Monday, November 14, 2005

More Demographic Fun, or Red State "Values" Don't Work

Did you know that the Red States have:

A higher divorce rate?
Liberal, secular Massachusetts, with its scary gay marriage, has the lowest. Texas has almost twice as many divorces per capita. More fun facts: Bob Barr, the Republican who wrote the "Defense of Marriage Act", has been married three times. Baptists have the highest divorce rate. Tell me, whom does marriage really need defending from?

Higher teen pregnancy rates?
Massachusetts has a rate of 7.4, while Texas's is 16.1. I wonder why the Blue States aren't rushing out to copy abstinence-only sex-ed.

Less education? At least Kansas is taking decisive action by inserting intelligent design into the curriculum.

More money coming in than going out with taxes? Why do they keep complaining about taxes then?


We need to move away from "faith-based" values and towards "evidence-based" values. Maybe if the Red States started paying more attention to the data and less to simplistic ideology, they'd start to close the gap.


(Some of these data are from this article.)

51 comments:

satyaman said...

Massachusetts has a low divorce rate because of its large Irish Catholic Population. It is really unfair to use that state as an example to make your point. Alhtough, your point may nontheless be valid, I would use another example.

dbackdad said...

Satyaman,
You are making a pretty bold statement and oversimplifying by saying that the only reason Massachusetts has a low divorce rate is because it has many Catholics. By your same reasoning, Texas should have a much lower divorce rate. 11 of the top 25 counties in the U.S. with the highest proportion of Catholics are in Texas.

The Largest Catholic Communities

Jewish Atheist said...

The data showed that the highest divorce rates were found in the Bible Belt. "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people.

11 southern states (AL, AR, AZ, FL, GA, MS, NC, NM, OK, SC and TX averaged 5.1/1000 people. (LA data is not available; TX data is for 1997).

Nine states in the Northeast (CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT) averaged only 3.5/1000 people.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Jewish Atheist said...

I singled out Massachusetts because gays can marry there and conservatives are always going on about how gay marriage is threatening marriage. (That's why we need a "Defense of Marriage Act.") Turns out it's conservatives who are the threat.

Jack's Shack said...

JA,

I think that you are a sharp guy and someone who is thoughtful but I am not sure if I follow this line of thought. Are you trying to make the case that the country really is split along red/blue lines.

I don't think that we can really boil this down in such a simplistic way there are so many variables. Now you certainly are under no obligation to agree with me and that is part of what I love about the US and the blogging world. For that matter it would be a dull place if everyone agreed with Jack.

asher said...

Statistics are always amazing. The majority of women who get abortions are white. The majority of men who have AIDS are black.
75% of applicants to veternary school are from women. Annually, the United Jewish Appeal (1 charity) takes in more than the United Way (an umbrella of many charities). Single women are more likely to vote Democrat; once they get married they magically vote Republican. There are one million volunteer firefighers in this country; 1% are women.

I think a more interesting stat would be to find out if folks who attend church or shul regularly are more or less likely to divorce, have kids into drugs or crime and give charity.

Laura said...

The problem here is the confounding of many different things that are all related to one another. Divorce is most likely to occur over financial hardships and domestic violence - two things that are correlated with lower wages and lack of education. Since we know that most of the country's poor live in "red" states (most people on welfare are not urban welfare "queens" they're poor white families in the Southeast).

So it makes sense that divorce would be more prevalent in depressed areas where people are over stressed, undereducated and see no way out.

The real question is WHY do they keep voting for a party that wants to keep them that way?

Sadie Lou said...

Tell me, whom does marriage really need defending from?

HOLLYWOOD

Jewish Atheist said...

Jack:

Are you trying to make the case that the country really is split along red/blue lines.

Not demographically. The country is more purple than red and blue, of course. However, the red states are usually run by conservative leaders and the majorities are conservative voters, so it is fair to look at Red States to see how conservative policies work out.

Asher:

I think a more interesting stat would be to find out if folks who attend church or shul regularly are more or less likely to divorce, have kids into drugs or crime and give charity.

"Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all. George Barna commented that the results raise 'questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families.' The data challenge 'the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage.'"

Since conservative Christians go to church more often (this was demonstrated in exit polls from the 2004 election, among other places) church is not a deterrent to divorce. You can look up numbers for drugs, crime, and charity on your own.

Laura:

The real question is WHY do they keep voting for a party that wants to keep them that way?

Because religion and conservative politicians offer simple solutions that usually blame someone else for all their problems. They're told it's taxes that's making them poor and America's secular nature that's causing moral decay. And they don't have the education to learn the truth.

Jewish Atheist said...

Sadie Lou, I'm sure people in blue states watch more movies, so if Hollywood was to blame, you'd see more divorce there. But you don't.

Jewish Atheist said...

(See Laura, conservatives place the blame on Hollywood, for example, instead of investigating the actual causes.)

Jewish Atheist said...

And Sadie Lou, you are continuing to make wild claims without looking up any numbers. Do you have reason to believe that people who get divorced watch more movies than people who stay together, or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

Sadie Lou said...

Sadie Lou, I'm sure people in blue states watch more movies, so if Hollywood was to blame, you'd see more divorce there. But you don't.

I'm sorry. I meant Hollywood as a people group. I thought since you read my blog so much, you'd know how I feel about celebs. I think they do a much better job trashing the sanctity of marriage than any other people group. My gay uncle and his partner have been together for longer than I've been alive. Meanwhile, Britney Spears was married for 5 minutes "just to see what that kind of spontanaity felt like".
Sorry for the confusion.

Sadie Lou said...

And Sadie Lou, you are continuing to make wild claims without looking up any numbers. Do you have reason to believe that people who get divorced watch more movies than people who stay together, or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

Dang, JA.
:0
I LOVE movies and I think people that blame society's problems on art--are a little dim.

Jewish Atheist said...

I LOVE movies and I think people that blame society's problems on art--are a little dim.

Oh. Well... never mind, then. :)

Sadie Lou said...

Celebs are distgusting when it comes to marriage and yet we, as a nation, as obsessed with their lifestyle. We have whole magazines dedicated to our fascination. You get people like Julia Roberts (who's been married and divorced a couple of times) telling us how to plan your wedding, what it's like to be a mother and being in love...right on the cover of a popular magazine that our teenage daughters snatch up the minute it hits the shelf.
...as if.

July Al said...

Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate) % who have been divorced:

Non-denominational 34%
Jews 30%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%

Source: The Barna Group, via http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Sorry, Sadie Lou, but we have GOT to ban marriage among non-denominationals in order to stop your faith's relentless assault on the institution. Nondenoms are disgusting when it comes to marriage and yet we, as a nation, as obsessed with their lifestyle. Them's the breaks, kid.

Look on the bright side - you can date now.

CyberKitten said...

Sadie Lou said: yet we, as a nation, as obsessed with their lifestyle. We have whole magazines dedicated to our fascination.

The whole idea of celeb worship confuses the heck out of me. Why do so many people idolise this trash - I mean... why is Paris Hilton someone to 'look up to'..? Please.....!

Sadie Lou said...

"The whole idea of celeb worship confuses the heck out of me. Why do so many people idolise this trash - I mean... why is Paris Hilton someone to 'look up to'..? Please.....!"
Finally something we can agree on.
:)
And just so we're clear:
July al--while I might address certain issues you bring up, I'm not going to engage you on anything. You are disrespectful and rude. Rarely do you say something that deserves commentary. You might just want to bait someone else because I'm not biting.

Jewish Atheist said...

Sadie Lou, you still haven't directly addressed the original post. I'm curious to see what you think about it -- do you beleive that "red state" ideas work? Don't the higher rate of divorce and teen pregnancy in red states show that liberal family values -- and "liberal" (i.e. not abstinence-only) sex ed -- work better than conservative ones?

Jewish Atheist said...

"believe"

CyberKitten said...

Sadie Lou said: Finally something we can agree on.
:)

Had to happen sooner or later... Can we go back to diasgreeing with each other now..? (chuckle)

Sadie Lou said...

