An interesting report came out today, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis.

It seems that nations which have a higher belief in Hell, have lower corruption rates.  There seems to be a correlation to the belief in punishment in an afterlife and the behavior in people in their temporal lives.

I find this rather interesting.  And to me, it makes sense.  When people only have the current life to live, they feel more free to do what they want, to "get what they want", and to trample over others.  When you throw in the belief that how you live is returned to you in some form of afterlife, more people will behave "properly", knowing that bad actions in this life will be payed pack.

Here are some links to more complete articles:

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2004/c/pages/fear_of_hell.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/28/1090694032454.html?oneclick=true

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1090966233670&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-7-2004_pg7_10

I also find it interesting that one of the sources with the most information on this (including the only one with a link to the original report) came from Pakistan.

An interesting correlation.  But you must keep in mind that correlation is not the same as causality.  What other variables characterize those places with a high belief rate in hell and low levels of corruption? 

My dentist has a poster that associated gum desease with low birth weight babies, heart desease, and diabeties, implying that the gum disease is causative.  Of course it it the diabeties that causes the rest.

An interesting correlation.  But you must keep in mind that correlation is not the same as causality.  What other variables characterize those places with a high belief rate in hell and low levels of corruption? 


Oh I agree there.  Just like the report 11 years ago that linked vasectomy with prostate cancer.  It was later they realized that during the procedure, the doctor normally did a check which resulted in a higher DISCOVERY of the cancer.  This skewed the results.

I am sure there are other factors, but it is something that makes you stop and think.  Myself, I prefer to look at is as I phrased it, an afterlife.  It may be the Christian or Muslim Hell, Hindu reserection, or one of many other post-life beliefs.  I feel that any religious belief will help temper at least SOME people, and keep them "more honest".

Of course, this does NOT mean that atheists are not just as good as religious people.  Remember, this report is trying to track large national trends, not individuals.

An interesting report came out today, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis.

It seems that nations which have a higher belief in Hell, have lower corruption rates.  There seems to be a correlation to the belief in punishment in an afterlife and the behavior in people in their temporal lives.

I find this rather interesting.  And to me, it makes sense.  When people only have the current life to live, they feel more free to do what they want, to "get what they want", and to trample over others.  When you throw in the belief that how you live is returned to you in some form of afterlife, more people will behave "properly", knowing that bad actions in this life will be payed pack.

Even if these claims are true, I'd still have to add a major caveat.  Hell is no threat if you don't believe you can ever go there.  Christian fundamentalists operate with the attitude that hell is for other people.  They're the chosen few, they're going to heaven because they've accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. 
I have met some Fundamentalists who have said exactly this to me.  This is called antinomianism and old John Calvin would inform you you're going straight to blazes for practicing it.  Most Fundamentalists will deny they are guaranteed a ticket to the Pearly Gates, but the sure act like they've got a leg up on everyone else.  Again, Calvin would tell you if you think you're saved, you're probably damned.
As for some of our Christian Fundamentalists in public life, what kind of Christian would have the temerity to act like George W. Bush or Pat Robertson?  Lying, cheating, and avarice are anathema to any interpretation of Christian values.
Everyone makes fun of Jimm Carter, but at least he walked the Christian walk!

My personal feeling is that a lack of belief in any kind of afterlife, Heaven or Hell, makes one a whole lot more careful of how one treats others in this life: I've had a skinful of being told by Christians that I am incapable of "moral" behaviour, when all around I see believers of all persuasions behaving far worse.  I've also been grouped (for statistical purposes) with "satanists" - as though someone who believes there is no God is going to believe in, let alone worship some imaginary bugbear.  I've even been called "evil" (quite recently, by someone who I thought should have had a bit of independent mind left, but evidently not)

... just looked at those articles - there is NO statistically significant correlation there whatsoever: it's a completely random scattering, I mean:
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2004/c/images/corruption.gif

that line drawn through the middle has no relevance whatsoever.  It's a non-story.

Even if these claims are true, I'd still have to add a major caveat.  Hell is no threat if you don't believe you can ever go there.  Christian fundamentalists operate with the attitude that hell is for other people.  They're the chosen few, they're going to heaven because they've accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. 


