religions and incomes

While it's not perfect... I would assume that atheists and agnostics would be under "unaffiliated" at the end of the chart on the right since there's two categories given: "others" and "unaffiliated."

I am not a big fan that this was published. Why? Look at the disparity with the Jews, Hindus, Jenovah's Witnesses and "Historically Black Churches." I hope this won't be used as propaganda tools by those who dislike those groups.
 
souggy said:
While it's not perfect... I would assume that atheists and agnostics would be under "unaffiliated" at the end of the chart on the right since there's two categories given: "others" and "unaffiliated."
Click to expand...

That's what I assumed as well.
 
souggy said:
While it's not perfect... I would assume that atheists and agnostics would be under "unaffiliated" at the end of the chart on the right since there's two categories given: "others" and "unaffiliated."

I am not a big fan that this was published. Why? Look at the disparity with the Jews, Hindus, Jenovah's Witnesses and "Historically Black Churches." I hope this won't be used as propaganda tools by those who dislike those groups.
Click to expand...

Oh hateful people always have something against their enemies.

Edit: or EVEN use it as a marketing tool - "if they got money, let's go after them to give us money!"
 
netrox said:
At first glance, I thought it was about the world and I thought, "No way that many Hindu's have much money" because of the illustration at the bottom that looked like earth but realized it's only in the USA, not worldwide.

But just fascinating tidbit about religion and income though.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think world numbers would be quite different.
 
souggy said:
While it's not perfect... I would assume that atheists and agnostics would be under "unaffiliated" at the end of the chart on the right since there's two categories given: "others" and "unaffiliated."
Click to expand...
I don't think so. If they were agnostics or atheists their wedge of the chart would be labeled so. "Unaffiliated" usually refers to people who have personal religious beliefs but don't belong to formal, organized religions. "Others" probably includes religions that are small in number individually, so they get lumped together. They could include Wiccans, Native American tribal, and Bahai, for example.

I am not a big fan that this was published. Why? Look at the disparity with the Jews, Hindus, Jenovah's Witnesses and "Historically Black Churches." I hope this won't be used as propaganda tools by those who dislike those groups.
Click to expand...
It's such an incomplete "study" that it really has no significance.
 
Foxrac said:
It could be considered as unaffiliated.
Click to expand...
"Unaffiliated" means religious but not belonging to a formal organization. It doesn't mean atheist. "Atheist" or "non-religious" means atheist.
 
netrox said:
This just surprises me - definitely NOT what I expected:

It's no secret that the distribution of wealth is inequitable in the United States across racial, regional, and socio-economic groups. But there is a distinct variance among and within America's faiths as well.

GOOD.is | The Almighty Dollar (Raw Image)
Click to expand...

Hitler used exactly this kind of data. :(
 
Reba said:
"Unaffiliated" means religious but not belonging to a formal organization. It doesn't mean atheist. "Atheist" or "non-religious" means atheist.
Click to expand...

Thank God I am non-religious.
Sounds better than Thank God I am an atheist.
 
It doesn't matter because most money just go back to the community. But anyway, I always knew that majority of fundamental christians not that wealthy (if they did, some churches will preach against this. Something about easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle )
 
Last edited:
hhmmmm... I haven't even read OP's post and I'm pondering if I should so I can carpet-bomb this thread :hmm:

nah!!! figure skating's on now :fruit:
 
Reba said:
It's such an incomplete "study" that it really has no significance.
Click to expand...

Incomplete data are often used by hate groups to promote their own agendas though.

Two of those mistargeted groups could be considered as "social parasites." Two of those groups could be considered as "stealing money from the lower classes." I don't like it when religious and racial data like this are published.
 
It dosn't surprise me that Hindus and Buddhists make more on average. As of late we are only letting in the more highly skilled immigrants from those countries(India and East Asia), while we let in lower skilled immigrants from Latin America.
 
souggy said:
Incomplete data are often used by hate groups to promote their own agendas though.

Two of those mistargeted groups could be considered as "social parasites." Two of those groups could be considered as "stealing money from the lower classes." I don't like it when religious and racial data like this are published.
Click to expand...

me either.

At first, I thought this thread was about how much money each church or church-related businesses (like a christian bookstore and such) are making , then I realize it is about religious background of wealthy people.I don't care about their religious background.

If you ask me, I think that website was trying to prove who is blessed with riches because of their religion. kinda boasting in a way.

People think some people of certain religion are unable to be wealthy because of their beliefs. Or uneducated people are drawn to certain religion. In severe christian boards, there were plenty of time where people got on and ask us about wealth and education. Then they boast about their religion and how they have lawyers, doctors, etc. Then you have one creationist graduate with degree in science from a popular college and some people felt he should not deserve it because his beliefs does not line up with Darwin (his degree is heavily on evolution)... But they had to give it to him anyway. He teach science in Liberty University now.
 
Back
Top