|« July 13, 2003 - July 19, 2003 | Main | July 27, 2003 - August 02, 2003 »|
July 26, 2003
The Protestantization of Islam???
This article in Beliefnet strikes me as rather strange. The author is a Muslim who is a medical doctor-not someone who has specialized knowledge in Islam-and his rendering of the faith (all the stuff about God's forgiveness and ability to redeem humans, etc.) strikes me as very Protestant, in the American context, almost Evangelical. The author also asserts a place for Free Will in the Islamic conception of the God-human relationship, and yet my understanding is that the orthodox Islamic position rejects Free Will in favor of predestination. I'm not going to snipe about how the author is not schooled in the religion of his profession, many lay Presbyterians do not delve deeply into the denial of Free Will that serves as a point of separation for their Calvinist tradition from that of many other Protestants, nor do many Lutherans contemplate much over the muddle that is their doctrine on this issue. Rather, most American Protestants, even the Evangelicals, as well as Catholics and to some extent Jews, have become participants in a vague form of theism that rejects excessive formulation of doctrine and rigorous scripture study in favor of emotional devotion and personal redefinition of "what it means to be Fill-in-the-blank." The Protestantization of American Islam is surely a good thing, a move away from Islam's current standing as a cult-sect that is shifted far from the American mainstream and to some extent religiously at odds with it, to one denomination among many that partakes of the standard public pieties without excessive self-reflection on the axioms of the faith.
Related note: See this ParaPundit article on the various attempts to bring the Koran into the umbrella of textual analysis that the Bible has been subjected to since the 19th century. Note that modernist criticism of the Bible lead to the emergence of Fundamentalism in the early 20th century in the form of pamphlets like The Five Fundamentals. Unfortunately most of the scholars that work in this new field have to go under pseudonyms because of the nature of their endeavour. And just like the investigation into the Bible, the inquiry seems to be driven by German scholars....
Update 2: Zack comments (a lot).
Update 3: Bill Allison weights in.
There are many discussions on this site about a variety of phenotypes. Most of these phenotypes are "quantitative traits." There seems to be a common conflation in the minds of many about how these traits work, and an attempt to apply the simpler mendelian genetics that applies to discrete traits (a small number of expressions of the trait, for instance, blue, green or brown eyes, etc.). Here is a short & simple primer on Quantitative Traits and another on Mendelian Genetics. Of course, Mendelian genetics is the bedrock from which quantitative traits, or continuous traits (height, IQ, etc.), emerge, but one must use different methods to analyze these traits because they are polygenic (multiple genes influence their expression) & often environmentally sensitive (the environment has a strong influence on their expression). The normal distribution, regression to the mean and narrow-sense heritability are all terms associated with quantitative traits  (though note that since many of these terms, for instance, the first two, come out of the world of statistics, they are often found outside of genetics).
 To illustrate the differences between discrete and continuous traits, compare height & eye color. Imagine trying to graph the distribution of blue, brown and mixed color eyes, since there are only three points, it is very discrete. On the other hand, height is a continuous trait, and displays the common "Bell Curve" distribution. Regression to the mean occurs with height because of environment, but obviously the same does not occur with eye color, as there is a deterministic relationship genotype and phenotype (in other words, the color of one's eyes is determined solely by genetics).
Naturally lower cholesterol
July 25, 2003
July 24, 2003
Jews & Asians-again
I've gotten two recent emails forwarding me this old Slate piece by Nick Lemann, When Asian-Americans become the "new Jews," what happens to the Jews?, so I decided to link it.... (flavor of the month I suppose-thanks Ikram & zizka)
The headline shouts Date limit set on first Americans, as in no earlier than 18,000 years ago according to genetic evidence. But read more closely and note the qualifications....
How humans lost a sense (sort of)
Are senses a zero-sum game? The Economist implies it in this article that indicates that the focus on vision diminished the primate, and especially human, sense of smell. I've copied the full article below....
Note: Read The Emperor of Scent for an alternative account of the physiology of smell....
MORE COLOUR, LESS ODOUR
Gaining colour vision, it seems, cost people much of their sense of
THERE is a theory that the human sense of smell began to atrophy when
People detect smells when particular molecules lock on to receptor
Most odoriferous molecules activate more than one type of receptor. The
To find out if humans are unusual among primates in having lost such a
In the mouse, around 20% turned out to be pseudogenes, whereas in
Moreover, the distinction between new world and old world was so clear
Why would this sudden increase in OR loss have occurred both in the
Trichromatic vision involves three pigments, called opsins, that are
Confusingly, this gene can exist in two forms, which produce opsins
The researchers believe that the emergence of separate opsin genes on
AFRAID OF GROWING OLD?