JA--
I read some numbers on my own on various websites and everyone is saying the same thing: There are too many factors playing into divorce rates to accurately compare state to state. Some of the leading factors: Age, race, and children (specificly # of children). So if you compare Texas to Mass. you'd have to take into consideration the average marrying age of the people in both states, whether they start families at an early time in the marriage, how many kids they have, you'd have to factor in the cost of living per minimum wage, the race/ethnicity of the state, and I don't think the author of that article you posted, did that.

Jewish Atheist said...

You're absolutely right, Sadie Lou. Obviously the younger marrying ages and the lower incomes in the Bible Belt contribute to divorce.

But still, don't you think it's funny that people from the Bible Belt think they know what's best for marriage? And that everybody makes fun of Massachusetts for its crazy liberal values even though it has an extremely high rate of education and a low rate of divorce and teen pregnancy?

Obviously there are a lot of variables, but no sensible person could say based on any evidence whatsoever that conservative moral values work. And yet people who rate "morality" as their most important influence in deciding who to vote for tend to vote conservative!

The mind boggles.

I personally think that more people should follow us atheists. :) We have more education, higher incomes, and the lowest divorce rate! For all the criticism from theists about our lack of moral grounding, we seem to be doing the best.

Sadie Lou said...

Now wait a second, JA. According to the Barna Group:

"Barna stated that there is no end in sight regarding divorce. “You can understand why atheists and agnostics might have a high rate of divorce, since they are less likely to believe in concepts such as sin, absolute moral truth and judgment. Yet the survey found that the percentage of atheists and agnostics who have been married and divorced is 37% - very similar to the numbers for the born again population. Given the current growth in the number of atheists and agnostics, and that the younger two generations are predisposed to divorce, we do not anticipate a reversal of the present pattern within the next decade.”

So as of now, born again Christians and Atheists/Agnostics have the same or similar rate of divorce. The study also said that Atheists/Agnostics are less likely to marry in the first place. While Christians that maintain the attitude that premarital sex is a sin, might be getting married for the WRONG reasons.
I see this in my own family. My two sisters are totally playing house with their boyfriends that they have been with for a long time. My youngest sister has been with her boyfriend for 6 years, yet they haven't gotten married.
So if they seperate, it won't count as a divorce--even though they are living exactly like a married couple. I'm sure that trend in relationships is contributing to the lower divorce rate among atheists--not that this is a good thing or a bad thing.
Christian couples that date are less likely to move in together and more likely to marry. Do you see what I'm getting at?

July Al said...

Sadie Lou said: July al--while I might address certain issues you bring up, I'm not going to engage you on anything. You are disrespectful and rude. Rarely do you say something that deserves commentary. You might just want to bait someone else because I'm not biting.

Sadie Lou, if freedom means anything, it means that one must be free to speak about unpleasant things and sometimes hurt someone's feelings in doing so. As part of his Jewish background and current ethical outlook, JewishAtheist is required to avoid hurting others and to be circumspect in his arguments when they might result in unpleasantness. My view is that a bit of short-term discomfort can bring long-term understanding, and so I am more direct in my approach.

I'm sure it must be a shock to learn that one's faith has by far the highest divorce rate. It must be embarrassing to realize that when it comes to assaulting marriage, the log in your eye is bigger than the mote in the eyes of the gays.

Am I rude to point this out? Absolutely, just as you are rude when you claim that I am a sinner who is going to hell. Speaking an unpleasant truth is inherently a rude act - calling me rude is itself a rude act, but I forgive you, and I do not think that such rudeness is a valid reason to shut someone out.

Am I disrespectful when I point this out? If I did not respect you, I wouldn't bother to engage you, but you are a skeptic who became a believer, and I cannot fathom that.

I hope you realize that there is a difference between disrespecting you (which I do not) and disrespecting your arguments (which I often do, in that the truth in them, if any, is illusive to me).

Do I use parody and sarcasm? Of course I do - is there a problem with that? I hear preachers use them all the time; are nonbelievers not permitted this luxury?

Do my posts deserve commentary? Probably not much, in that the truth speaks for itself.