Yes, but not just Christian Fundamentalists act this way, *ALL* fundamentalist act this way.

The biggest problem in the new millenium is Islamic Fundamentalism.  They not only kill other people to hurry their way to Hell, but in doing so, if they die they are guaranteed a place in Heaven.

Of course, my point is about ANY fundamentalism, this is not against Islam.  Jim Jones was also a fundamentalist, as well as Shoko Asahara.  Whenever a religious group takes it's views to the extreme that they decice life and death not for themselves but for others, it is a danger.

At least in the vast majority of cases, Christian Fundamentalism does NOT lead to the death of it's members or of others.

At least in the vast majority of cases, Christian Fundamentalism does NOT lead to the death of it's members or of others.


Maybe in most cases, but I would point out that the members of most lynch mobs that strung up "uppity" blacks throughout the 19th & 20th Centuries in this country were made up of "good, God fearing Christians", as they would describe themselves, ie Christian fundamentalists - gimme that old time religion (that's sarcasm).

Maybe in most cases, but I would point out that the members of most lynch mobs that strung up "uppity" blacks throughout the 19th & 20th Centuries in this country were made up of "good, God fearing Christians", as they would describe themselves, ie Christian fundamentalists - gimme that old time religion (that's sarcasm).


Slavery was an evil institution, and it needed to end.  But you also had atrocities on the "good" side.  John Brown's rebellion, the Nat Turner Uprising, "Bloody Kansas", and a great many more.

But were these people REALLY doing it because of "Christian Beliefs", or useing that as a justification?  I very seriously doubt that ANY KKK members (or members of any other such hate group) REALLY believe that God tells them to kill others because of race/religion/belief.

Don's forget, 3 of the "founders" of the South were both against succession, and even against the "peculiar institution".  Robert E. Lee was against slavery, and was only prevented from emancipating the slaves his wife inherited because of a law in action at the time.  When the war ended, almost ALL of their "slaves" chose to stay with the family.

J.E.B. Stewart also was against slavery, and even offered covery help to some abolitionists.  He believed it was wrong, and should be ended to industrialize the south.  He also joined the rebellion because like R. E. Lee, he say himself as a Virginian first, and American second.

Nathan Bedford Forrest was the founder of the KKK.  But it was intended as a way to strike against occupying Federal troops during reconstruction.  When the group became violent, he ordered them disbanded.  The KKK you see now is a bastard offspring of the original one.

The closest I can think of in modern day to "violent Christian fundamentalists" are those who attack abortion clinics.  And like me, almost all real Christians are horified by these actions.  I can think of no "Religious" groups who attacked blacks in the NAME of religion, they simply did it in the name of hate, and HID behind God.

I can think of no "Religious" groups who attacked blacks in the NAME of religion, they simply did it in the name of hate, and HID behind God.

Surely this is in direct contradiction of what your initial post is trying to prove: that people who believe in Hell are more likely to behave well in this life?

Makes sense, though it may not be true.  If you believe in God and you believe bad deeds can and will came back to bite you in the butt after you die then you may act better.  Remember being a Christian does not instantly make you a fundamentalist which is the label libs. today like to use.

Slavery was an evil institution, and it needed to end.  But you also had atrocities on the "good" side.  John Brown's rebellion, the Nat Turner Uprising, "Bloody Kansas", and a great many more.
I wouldn't equate the two, but Christian Fundamentalists who perpetrate acts of violence upon abortion providers and facilities compare themselves to John Brown.  For them, their cause is just as noble as the abolition of slavery.
Nat Turner's uprising was particularly bloody and went down in history.  However, there were hundreds and hundreds of slave insurrections prior to the Civil War.  Not to mention countless escapes, runaways, and so forth.  Insurrections were put down as brutally as possible.  Slavery was a bloody institution of the subjection of a people against their will.  For hundreds of years the pro-slavery propaganda portrayed "negroes" as simple, child-like folk who were happy under slavery.  The archives are full of paintings and woodcuts of happy negro families playing the banjo and dancing in their cabins.  The upshot of the propagnda was, "They's just neggruhs, they don't know no better."  Nothing could be further from the truth.
At the time of the urban riots in the '60s, the late Senator Strom Thurmond, when asked about it, replied, "Them's just neggruhs."  That's right.  They wuz happy 'til you beatnik college boys come down here and stirred 'em all up!