This is aimed at provoking discussion on the problems of an elderly population.
In most Western countries the proportion of old people in the population is rising. The increase is greater in some countries than others, due to differences in migration, birth rates, and life expectancy. It is greatest in Japan, and lowest in the USA, with Western European countries somewhere in between.
Alarming conclusions are drawn from this trend. It is feared that old people will be a serious burden on the working population, and that measures must be taken to encourage a higher birth rate, or higher immigration.
I do not claim that there is no problem, but I do think it is often exaggerated. Some commentators and politicians have reasons of their own for wanting to promote immigration, or a ‘Kinder, Kirche, Kuche’ society.
The growing proportion of old people is due to several causes. One of them is obviously the increase in life expectancy. Between 1900 and 2000 life expectancy at age 60 increased by about 50%. If this were a transition from one ‘steady state’ to another, we would expect there to be roughly a 50% increase in the proportion of over-60s in the population.
In practice, populations are seldom in ‘steady state’. They are either growing or shrinking. If the population is growing, the proportion of old people will be less than its ‘steady state’ level. But if growth slows down or stops, the proportion of old people is likely to rise. Notably, after World War II the birth rate rose sharply, and then fell, producing a bulge of ‘baby boomers’ who are now approaching retirement age. This will undoubtedly increase the proportion of old people over the next 20 years.
Another problem in the long term is the fact that in most western countries the birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate. If this continued indefinitely then populations would eventually shrink to nothing. As I’ve argued previously, predictions of birth and death rates are unreliable, and birth rates may not continue below the replacement rate for very long.
But in the mean time, a low birth rate does have implications for the ‘dependency ratio’. As usually defined by demographers, this is the ratio of people both above and below working age to the working-age population. Both groups of dependents need to be supported. In many countries the dependency ratio is now actually lower than 100 years ago, when there were relatively few old people but a lot of hungry children.
The main point to note is that the impact of a sustained low birth rate on the overall dependency ratio is very gradual, and smaller than might be expected.
More serious problems arise when several factors are raising the proportion of old people at the same time. At present Germany and Japan in particular are facing a triple whammy, due to (a) very long life expectancy, (b) very low birth rates, and (c) a large bulge in population about to reach retirement age. But even these problems shouldn’t be exaggerated. According to the German statistical office, by 2050 about 31% of the German population will be over 65, 17% will be under 20, and just over 50% will be aged 20-65. A ratio of one worker to one dependent should not be intolerable. And countries as densely populated as Germany, and especially Japan (with over 10 times the density of the USA), could benefit from a gradual reduction of population.
Of course, a lot depends on the level of income expected by old people. At present, German pensioners expect to receive two-thirds or even three-quarters of their previous income. I doubt if this is realistic in the long term.
A lot also depends on the proportion of the population who are actually working. In most countries, relatively small adjustments in the average retirement age, or the number of people doing part-time work, would offset the increase in the dependency ratio.
That’s enough for now, but I can’t resist quoting Frederick the Great (I think), when his troops were trying to retreat: ‘What, do you scoundrels want to live for ever?’
July 22, 2003
Godless stated he wouldn't post about Jews, but I'm not him, so I feel no restraint. Someone referenced Greg Cochran's new essay How The Ashkenazi Got Their Smarts, so I feel obligated to link to it on Jerry Pournelle's site. Enjoy & discuss....
Update from Godless:
Well, if it's "Jeurasian" week at GNXP, I did have a few things to chip in. First is that the Cochran title is a reference to How the Leopard got his Spots...which is a self-referentially wry dig at sociobiological just-so stories. Nice wordplay there, GC. 
