If you think the racism problem in Europe is limited to "more-religious" countries, then this defeats your argument. All of Europe is exceptionally more secular than America. You are just moving the boundary here of what is secular enough. "Well these European countries are the most racist so they have to be more religious. We are just not going to count them in our poll." That is a bias. This list indicates that Spain is up there on the list of most chariable countries:
List of most charitable countries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. So which is it? Do you count them in your list of secular countries who give and not count for the secular countries high in racial acceptance? The site shows that Italy and France are right up there too and the video and the race riots of 2005 show us just how far these countries are in accepting others. Do these countries come on and off the list depending on how you want the data to come out? There are issues in Belgium, Germany and else where. The fact are that racism, support of women rights, and gays isn't really associated with religion. These things are associated with political culture.
Further, the atheism rate in America is 16% now even at low estimates not the 2% in the article (1990? really who uses stats from 1990 in today's internet world). To say these atheists are not getting divorced would go against common sense considering America's divorced. So to systematically take the extremely rare cases and apply them to make a generalizable statement is just wrong both scientifically and ethically. Atheism plays little to no role in the custody battles on court decision and this doesn't happen as a matter of policy.
What atheists are doing here is blinding themselves to their own behaviors and reality so that they can attack religion. Mind you, there are reasonable reasons to attack religion. Our history is horrible, we don't practice what we preach, we are hypocritical in harsh ways, we fail to understand our own religions. However, the education and benevolent arguments are not reasonable, factual, or appropriate. There is no evidence which supports any educational or moral high ground with either religion or atheism. They are fake arguments that atheists and theists use to make themselves feel better. They are the same argument that racists used to use when talking about Blacks in America for both sides. "We they are just uneducated. They can't help themselves." They are bullsh&t and we should all, if either of our groups were really more benevolent, would identify these beliefs as nothing more than fiction. But then again, schema and bias always win out here. These are self-premoniting beliefs which attacks one's enemies. And self-serving beliefs don't have to have evidence.
Well, you are making a fundamental error in your argument and in your interpretation of the OP.
This is not a discussion about atheism. The idea that I believe you believe you are debating is that there is something inherently superior about atheism and that countries where atheism is strongest are more functional. That's not what Cohen and Zuckerman are arguing, nor me. It's a much, much smaller point and one that is neither partisan nor prejudiced.
It's this, so please don't extrapolate to infer that some bigger theory is being proposed:
Many right-wing polemicists, writers and politicians argue that religion, usually of a Judaeo-Christian credo, is essential for the harmonious functioning of a good society. There is no lack of evidence to support that observation. Here's just one quote from one of the leading proponent of this position:
The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, December 30, 1981
A Google search will provide you with as many as you like. This belief assumes that those who are either atheist, agnostic or simply non-religious cannot produce a good society, one that functions well, harmoniously and prosperously without a central theological foundation to that society. Simply, without God, society falls apart.
The argument of Cohen, Zuckerman and, here, me, is that such an argument is a fallacy. Societies that by observation and quantitative evidence appear to be the least religiously observant, in which the population shows the least interest in the spiritual and metaphysical aspects of theology, are some of the most functional, harmonious and prosperous societies on Earth, thus this claim that a strongly religious foundation to a society is necessary to prevent anarchy and social disintegration, is patently false. End of theory.
Am I (or they) trying to argue that strongly religiously observant countries like the US, Italy or Spain are dysfunctional? No. Not at all. Am I trying to argue that the countries dealt with in Zuckerman's study are more functional, harmonious and prosperous
because they are the least religious? Nope. Not that either.
You seem to be setting up a strawman argument that because some of Europe has a problem with racism, therefore 'irreligious' Europe is less functional than the 'religious' US. If that is what you are arguing then it is a silly argument that presupposes too many things: that Europe (all of it) is less religiously observant than the US, which it is not; that the issue of racist behaviour is far more severe in Europe (all of it) than in the US, which is hard to prove and but debateable at the very least; and that the existence of racist behaviour in a small section of the population is a major determinant of social dysfunction. it is merely an example of socially dysfunctional behaviour, but if the absence of racially-based anti-social behaviour were a determinant of social dysfunction then we could surmise that there simply doesn't exist a functional society anywhere, because there isn't a nation on Earth where racially-based social unrest does not or has not occurred.
You seem to have interpreted my OP as another of those atheist vs. religious shout-fests. You have interpreted wrongly. I am not arguing that atheism is a superior moral philosophy to any religiously-based philosophy. Atheism is a valid philosophical position to take, and I know many religious people for whom their theology is both rational and considered. I find the arguments between zealous atheists and theists on DP to be occasionally amusing, often alarming and usually sterile - no one ever seems to approach them with an open, enquiring mind, but with an attitude of confrontation and competition. I don't buy into that attitude.
Oh, and FYI, I am not an atheist.