But were these people REALLY doing it because of "Christian Beliefs", or useing that as a justification?  I very seriously doubt that ANY KKK members (or members of any other such hate group) REALLY believe that God tells them to kill others because of race/religion/belief.
Well, of course it was a justification.  Today the Republicans use "Christian beliefs" to justify greed and excesses of capital.  Greed, selfishness, and accumulation of material fortunes are anathema to the teachings of Jesus, but Pat Robertson will pull a few Biblical passages out of context to justify avarice and the yawning gap between the rich and the poor.

Don's forget, 3 of the "founders" of the South were both against succession, and even against the "peculiar institution".  Robert E. Lee was against slavery, and was only prevented from emancipating the slaves his wife inherited because of a law in action at the time.  When the war ended, almost ALL of their "slaves" chose to stay with the family.
Don't let yourself get fooled into the revisionist belief that the Civil War was not really about slavery. 

Nathan Bedford Forrest was the founder of the KKK.  But it was intended as a way to strike against occupying Federal troops during reconstruction.  When the group became violent, he ordered them disbanded.  The KKK you see now is a bastard offspring of the original one.
More Dixie revisionism.  The KKK from the get go was a terrorist organization designed to keep the black man down.  Of course they were against the federal troops, the "scalawags," and the "carpetbaggers."  Old Dixie was under occupation, negroes were voting, and getting elected to public office.  Oh horror of horrors!  I'm not saying the intentions of all white Yankees were pure, but it's a terrible mistatement of fact to suggest the Klan was ever more than an organization of cowards wreaking intimidation and revenge by violence.

The closest I can think of in modern day to "violent Christian fundamentalists" are those who attack abortion clinics.  And like me, almost all real Christians are horified by these actions.  I can think of no "Religious" groups who attacked blacks in the NAME of religion, they simply did it in the name of hate, and HID behind God.

You are correct here.  The foes of abortion rights for the most part DO NOT tolerate violence.  Some condemn violent tactics on sincerely moral grounds.  Others eschew violence merely because it is a counterproductive tactic.

Surely this is in direct contradiction of what your initial post is trying to prove: that people who believe in Hell are more likely to behave well in this life?


I am not trying to defend that study.  Once again, I am posting it as an interesting piece of news.  Myself, I think it is faulty, and takes a rather simple view of a complex subject.  But it is an interesting study, especially for a bank to undertake.

Well, of course it was a justification.  Today the Republicans use "Christian beliefs" to justify greed and excesses of capital. 


You seem to forget, there are also Democrat Christians.  There are also Democrats who are Fundamentalist Christians, and Democrats who are anti-abortion.

Jimmy Carter considered himself "Born Again", IE Fundamentalist when he was President.

You might want to stop relating all evil in the world with Christians and Republicans.  Considering over half of the US Population claims to be "Christian", it is rather offensive to most people I am sure.

I am not trying to defend that study.  Once again, I am posting it as an interesting piece of news.  Myself, I think it is faulty, and takes a rather simple view of a complex subject.  But it is an interesting study, especially for a bank to undertake.

Sorry, I misunderstood your initial post, then.  I'm not sure of the relevance to the bank, either...

Don't let yourself get fooled into the revisionist belief that the Civil War was not really about slavery. 


It was *NOT* about slavery.  It was about States Rights Vs. Federal Power.  Plain and simple.

Lincoln NEVER intended to free the slaves.  In fact, the famous Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves.  It only freed the slaves of the states in rebellion.  This was a war measure, *NOT* an abolitionist statement.  In fact, Tennessee, Louisiana, and West Virginia were NOT included, because at the time they were under Federal control.

TRUE Emancipation did not occur until 1865, with the passing of the 13th Ammendment.  *THAT* is what ended slavery.

Slavery was already a dying institution.  Just as Feudalism died, so was slavery.  It was rapidly becomming more expensive then it was worth.  Most economists in the US expected it to die of natural causes by the time of the nations Centennial.  Both the move westward and the shrinking price of cotton overseas was making it an unprofitable crop.  This is why after the Civil War, Texas changed from Cotton to Cattle as it's promary agricultural industry.  Great stretches of the south also changed, from cotton to rice, peanuts, saffron, corn, and other crops.