Second, just thought I'd link to this decent summary of Jewish genetics research up to 2002:
'The authors are correct in saying the historical origins of most Jewish communities are unknown,' Dr. [Shaye] Cohen [of Harvard University] said. 'Not only the little ones like in India, but even the mainstream Ashkenazic culture from which most American Jews descend.'.... If the founding mothers of most Jewish communities were local, that could explain why Jews in each country tend to resemble their host community physically while the origins of their Jewish founding fathers may explain the aspects the communities have in common, Dr. Cohen said.... The Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA's in today's Jewish communities reflect the ancestry of their male and female founders but say little about the rest of the genome... Noting that the Y chromosome points to a Middle Eastern origin of Jewish communities and the mitochondrial DNA to a possibly local origin, Dr. Goldstein said that the composition of ordinary chromosomes, which carry most of the genes, was impossible to assess. 'My guess,' Dr. Goldstein said, 'is that the rest of the genome will be a mixture of both.'"
So the upshot is: Y chromosomal lineage from the Middle East, mtDNA from local mothers, and autosomes are yet to be determined. A founder population of males from the Middle East came in, married local females, and practiced endogamy once the community got large enough. Another large contributor to phenotypic resemblance is natural selection effects...in irony of ironies, the Nazis exerted strong selection pressure for blond haired, blue eyed Jews.
Clearly at least some autosomes will have characteristically Ashkenazi signatures, because some of the diseases common to the Ashkenazi are located on autosomes (that is, non-sex chromosomes).
Diseases seen more frequently in the Ashkenazi Jewish population
This stuff is also useful for fact-checking Cochran's essay, of course...though I'm too lazy to look up those pathways ;)
Now, a special treat for our GNXP readers:
 Why, thank you, GC...says GC ;)
I don't know buy the "lower visuospatial IQ" for Jews. Supposedly it comes from Daniel Seligman's book "A Question of Intelligence", but in my opinion it's unlikely that Jews would have anything like their incredible math dominance (see here) without high visuospatial skills, unless "visuospatial" means something different than "ability to rotate/visualize three dimensional objects".
Science is for losers
Ok, I can't hold back on the cognitive elite post.
In America, science/eng is for losers. Period. Of course, I speak from the biotech/biology point of view, and this is the group to which most of my following comments will apply. However, I believe that my comments largely apply to chemists, engineers and computer people also.
Let's start with the premise. Twenty years ago, the NSF came out with the famous report that the US was going to run out of scientists. This lie was repeated, even more forcefully in 1989, when the NSF predicted a "shortfall" of 675,000 sci/eng students. The government promptly went into social engineering mode, and grand campaigns (and graduate funding programs) were instituted to ensure the USA wouldn't run out. Guess what? The faculty retirements never happened, people went into sci/eng and for the past 15 years, we've been running around with a huge glut of sci/eng (along with hordes of imported sci/engs)
Now, actually, this is probably good from a societal view, as these surplus sci/eng did go on to help start the biotech/IT boom of recent years as Razib points out (ex-IBMers--"Go start your own companies!"). However, from an individual standpoint, all this overproduction has done is to devalue your skills and increase the risk involved with sci/eng as a career path.
Let's look at a typical career path for a biotech type scientist:
5-9 years grad school. Age 26-30+. Salary as a grad student: $20-25K
Post-doc: 2-5 years. Age: 28-35. Salary as post-doc: 25-40K (note, this is for a PhD, and a person who is likely around 30 years old. This should be insulting). Likelihood of finding academic position: about 1%. (typical faculty positions advertised receive several hundred applications). Chance of second post-doc because job in industry is also not available: about 40%.
So, at the age of 30ish, and after obtaining an advanced degree as part of 10+ years of post-graduate education and training, you can hope for about a 59% chance of finding a "real job." This real job pays about $70K in industry (up to 90K for chemists), a bit less for starting professors.
The rest circle around in post-docs or finally leave science in disgust.
Now, plenty of people might say, "what are you complaining about, those salaries are fine?" Perhaps. But the economics should be made clear to aspiring young scientists--expect to work 60-70 hours/week until you're 35 before you can even hope to have a real job, with benefits, that pays more than a journeyman plumber (but not a fully bonded plumber and let's not forget the average GM worker earning $68K/yr). These people who can make it in science are typically smart enough to be MDs (salary $100-200+K/yr by age 30 at the latest), lawyers (salary $100K-$400K by age 30), or banker/MBA types ($100K-$1M by 28).
That's the reality. Science is for losers. If you're going to go through all that education/training and work 60-70 hrs/wk, at least you should be compensated like MDs, lawyers or investment bankers. If you don't care about the money, fine, but don't ever start on the "nobility of science" crap that Gould liked to prattle on about. You're making an economic decision--"I love science so much that I'm going to give up all this potential income, etc." If you want to, fine. But go into science knowing that, and knowing that the situation will NOT get better (i.e. what's going to happen when big Pharma starts outsourcing all their medicinal chemistry R&D to Bangalore and Hyderabad?).