Do I try to bait you? Of course - I am interested both in your perspective and in dissecting it, and so I engage it more than I engage those that are of little interest or worth.

Will engaging me imperil your faith? Maybe, but NOT engaging me will not do much to convert me, and it will also damage your faith, since you are compelled by your faith to spread the gospel to the sinners here.

Will I question your marriage, your public prayer, your literalism, your creationism, your personal beliefs, etc? Absolutely, since I believe these are all at odds with the reality of nature and the reality of scripture.

Jewish Atheist said...

Sadie Lou,

Weird, the page I linked to references Barna but says that atheists have lower divorce rates:

"Divorce rates among conservative Christians were much higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics."

"They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all."



While Christians that maintain the attitude that premarital sex is a sin, might be getting married for the WRONG reasons.

I agree.

Christian couples that date are less likely to move in together and more likely to marry. Do you see what I'm getting at?

It's a good point. I currently live with my gf, and if we were to break up, it wouldn't be considered a divorce. I think that's a good thing, though. A lot of people who don't believe in pre-marital sex and get married too early have a bunch of kids before they get divorced, while us cohabitating atheists are more likely to wait until we're sure to get married and have children. At least if my gf and I split up, there won't be any kids to upset. And if we do decide to have kids, we'll get married first without undue religious pressure.

Marriage should because you want to stay together forever, not because you want to have sex and your religion says you can't unless you're married.

Sadie Lou said...

Weird, the page I linked to references Barna but says that atheists have lower divorce rates:

Did you go to the Barna Group website?

You make some interesting arguments to room in together--but still, one has to wonder about the commitment factor.
In my sister's situation: If you've been together for 6 years and are totally monogamous--why not marriage?
What are you waiting for?
Although I see the wisdom in not adding kids to the mix if you're not even sure you'll stay together.
I also see the wisdom in not having sex before marriage. If you are not sure the person is the "one" why dabble with the chances of having a child with that person?
Accidents happen.

Jewish Atheist said...

Did you go to the Barna Group website?

I did. They seem to have removed all traces of the study in question and display only ones which are more favorable to Christians. The original appeared at http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=39 but doesn't seem to be there any more. Here's the name of the original study:

"Christians are more likely to experience divorce than are non-Christians," Barna Research Group. You can find it all over the internet.

If you've been together for 6 years and are totally monogamous--why not marriage?
What are you waiting for?


Being monogamous isn't the same as being monogamous forever. Also, I know some who refuse to get married out of solidarity with their gay friends and family members who aren't allowed to get married.

Sadie Lou said...

They seem to have removed all traces of the study in question and display only ones which are more favorable to Christians. The original appeared at http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=39 but doesn't seem to be there any more. Here's the name of the original study:

Do you think they did that on purpose? If so, why?

Jack's Shack said...

Sadie Lou,

I agree with you. July Al is a troll who doesn't have any original thought. All he can do is cut and paste and try to make his allegations fit into a small little hole. For someone who thinks that he is so independent he is rather provincial. Must be hard to try to be cool and fail so frequently.

I'd have more respect for a honest perspective. Al, what do you have to offer that is unique and original. The claim that short term discomfort brings long term understanding appears disingenuous. You don't have a blog or any medium that really supports that claim and based upon your comments I can't help but again conclude that you are a troll.

Jewish Atheist said...

Do you think they did that on purpose? If so, why?

I don't have any hard information either way, but it's pretty suspicious that they act surprised that atheists don't have a higher divorce rate than Christians even though they previously put out a study TITLED "Christians are more likely to experience divorce than are non-Christians."

And it's not like they're impartial. Barna is a company whose "ultimate aim... is to partner with Christian ministries and individuals to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States," after all.

Sadie Lou said...

Look what I found:

Despite their “ultimate aim,” Barna reports are generally objective and blunt. They often expose the hypocrisy and dirty underwear the leaders of the Christian Right keep tucked away out of public view. For example, in a report, entitled “Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians,” issued September 8, 2004—during the height of the pre-election campaign to “save traditional marriage”—Barna confirmed that “among married born again Christians, 35 percent have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35 percent.” They also documented that “nearly one-quarter of the married ‘born agains’ (23 percent) get divorced two or more times.”