At the time, only a small minority of Southerners owned slaves.  But the prevailing attitude of Southerners was to view themselves as STATE citizens first.  This is why Robert E. Lee left Federal service, because he saw himself as a citizen of Virginia before a citizen of the United States.

This was also not the first nor the last time seccession had raised it's head.  Many North Eastern states almost left the Union because of the War of 1812.  During the war, Manhattan considered leaving the Union and New York, and declairing itself neutral.

It was *NOT* about slavery.  It was about States Rights Vs. Federal Power.  Plain and simple.

Lincoln NEVER intended to free the slaves.  In fact, the famous Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves.  It only freed the slaves of the states in rebellion.  This was a war measure, *NOT* an abolitionist statement.  In fact, Tennessee, Louisiana, and West Virginia were NOT included, because at the time they were under Federal control.

TRUE Emancipation did not occur until 1865, with the passing of the 13th Ammendment.  *THAT* is what ended slavery.

Slavery was already a dying institution.  Just as Feudalism died, so was slavery.  It was rapidly becomming more expensive then it was worth.  Most economists in the US expected it to die of natural causes by the time of the nations Centennial.  Both the move westward and the shrinking price of cotton overseas was making it an unprofitable crop.  This is why after the Civil War, Texas changed from Cotton to Cattle as it's promary agricultural industry.  Great stretches of the south also changed, from cotton to rice, peanuts, saffron, corn, and other crops.

At the time, only a small minority of Southerners owned slaves.  But the prevailing attitude of Southerners was to view themselves as STATE citizens first.  This is why Robert E. Lee left Federal service, because he saw himself as a citizen of Virginia before a citizen of the United States.

This was also not the first nor the last time seccession had raised it's head.  Many North Eastern states almost left the Union because of the War of 1812.  During the war, Manhattan considered leaving the Union and New York, and declairing itself neutral.


Historian continue to debate this issue, and clearly, no resolution is possible.  The literature on these issues is vast and continues to grow as new interpretations are advanced.  You ALL might want to read some of it.

BUT it has little to do with the topic.  Clearly, most of us would find a lynching to be unChristian, and might even believe that those who participate would be sent to hell in the final reconing (if there is one).  The point is that porofessing strong religious beliefs is no garantee of moral behavior or honesty.

It was *NOT* about slavery.  It was about States Rights Vs. Federal Power.  Plain and simple.
I'm not trying to tell you it was the noble, abolitionist North versus the wicked, slaveholding South.  That would be every bit as innacurate as saying slavery was not a key issue at all.  The objections to slavery from the north and from territories to become states were economic, not moral.  Lincoln's role as the great emancipator is a myth, I agree.  Yes, it was the 13th Amendment not the Emancipation Proclamation that abolished slavery in the U.S.


Slavery was already a dying institution.  Just as Feudalism died, so was slavery.  It was rapidly becomming more expensive then it was worth.  Most economists in the US expected it to die of natural causes by the time of the nations Centennial.  Both the move westward and the shrinking price of cotton overseas was making it an unprofitable crop.  This is why after the Civil War, Texas changed from Cotton to Cattle as it's promary agricultural industry.  Great stretches of the south also changed, from cotton to rice, peanuts, saffron, corn, and other crops.
Yes, it was indeed dying out.  However, those rich southern planters would fight tooth and nail to hang onto it as long as possible.  It was their way of life, their "peculiar institution."  You could say the South was desperate to hang onto a glorious era already receding.  In retrospect, I think 1876 is a bit too soon, but I'd say slavery would be in its death throes at the turn of the century.  Brazil abolished slavery in 1898.

At the time, only a small minority of Southerners owned slaves.  But the prevailing attitude of Southerners was to view themselves as STATE citizens first.  This is why Robert E. Lee left Federal service, because he saw himself as a citizen of Virginia before a citizen of the United States.
A lot of these other issues had to do with tariffs, which the Confederate consititution forbade the federal government from imposing on states, how much say the feds should have in the internal infrastructure of states, whether states could have their own armies (in the Confederacy, they could), whether states could enter into agreements with one another without the fed's consent (in the Confedaeracy, this was to be allowed, too).
While these issues played a role in the conflict, particularly in South Carolina and Georgia, and the secession and the bombardment of Fort Sumter ignited the war itself, it was slavery that was most responsible for creating the combustible conditions.