"Brights" and (I presume) "Dulls"
I was busy during the "brights debate a few weeks back, but Steve Sailer's recent comments jogged my memory. As one of the only theistic Gene Expressors, I'll concede that atheists' unpopularity is for the most part undeserved. Having known several atheists in Europe (and many whom I suspect are closet atheists in America) I think that atheists' ill-rep is mostly an image problem. In my experience most American atheists know that they are ill-favored and tend to keep mum. Therefore, an atheists who readily identifies himself as such quite frequently has a GIGANTIC chip on his shoulder and alienates most believers due to his hystrionic antisocialness. Not to say that many believers don't have an instinctive revulsion for atheists (as they often do for theists, but I suspect that relatively few religious Americans have close friends who are open atheists. Therefore, whenever some self-infatuated wanker decides to promote himself on the back of his school-aged child, religious people read the paper and say "Huh, I was right about them."
However, as a believer myself, I can assure you that "brights" is not the way to go. Richard Dawkins manifests in great abundance the atheist stereotype that I find to be probably the most accurate among them: noxious arrogance. I am not saying that religious people cannot be arrogant, but however great a scientist Dawkins might be, an image repair campaign of this magnitude requires skills and talents he does not have. Stone-hearted atheists who feel unloved, listen up: Chuck the obnoxious intellectuals and hire the best PR consultant money can buy. And here's some free advice: trying to improve your image among believers by implying that you think they're all stupid is a really dumb idea. Maybe Dawkins isn't as "bright" as he thinks.
P.S. from duende: As of tomorrow, I'll be in Japan for 4 weeks, so you won't see me around here much.
Sailer's a great guy and I like him a lot, but he's totally wrong on the Dawkins issue. I mean, Dawkins may be a militant atheist, but he's done a *huge* service in advancing the public's understanding of evolution. Others (like Gould on the left, Robertson on the right, etc.) did much to advance the public's *misunderstanding* of evolution.
As for theism... needless to say, as "godless" I disagree with duende. I do feel that if you believe in religion, you believe in magic and fairy tales. In the end, there are no believers in foxholes, because when push comes to shove you'll reach for your gun rather than your cross. Science *works*, but religion does not.
I admit that I have less respect for people who can't understand this, but I don't push it in their faces. This is because I now understand that blaming them is like blaming people who can't understand math. Developments in neurotheology and heritability estimates  for religious belief have made me realize that arguing with someone who believes in God is often much like teaching someone to do mathematics who just doesn't have the ability...it's pointless because their brain simply isn't programmed that way
...religion and belief in God is a human construction. I covered Bouchard's twin studies showing a roughly 50% heritability of religiosity, Persinger's research in replicating spiritual experiences in the laboratory (with electromagnetic fields), Ramachandran's research with temporal lobe epilepsy-triggered religious experiences, NDE's being replicated in the laboratory (all to show that religiosity and religious experiences are at least, in part, a function of our genes and biology...
I'm thankful that I don't have quite so developed/influential a "god zone" in my brain. I'll close with Sailer himself:
Anti-religiousness is the appropriate professional prejudice of scientists. The "Far Side" cartoon summed it up. A lab-coated researcher is filling the left and right sides of a black board with equations, but the only thing connecting the two clouds of symbols are the words, "A miracle happens here." Another scientist suggests, "Maybe you could give us a little more detail on that middle section." Relying on miracles in science is like relying on the lottery in retirement planning.
The difference, of course, is that relying on the lottery is far more certain.
 I am open to counterexamples.
I bold-faced the name because it looks to be non-Brahmin to me. Anyone got a clue? This guy has the same surname, and he is a Nair from Kerala (a high status Sudra, #2 in the pecking order in Kerala after the Namboothiri Brahmins).
Godless: thread on Indian names here.
July 21, 2003
I have alluded to a "transnational" post-ethnic elite before on this blog. This is a microcosm of what I mean (from The Washington Post). Some relevant excerpts:
Of course, intra-European mingling is an order of magnitude below what I speak of, but just project the scale upward as transportation costs decline and globalization progresses. I worry about the possibility of co-existance between this new class of post-national mult-ethnic individuals and the old nationalist elites that emerged out of the French Revolution and its aftermath, not to mention the tension with the mass of lumpen that form the bedrock of a social organism.