Their latest report documents that only one in six surveyed base their morality on the Bible; 32 percent said that morality is always determined by the situation; 33 percent indicated they don't know if moral truth is absolute or relative. According to Barna, “the maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is ±3.2 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.”


It looks like Barna Group pulled things apart a little before they made a blanket claim about the Christian divorce rate. While I still maintain that divorce in the church is equal to divorce outside church, I would also agree that there are a lot of people that claim to be Christians but don't really try to lead a Christian lifestyle when push comes to shove--which can affect the statistics.

asher said...

I missed something...blue states overwhealmingly have folks who believe in a liberal agenda? You mean they blame society for every ill that comes along, think that if we just had another welfare program it might solve something, and realize that right and wrong are totally subjective.

Sounds reasonable to me

Chana said...

Population statistics have a lot to do with the statistics you quote.

But aside from that- why label? Red States, Blue States, Yellow States...

It reminds me of this.

Actually, the only reason I'm responding this way is because yesterday my school watched 'Paper Clips' and we talked to the director, who spoke about prejudice- and the way in which most of the people in the film were automatically labeled/ thought of as Red State fundamentalist Christians with red state values.

In truth, the great majority of them were Democrats.

Interesting, no?

Jewish Atheist said...

I agree that there's always a big danger with stereotyping. Perhaps it would be best to see my point as this:

What data there is, is at least neutral, and possibly goes directly against conservative policies with regard to marriage and sex ed.

Jack's Shack said...

I am not sure that you can label conservatives or liberals as all believing one way or another.

Jewish Atheist said...

Well, good Lord. You guys want specific. How about this:

1) Gay marriage does not (at least in the short-term) threaten marriage.

2) Abstinence-only sex ed is not as effective as sex ed that teaches about birth control and condoms.

3) Going to church regularly does not confer any benefits as to staying married.

4) Not having premarital sex and may be detrimental to marriage.

5) The author of DOMA should stop getting married if he's worried about protecting marriage. :)

Jewish Atheist said...

4 should read: "Not having premarital sex may be detrimental to marriage.

Jack's Shack said...

JA,

I can agree with all of those. Hmm, I wonder where that July Al guy is. He must only post when he is at work.

Shlomo said...

If one wishes to jump on the conservative right wing divorce train try Rush Limbaugh (3 marriages) and Supreme Court Justice John Roberts (3 Marriages).

I have nothing against divorce. I really enjoyed mine! But I'm not some reich wing moral fundamentalist wacko who creates reaction formation to cover his/her own moral/ethical inadequacies.

If anything Bill & Hill Clinton are the example of what a strong marriage is. In spite of his being the Horn-Dog in Chief for many years, they have managed to make their marriage work, albeit in a way that most of us cannot understand.

If someone is worried that same sex marriages are goign to ruin their own, perhaps they need to rethink their own marriages. I realized that none of us operate in a vacuum, so we will be effected in some way by such a change in our law and in our cultural attitude. Yet, if you perceive your personal relationships as being under attack by the personal relationships of another, well, you need therapy.

Laura said...

Ok, here's a question about the whole gay marriage thing... what's the basis of not wanting gays to get married? I mean the REAL basis, not the political doublespeak "protect family values" reason... It's because it's forbidden by the Bible (and other religions)... so then why do we allow athiests to get married in this country!? They're threatening the holy nature of the union - sullying it with their ungodly ways!

We have to ban marriage for anyone not believing in one of the big three religions!!!

Sadie Lou said...

have nothing against divorce. I really enjoyed mine! But I'm not some reich wing moral fundamentalist wacko who creates reaction formation to cover his/her own moral/ethical inadequacies.

Just curious--but did you say vows to this woman you divorced?
Because while I have nothing against divorce under the right circumstances, it needs to be said that vows should actually mean something. There's nothing wrong with trying to uphold "for better or for WORSE"

Esther said...

