associate them, that is as likely an association as the gun one. However that spins the discussion off into a taboo area that no one is allowed to discuss.
As to changing the law in Georgia as you propose, as with so many issues today, the particular disabilities (in the legal sense) are more the domain of federal law than state law. One interesting little twist is that Georgia does add a lifetime prohibition of getting a Georgia Firearms License for any marijuana conviction, but does not have a corresponding disability for say DUI convictions or public drunk.
What's interesting from a historical perspective is that for approximately 200 years, anyone in Georgia could openly carry a gun ("cowboy style" for lack of a better description) without a permit or license. The Georgia courts repeatedly held as long as any part of the gun was visible and identifiable, the carrier met the legal requirements. So during that period, and subject to legal restrictions on age and criminal history, just about anyone could and did carry a pistol. I can remember when the shop owner with the .32 in his back pocket, the handle sticking out to meet the legal requirements, was a common sight in smallish towns, including Athens.
That changed in the 1980's when a permit was required for open carry, and as we are making all these associations, and referring to the crime statistics, one can hardly assert that Georgia has become a safer, less dangerous place because of this additional prohibition (essentially) on the open carrying of arms.
Speaking of matters ballistic, and given the generally liberal stance of the ABH, I would be interested in your opinion of the tribulations of Mr. Raissi visited upon him by the MARTA police.
Very briefly, the MARTA police saw Mr. Raissi take a holstered gun and place it in his wasteband while he was in the MARTA parking lot. He covered the gun with his shirt. Mr. Raissi has a GFL, and carrying a concealed weapon on MARTA is now legal. So the MARTA police stop him, he produces his GFL. Notwithstanding that, the police took his gun, detained him for 30 minutes, did a criminal background check and finally released him to go his way. Not arguing that the police, knowing he had a gun, had a right to ask him for his GFL (although there are those that will debate that), once that license has been produced, do you think the police have the right to detain that citizen for a half hour to make further inquiry into whether the citizen in fact has the legal right to possess that gun?
I'd ask you to respond in the context of your prior comments about having a long gun behind the seat of your pick-up truck (I think I recall that). In say a routine license check, would it be reasonable for the police to detain you for a half an hour to determine if you were really really authorized to own that gun?
I may surprise you here, Ghost ...
but I'd be totally opposed to the circumstances of the detention you describe above. If someone has fulfilled the requirements to have a concealed-carry permit, and produces that permit when asked, that ought to be the end of the matter.
Anything else on the order of the harassment you describe here -- and I'm assuming this is the point you're driving at -- would, to me, properly be read as a de facto attempt to abrogate a de jure right.
GritsnGrins, I understand ...
that the "post hoc fallacy" requires a temporal element. I was just trying -- artlessly, for sure -- to point out that I understood something of the vagaries of attempting to establish correlations among widely disparate data. And, as you quire rightly note, any column I'll do on the subject will be nothing more than speculative in nature.
Maybe your candidate Obama
Maybe your candidate Obama had something when he said: ""They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Maybe clinging to "religion" causes all the other maladies? Or, are you saying, religious people are stupid?
It's gonna be a hard-row-to-hoe, Jim. Good luck with your column!!
Funny, A Reader, but I don't ...
remember you peeking over my shoulder on that crisp fall day a little over a year ago when I walked down to the Board of Elections office to cast my early electronic ballot.
I'm just thinking that it's interesting that the benchmarks for a good and decent society -- healthy children, an educated populace, adequate incomes, and good order -- are lacking in a state where religion (by which, of course, is meant a largely Christian outlook, marked by what should be a commitment to loving and caring for one's fellows) holds great sway. I don't plan to suggest a specific correlation, but I do plan to suggest that the data provide some food for thought for those who profess the Christian faith.
No, Jim, it doesn't
By your earlier responses and your last, I still don't think you get it. I'm trying to tell you that even if you do suggest, or actually find, a specific correlation, it doesn't mean anything!!! Professing the Christian faith has NOTHING to do with any of the other benchmarks of a good and decent society. If EVERYBODY in New Hampshire were Christians and EVERYBODY in Georgia were Christians, the differences would still be there. OK, I won't harangue you about it anymore.
FUTBOL WINS THE SUPER BOWL!!!!
Why is the stock market much more likely to go up if the NFL/NFC wins the Super Bowl?
I'm no sports expert here, but I am pretty sure the NFL ALWAYS wins the Super Bowl ... because isn't one of the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse when Major League Soccer wins the Super Bowl?
Now yes, then no
Note the "/" between the NFL/NFC? These data have been kept since the days of the AFL. And, it's the Four HorsemEn.
Harangue away, GritsnGrins ...
all I'm trying to suggest is that Crhistians in this state might wnat to look at that data and see if there's anything they might do -- in addition to the work they're already doing -- to live out their faith.
Should be interesting
Well, I look forward to your Sunday column and how you recommend people use their faith to improve the state's median income and college graduation rate. And, it's "these" or "those" data, or just "the" data.
OK, the median income thing ...
is tricky. But as far as boosting the college graduation rate, I'd think it might make sense for churches to open their doors to after-school and weekend tutoring programs, where congregants with specific expertise could help middle- and high-school students with their studies.
What do they do?
What do the heathens in NH and VT do? Why don't we just do what they do to up our college graduation rates?