I’d love to see a time series on this, because if that trend is really only thirty years old (as Gelman said in an earlier post) then Paul Krugman’s thesis suggests a clean narrative: When the Republicans turned their strategy Southward, they had to cater to religion as part of that because the South was highly religious. Once the GOP became invested in religion as part of its politics, the rest of the country heard that message and started voting accordingly. But since the original and enduring thrust of movement conservatism has been economic, it’s message works better on the religious faction’s richer segments (i.e., a dual appeal to that group). Chen and Lind, if I read them right, seem consistent with this answer, which addresses the passport issue (what is the time series on the European trend?). But religious discord might also answer that issue. I’m thinking of an analogy with Alesina, Glaeser, and Sacerdote, who found that racial discord in the U.S. has led to less support for the welfare state because racists don’t like the idea of redistribution to racial out-groups. Religious discord might have a similar effect. So, considering this data, which religions are most discordant towards others?

It would be interesting to study statistically the relationship of religious attendance to marriage and children.

More than a few people attend church functions in part or in whole for marriage and children-related reasons:

- To find a marriage-quality mate.

- To give their children a strong moral grounding.

Also, some churches function as mini-welfare states, redirecting resources from affluent empty-nesters to cash-strapped young parents by subsidizing programs like summer camps for the children of the congregation.

For example, the 2008 exit polls shows that McCain won 52-45 among white Catholics but lost 45-54 among all Catholics, largely because he got beat bad among Hispanics, especially among Hispanic Catholics.

The great majority of TPM Cafe readers are no doubt non-Hispanic whites and think mostly about other non-Hispanic whites, so it would probably be least confusing for them just to put up church attendance numbers for nHw's.

Mike7.

As Inigo Montoya would say: You use the word "bigotry". I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Certainly, "The God Who Wasn't There", which I have watched, is criticism of the alleged divinity (or even actual existence) of Yeshuah of Nazareth. One could even call it an "attack", I suppose, although that implies a virulence and violence (even if figuratively speaking) that I did not find in the movie.

But "bigotry"?. Not hardly. Religions make truth claims. Big, honking ones about Ultimate Reality 'n' such. This includes the vast panoply of sects contained within "Christianity" (even if just about all of the individual sects don't think any of the others -- heretics that they are -- have any business taking the mantle "Christian"). Those truth claims are open to criticism, as well they should be, whether people like it or not. That's what "The God Who Wasn't There" does.

You find it "non-credible". Fine, that's your prerogative. I find it eminently credible; certainly more so than the truth claims of orthodox Christianity, particularly those based on a set of arbitrarily-canonized ancient writings just chock full of internal contradictions and out-and-out magical fairy-tale nonsense (Noah's Ark? Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years without wearing out their clothes or shoes? talking donkeys? Jonah and the giant sea creature?). I say this as a former long-practicing and deeply-believing "Christian", of the Catholic and then later of the fundagelical variety.

Want to know who some real bigots are? The millions of Republican fundagelicals who wouldn't vote for Romney cuz he's Mormon. And you yourself step right up to that line when you wonder about "the religious background or ethnic identity of those who most often attack Christians using media and entertainment". You don't mean Jews, do you? No, of course you don't.