Sadie Lou - I want to thank you for participating in this conversation, since it's your opposing perspective that makes the discussion so interesting.

I have to say, that as a card carrying humanist, (my church is the Ethical Culture Society), I find it distressing that people in the Christian right are always impugning the moral character of anyone who is not a self-proclaimed "Christian". It's very insulting. I try to lead a moral life. I'm in a long-term marriage. Never divorced. I try to protect my children from things that are inappropriate for them to see. I try not to pollute the earth and I try to help those who are less fortunate than me. I try to treat everyone with respect, even if I disagree with them. Why is it so difficult for people in the Christian right afford me the same respect?

Shlomo said...

Sadie Lou,

Esther is correct. Your participation does make this much more interesting than would be otherwise. Thanks.

The Old Testament specifically mentions divorce as a means out of what is likely a very desperate situation. It appears the God of the Hebrews (or Moses)knew enough about human relationships to foresee that many of the promises and agreements we make, even with the best of intentions, become unrealistic as circumstances change. To spare human beings the agony of staying in marriages that serve no purpose other than strife, God saw it fit to allow couples to split up.

We enter agreements with others based upon the knowledge we have of the other person, ourselves, and the agreement itself. Sadie, should you come home and find out that your husband (and I know he is a nice guy, this is hypothetical) had broken his promise, or turned out to be gay, how would that effect your promise? My question is not about your ability to keep a promise but to what extent would you go on keeping it?

Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, seems to deny human nature altogether. On one hand, we have Jesus asking his disciples to 'abide as I do' in celibacy, and then on the other hand we have the Church discouraging divorce, forcing many couple to stay together.

In my own marriage, I had no idea what I was getting into or who I was really getting into it with. To be fair, she didn't either. Promises can only be based upon knowledge of who and what is being agreed to.

Peace

Shlomo said...

I'll add one thing. God's promises in the OT are always conditional upon the Jews actions. This means that promises come with conditions.

In marriage there are more than one promise in play. There is the promise of marriage and the associated promises that come with the original promise. Those are the conditions. One would be naive to enter such an agreement without stating clearly the conditions, and/or making another agreement that should any part of the agreed to conditions be breached, the original agreement is subject to dissolution.

Sadie Lou said...

esther--
Thank you. I agree with you. Christians should not make it their goal in life to be the "moral police". I'm sorry if you have run up against Christians that have insulted you by making you feel like you lack morals just because you don't claim to be a Christian.
I want to ask you-- why do you try to be a good person? Besides the fact that being a good person seems like the "right" thing to do, what are the consequences for NOT trying to be a good person?

Shlomo--
Thank you as well. To what extent do I keep my promise to my husband? I can think of a couple reasons why I would leave a marriage:
If he was abusing me or my kids and was doing nothing to stop.
If he didn't love me anymore.
I don't know if I'd get remarried after a divorce. God does allow divorce in certain situations. I know God wouldn't want a woman to stay in an abusive or loveless marriage.
I was just curious how you felt about the vows that you made and I DID say there are reasons for divorce. I would never, ever judge a person based on their martial status--

Esther said...

Sadie Lou -

I try to live strictly by the golden rule. I know how it feels when people say or do hurtful things to me. And I also know that I've done things that have hurt other people, including people I love. I can't control the past. I have to live with knowlege that I've hurt other people. I can strive to assure that the future is different. Therefore, I strive everyday, to do no harm to other people.

When it comes to sins against other people, you don't need religion to tell you what's right and what's wrong. It's obvious.

And I don't believe in sins against god because I don't believe in god.

Esther said...

And Sadie Lou -

The consequence of doing harm to other people is a betrayal of the golden rule.

As a humanist, the golden rule is my religion and I take my religion very seriously.

Sadie Lou said...

When it comes to sins against other people, you don't need religion to tell you what's right and what's wrong. It's obvious.

According to a humanist like yourself, where does "right" and "wrong" come from?

Esther said...

Sadie - Basic ethics are easy to understand. Even a four year old can understand the golden rule. Why do you need God to help you figure out that killing is wrong or that you should treat other people with dignity and respect?