Residence, Moral Traditionalism, and Tolerance of Atheists

Abstract

A secondary analysis of data from the 1958 Detroit Area Study and the Gen- eral Household Survey of the Southern Appalachian Studies indicates that the relation- ship of tolerance of atheists to place of origin and present place of residence cannot be completely explained by the differential distribution of social class variables and reli- gious beliefs across geographical areas. Part of the residence-tolerance relationship stems from residential differences in education and moral traditionalism, but a substan- tively significant direct effect remains after these and other factors are controlled. These data do not support Glock and Stark's contention that conservative religious doctrines are responsible for rural-urban differences in tolerance. The relationship of theological variables to tolerant attitudes toward atheists results from their association with educa- tion and moral traditionalism. Several studies indicate that urban, in contrast to rural residents are both more tolerant of differences (Fischer:a; Lipset and Raab; Nelsen and Yokely; Selz- nick and Steinberg) and less often committed to conservative (fundamen- talist and sectarian) religion (Ford:a; Nelsen and Whitt; Nelsen et al.). Some researchers (e.g., Fischer:a; Glock and Stark) suggest that rural-urban dif-- ferences in religion are important in generating the residence-tolerance rela- tionship. But some questions remain. (1) What aspect of religion is involved? And (2) To what extent do religious differences account for the residence- tolerance relationship? This paper explores these questions as they bear on residential variation in attitudes toward atheists. One argument suggests that rural-urban variation in the content of religious belief has little to do with the residence-tolerance relationship. This position posits a direct causal connection between urban residence and tolerance, arguing that the experience of living in cities is inherently conducive to tolerant attitudes, all else being equal. Both Simmel and Wirth theorized that manyof the distinctivefeatures of urban social life and personalityare products of the city's large population size, high density, and structural and cultural differentiation. Wirth contended that these conditions encourage universalism and tolerance by loosening the individual's ties to traditional sources of social solidarity. Stouffer suggests that similar processes should lead to increased tolerance among migrants, and Pettigrevy interprets regional differences in willingness to end racial segregation as a reflection of variation in structural