While Robert E. Lee may not have been a big fan of slavery, Confederate President Jefferson Davis sure was!  He thought it really was best for the South's economy, and "our negroes."

Yes, it was indeed dying out.  However, those rich southern planters would fight tooth and nail to hang onto it as long as possible.


Actually, there was not much "rich" about the South.  There were huge debts owed by most of the plantations.  In fact, this was one of the fears of Northern banks, that after succession, they would default on these loans. 

The loans were run up largely because of the invention of the cotton gin.  This made it easier to prepare the cotton for use, and changed the economics.  Supply was up and prices of cotton was falling.  Also, both England and France were having their newer colonies (like Egypt) plant cotton.

The Confederacy planned on useing cotton to force Europe to recognize it.  Bad move, since for the first time most of Europe had a surplus in cotton.  With no leverage, little industry, and a smaller population, it was only a matter of time until the Confederacy fell.  It only lasted as long as it did because of their almost fanatical fighting.

The real reason the South kept slavery as long as they did was fear.  In many areas, blacks outnumbered whites.  Just like how South Africa held out for so long, they were terrified of what might happen when they were freed.  This was about 60 years after the successful revolt in Haiti, and the slaughter there was still fresh in the minds of Southerners.  Add to that the Nat Turner revolt (amont many others) and at least in their mind, there was good reason to fear emancipation.

Of course, Lincoln's plan was doomed to failure as well.  His proposed solution was to send the slaves back to Africa, to the colony of Liberia.

Actually, there was not much "rich" about the South.  There were huge debts owed by most of the plantations.  In fact, this was one of the fears of Northern banks, that after succession, they would default on these loans. 

The loans were run up largely because of the invention of the cotton gin.  This made it easier to prepare the cotton for use, and changed the economics.  Supply was up and prices of cotton was falling.  Also, both England and France were having their newer colonies (like Egypt) plant cotton.

The Confederacy planned on useing cotton to force Europe to recognize it.  Bad move, since for the first time most of Europe had a surplus in cotton.  With no leverage, little industry, and a smaller population, it was only a matter of time until the Confederacy fell.  It only lasted as long as it did because of their almost fanatical fighting.

The real reason the South kept slavery as long as they did was fear.  In many areas, blacks outnumbered whites.  Just like how South Africa held out for so long, they were terrified of what might happen when they were freed.  This was about 60 years after the successful revolt in Haiti, and the slaughter there was still fresh in the minds of Southerners.  Add to that the Nat Turner revolt (amont many others) and at least in their mind, there was good reason to fear emancipation.

Of course, Lincoln's plan was doomed to failure as well.  His proposed solution was to send the slaves back to Africa, to the colony of Liberia.

That's why I say the South was lucky they lost.  Had they won, they'd be another agricultural banana republic, deep in debt, half a generation dead, infrastructure shot, and surrounded by hostile nations--the Union, Mexico, and the re-formed Republic of Texas!  Not to mention the internal race wars, and the mass migrations---the Confederacy would have been a total hell hole!

No, the South was never "rich" per se.  A few were stinking rich, while most whites were dirt poor.  Planters used to tell their negroes they were superior to those rednecks down the road.  Better that than solidarity between poor whites and slaves!
A very small percentage of whites owned any slaves at all, and a very small percentage of the slave-holding class owned more than one or two. 
Unfortunately, the most powerful image of pre-bellum life seems to come from "Gone With the Wind."  The class of rich planters like the O'Haras and the Wilkeses was 1% of the white population at best.

This thread has to do with belief in an afterlife and corruption, so why are we debating the causes of the US Civil War?

But as a historian, I can't resist.  Slavery, State's Rights, industrialization vrs agriculture, the tariff, free land, all played a role, but  as Avery Craven noted, they all got equated with slavery.  His article, in The Journal of Southern History from the 1950's I think, is an excellant one.

But hell, lets ghet back on topic.