Update from Godless:
Steve Sailer (and several others) have also voiced such concerns, albeit with a more US centric view. See here.
It's interesting to speculate on the future of intermarriage in America. Marriages are increasingly likely to be between people of different ethnic groups but of similar IQ's, and there's no reason to assume this trend will stop. America's obsession with sending everybody to college means that young people get sorted by SAT score (i.e., IQ) when they're at their most romantic. Therefore, it's quite possible that the top dogs in America will in future generations look different than they do now, but they probably won't look much like the future underdogs, either. If we were to halt immigration now, continuing intermarriage along IQ lines might in many generations lead to the country being run by an IQ overclass of mostly "Jeurasians" (i.e., a genetic blend of the smarter European gentiles, Jews, East Asians, South Asians, Armenians, and possibly other Middle Easterners). In contrast, the lower ranks might consist largely of "Redblex": a rather lumpy partial blend of redneck whites, blacks, and Mexicans.
I thought the coinage of "Jeurasians" and "Redblex" was quite clever.
Making the cognitive elite redundant?
This article in The New York Times titled "I.B.M. Explores Shift of White-Collar Jobs Overseas" no doubt sends shivers down the backs of every worker-bee in the IT sector. There are a few things to address here.
* Now college educated people understand the rage that blue-collar workers who expected lifetime employment at $45,000-60,000 a year felt as they saw their jobs moved overseas.
* This seems to be a modified version of what Paul Krugman spoke of in Peddling Prosperity when he asserted knowledge workers could be made redundant by computers while cooks & janitors will always be needed because of the lack of progress in robotics. The difference is that these knowledge workers aren't being replaced by computers, but rather instantaneous communication and radically lowered barriers to cooperation because of IT has made American workers expendable when faced with cheap foreign knowledge workers. In contrast, cooks and janitors are still around and not being exported overseas, but, humans from overseas (or across the Rio Grande) are now filling those positions.
Personally, I think that the pendulum will swing back from outsourcing all the high level development and architecture when the limitations of technology and intercultural communications over 6,000 miles become apparent. Additionally, the social & personal element still exists when a group of programmers collaborates, and that is hard to come by if they are scattered across the four corners of the earth (of course, until we have realistic VR technology). Until the expectation and reality re-equilibriate, it's going to be kind of painful for IT workers in the US.
Related article in The American Conservative.
"Increased global trade was supposed to lead to better jobs and higher standards of living," said Donald A. Manzullo, an Illinois Republican who is the committee chairman. "The assumption was that while lower-skilled jobs would be done elsewhere, it would allow Americans to focus on higher-skilled, higher-paying opportunities. But , what do you tell the Ph.D., or professional engineer, or architect, or accountant, or computer scientist to do next? Where do you tell them to go?"
You tell them to start their own company, is what you do! Are these highly trained guys all wage slaves? I thought they were smart and creative...interest rates are at an all time low, and now is the time to bootstrap a new company.
Asians/Asian-Americans & sports & marriage
Eric Lien of Mixed Asian has a trifecta of interesting posts. First, the racial breakdown of sports participation in Malaysia. Then, two articles address the "Asian marriage gap," here & here (the backstory here is that an Asian-American activist is disputing Steve Sailer's interpretation and explanation of interracial marriage statistics that he first elaborated in his article Is Love Colorblind?).
