Washington most “no religion” state according to poll |
USA Today Poll showing religion by state. Washington state shows 25% who took the American Religious Identification Survey answered “no religion.” Who knows how accurate the data is here and it’s only the lower states.
25% Washington State
22% Vermont
21% Colorado
21% Oregon
20% Nevada
20% Wyoming
19% California
19% Idaho
18% New Mexico
17% Arizona
In case you are curious, North Dakota had the least percentage of “no religion” with 3%.
[Download states_no_religion.xls]
Did this post make you go hmm?
(4 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading ...
We’re certainly a religious bunch up here in North Dakota.
It’s interesting to notice how most of the higher percentages go to west coast states. What is the reason do you suppose? I grew up in Oregon and there is a higher amount of “tree-hugger” types who I can see as non-religious than in any other place I’ve lived. Maybe it’s tied to extreme environmentalism? Couldn’t that be classified as a religion if you wanted to? Heck we have scientology…
Comment by thatedeguy — July 23, 2006 @ 11:31 pm PST
Yeah, what’s up in that flat state of North Dakota? Where you can see a cross for miles and miles and miles.
Comment by TDavid — July 23, 2006 @ 11:37 pm PST
I believe most of it can be attributed to the fact that North Dakota has a fairly sparse population. That and most of the state is comprised of fairly small farming communities. From my experience, those tend to be highly religious areas. Our larger cities like Fargo and Bismarck(90,000 and 60,000 respectively) tend to be less religious simply because they tend to be more condensed populations.
Because of the isolation of the sparse population centers, I think that the old religious structures and family values tended to stick around a lot longer and stronger as opposed to a metro area where the family structure becomes a little more fragmented.
My thoughts on it anyways.
Comment by thatedeguy — July 23, 2006 @ 11:50 pm PST
I’m part of that 25% in Washington. I’m not anti-religious or even an atheist — I just don’t affiliate. If they had a category for agnostic, I’d be in it. All that means is “I don’t know”.
I’m not surprised at the ND number. Along the lines of what thatedguy said, you’ll always find stronger religious beliefs among more sparse populations. Part of it could be the Roman Empire effect — blended cultures break up old belief systems — and part of it could be the need for greater togetherness and security.
Comment by Sterling Camden — July 24, 2006 @ 12:45 pm PST
Interesting. I’d never heard of the Roman Empire effect, Sterling. Or at least not heard it called such. Thanks for the tidbit. I learn something new everyday.
Comment by thatedeguy — July 24, 2006 @ 1:32 pm PST
Well, I kinda “coined” it just now, thatedguy. But it’s an old idea. The Romans themselves (especially Cato and Cicero) often spoke about the loss of their old virtue by mixing in foreign ideas (an idea Gibbon develops fully, with Christianity being the main culprit). The principle itself is much older than the Romans. One of the great themes of the Old Testament involves the dilution of true Yahwism (read “worship the Lord thy God”) by the admixture of Canaanite culture. In reviewing the archaeology, it appears that the Canaanites were quite a bit more advanced culturally and technologically than their Israelite conquerors — so just like the later Greeks (by the Romans) and the Romans (by the Goths), they were conquered militarily but had the bittersweet revenge of complicating the simpler culture of their conquerors.
Comment by Sterling Camden — July 24, 2006 @ 1:46 pm PST