Racial identity and cognitive dissonance
I'm currently reading Hitler's Jewish soldiers, an important and disturbing book I've blogged about before but hadn't actually been able to get hold of until now (I bought a copy at Waterstone's, an excellent book store chain here in London). This work fascinates me as much for its study of human psychology and as a work that really fits as much into that misused term 'cultural studies' as it does into military history. The book examines the plight of the 'Mischlinge' ('partial Jews') who served in the German military during Hitler's reign. Why did they do it?  Apparently because of one or more of these motives
1) Some were themselves anti-semitic, Nazi supporters and strong German nationalists who were unaware of their Jewish ancestry until the Nuremberg laws brought it to their attention - ironically in some cases this was because the Jewish parent or grandparent was of Orthodox background and had become cut off from their community after marrying Goyim
There are some truly fascinating and in some cases chilling case studies and anecdotes reported in this book. I was particularly interested in the cognitive dissonance that many of these Mischlinge and their relatives had to get used to living in those insane times. These people were in an awkward position, being caught between two worlds (they were rejected by the Jewish community too who thought they had forsaken their heritage by 'sucking up' to the German side and then only turning to them when there was trouble). For instance, the book relates the case of one half-Jewish soldier, Rolf von Sydow, who writes after watching the anti-semitic Nazi propaganda film Jud Suss:
Some Mischlinge were driven to overcompensate because of propaganda about their inferiority:
Another Mischlinge, Hans-Geert Falkenberg, tells his Nazi godmother that his Jewish grandmother got deported to the east. When the Nazi godmother asks him why he didn't tell her this earlier, he simply says it's because she is a Nazi to which she replies:
The book makes the surprising discovery that most of the Mischlinge studied had the sympathies of both their comrades and superiors when their ancestry came to light . Some of these comrades and superiors even went as far as to cover up the ancestry of valued Mischlinge soldiers. These military men were by no means racial liberals  and were mostly culturally anti-semitic but apparently did not care less in the case of Mischlinge who were as German as the average guy. Most of them probably would have agreed with the conservative Hindenburg's more 'middle of the road' antisemitism which recommended treating all Jews except those who served in the army as second-class citizens. Hitler apparently held back on his radicalism in this area until he felt he no longer needed the support of Hindenburg conservatives which was why the Mischlinge policy waxed and waned over time.
 Military policy with regard to the Mischlinge waxed and waned according to Hitler's moods. Initially at the start of the war, the Mischlinge were drafted into the army on condition that they would never attain higher rank regardless of their achievement. Later Hitler ordered all Mischlinge to be discharged subject to an exemptions policy that was based on personal references. Later still when the 'final solution' was being discussed, the absurd position was formulated that quarter Jews and half Jews who served the army would, after the end of the war, be 'Aryanised' but that the half Jew veterans, in common with other half Jews would be sterilised. In light of these circumstances which meant that at least for some period of time the Mischinge had no choice but to serve, my question is addressed to the cases of those Mischlinge who were keen to serve from the very beginning and who subsequently did all they could to avoid being discharged.
The Shia of Turkey
The CIA FACTBOOK entry on Turkey states that it is "99.8% Muslim (mostly Sunni)." Most surveys of Turkish Islam that the public is aware of give the impression that Turkish Islam is Sunni Islam, specifically of the Hanafi tradition promoted by the Ottomans, which is also dominant in central & south Asia. But go to the Area Handbook of Turkey and you will find out about the Alevi, a heterodox Shia sect that forms anywhere from 10-30% of Turkey's population, and is known as the "Alawites" in Syria (where they form 10% of the population and dominate the Baath Party and are the affiliation of Assad dynasty). Because of the Alevi practice dissimulation and the Turkish authorities, Ottoman & Republican, would rather not acknowledge their existence, it is hard to gauge their numbers, and they are not well known by the outside world. But now you know....
July 20, 2003
Survival of the palest....
Lethal stereotypes: Hair and eye color as survival characteristics during the Holocaust asserts a new study excerpted over at Dienekes' blog.
Defender of the unfaith
Interesting opinion from an atheist who defends the Church of England as a potent force for secularism. The nutshell of the argument is that the C of E acts as a vaccine against more virulent forms of religion. Christopher Hitchens once expressed similar opinions in Freethought Today. Until recently all of Scandinavia had state supported churches (Sweden disestablished in 2000), while Germany and The Netherlands give financial support to prominent religious denomenations . None of these countries is known for its piety (40% of Dutch are "Nothing," 25% of Germans are explicitly "confessionless," while Lutheran churches in Scandinavia are rather empty on a usual Sunday). Of course other European nations, France prominently, that have high walls of separation between church & state are also irreligous in the main, so it is hard to find a pattern.
But some theorists of religion (Rodney Stark) have long argued that a competitive religious marketplace, such as the United States, is an important factor in the observance and zeal of a population. Though there might be something to this, there are nations such as Japan that have an open marketplace and many small new religious movements, and yet remain rather secular (South Korea is an example of a nation where this thesis seems valid, but one must remember that at least 45% of South Koreans are not religiously affiliated). So I am not going to advocate an established church for the United States anytime soon....
 The fundamentalist/traditionalist Protestant churches in Germany who do not recieve state support are termed "The Free Churches."