an August 2005 audit found signs of fraud in more than 30 percent of applications.

That wasn’t the prevailing view in Congress two years earlier

Not to be nit picky, it appears the results of the audit from August 2005 came in a year after the 'prevailing view' was recorded.(which was two yrs back i.e 2004)

Its also worth mentioning about the Visa Programs that allow people to start ethnic minority Grocery Stores &/or work in such Grocery stores. Knew a person in Connecticut, where he failed to get H1B visa to secure a job; but surprisingly got special visa to work in an Indian Grocery Store(since he claimed to know Hindi, Gujarati,Tamil,kannada..etc - special language skills to attend diverse indian clients)and went on to receive Green Card eventually. Much faster than the Techies whose applications are languishing in Backlog Centers. Abuse?...you decide.

"It says something about the hold of religion in this country."

When I arrived in this country, I thought that America, given her high level of literacy rates, would have a very large percentage of people, which didn't buy into the biggest hoax ever - God and Religion.
Man, was I ever wrong? I have met more agnostics/atheists in India (majority of them Hindus by birth) than in the US.

They're people of faith. They would never exploit anything in the name of G-d.

Wow, people will take advantage of anything and everything! A local Hindu Association in MD was attempting to build a temple and had to import craftsman from India to do many of the detail in the mandir. I believe they made use of the religious visa and in that sense it was very useful and necessary.
Overall I know plenty of attorneys that will promise to get you a visa, one way or the other, if there is a law there is generally a way around it.
A little of the topic, but a friend had emailed me an article that had appeared in several South African newspapers, it claimed that a large number of South Asians (from the motherland) were stealing the identity numbers of South African citizens and 'marrying' them and then applying for a SA visa based on their marriage to the SA citizen. The government had to set up a site where you could punch in your id number and find out if you are married and to whom! How insane!

i've known about this for a long time as this was a 'racket' that some types would use to come to the USA. the interesting point is that an uncle of mine who attempts to get legitimate religious visas says that that's really hard. another uncle who is an imam couldn't get a visa when a contact said he's be appropriate for a masjid in NYC.

I know many people in the DC area who are very active in the SSVT temple in Greenbelt. I know they rely heavily on this program as all of the priests come through the program. I also believe they used it to bring crafts people from India for the actual construction.

Amazingly this is actually quiet a common problem in the US, just googled it :) What scares me is when in bleeds into a matter of National Security and the Homeland Security Dept gets involved.
http://www.vdare.com/malkin/visa_scam.htm
http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=22117&sec=41&cont=6
Kritic, religion is the opium of the masses and the US is no different.

When I arrived in this country, I thought that America, given her high level of literacy rates, would have a very large percentage of people, which didn't buy into the biggest hoax ever - God and Religion. Man, was I ever wrong? I have met more agnostics/atheists in India (majority of them Hindus by birth) than in the US.

kritic..my thoughts exactly. What surprised & surprises me even to-date, is the un-solicited christian missionaries knocking on our doors to reason/argue/explain/suggest : why their sect/brand of christianity trumps "all" other religions & make audacious claims of how, their's is the ONLY way for salvation.

In grad school, we used to have these visitors on weekends. Made for a very "timepass" discussion - when football was boring.

I think to get some context, ICE needs to document the number of religious visas they have rejected. They will far outnumber the visas they have in fact granted.

When I arrived in this country, I thought that America, given her high level of literacy rates, would have a very large percentage of people, which didn't buy into the biggest hoax ever - God and Religion.

The virtues and downfalls of religion can be argued till we turn blue in the face. I'm not religious but as I get older certainly have learned to respect the influence it has on people and communities regardless of how convulated it might sound to me. The United States IS still very puritanical for the most part because we haven't really had other progressive neighbors around us to influence our laws and viewpoints on religion and it's connection to ethcis/morality and above and beyond government. The kind of progressive neighbors that exist in Europe.

It happens to be the longest continuous republic in the world and the oldest constitution in the world. The early settlers came here for religions freedom and the roots of this country are founded on religion. The forefathers of this country were religious men. It also continues to be the country everyone is dying to get into. Why? It must be doing something right? Religious roots run deep in this country. Why are people often surprised that people are religions here?

The forefathers of this country were religious men. It also continues to be the country everyone is dying to get into. Why? It must be doing something right?

How do we know religion is behind the prosperity of this nation?. Norway (not so religious) is doing quite well too while Pakistan (very religious)is not doing that well.
In fact on average the religious countries are less prosperous than countries where the people are not as religious.

How do we know religion is behind the prosperity of this nation?

The point was to address the "surprise at religion in America" notion. About Norway...any country that is oil rich is doing pretty well. Over 85% of Norway which happens to be Nordic (very small minories/foreigners) belongs to the State Protestent church and the Norwegian government pretty much funds it, there is no clear separation of church and state there. And they attend church pretty much as little as the rest of the developed countries.

And it's really hard for me to lump "all religious" countries into one. I don't necessarily have an equal viewpoint on the depth of one religion from another. For example I cannot see Saudi Arabia and India in the same vein in terms of religious depth simply because they are both very religious.

Some would argue that Caucasians are bringing about revivalism for their religion as a masked attempt to 'hold on to their country.'

It helps that Christianity has grafted so easily onto capitalism.

in the region of the country where i grew up, there are officially 15-20 gurdwaras, but on the books, there are over 100. the "on the books" religious institutions are mostly backways to get so-and-so's uncle or cousin into the country. so, yes i would say the law is definitely abused.

but, the law is also needed because without it, all the gurdwaras i have attended regularly would definitely fall apart without the expertise and experience (for the most part) of the people brought over from the motherland to take care of those responsibilities. i have only attended one gurdwara in the states where it has been able to successfully be fully community driven, without relying on bringing someone from abroad to cater the activities. and i think the main reason they haven't done so, so far, is because of a lack of funds. but the general trend is to have a gyani from back home to take care of the day-to-day needs and handle the majority of the religious customs for gurdwaras.

and often, more than not, at least in my experience of the desi community(the sikh community), religious institutions serve as a proxy for community centers, so without bringing in people from the motherland(s) to coordinate/serve in the religious institutions, many desi communities would not be as strong or tight-knit without the resource of bringing people from back in the motherland(s). their presence serves an important social function.

also, i think, given the anti-islamic climate in the country, the use of the religious worker visas by muslim communities will and probably are more scrutinized than other communities. but that is just my hunch.

i agree with naina!!!!!!!

The early settlers came here for religions freedom and the roots of this country are founded on religion. The forefathers of this country were religious men. It also continues to be the country everyone is dying to get into. Why? It must be doing something right? Religious roots run deep in this country. Why are people often surprised that people are religions here?

1) some of the early settlers. the puritans, and the quaker colony, for example, but not all. e.g., new york (new amsterdam) was a commercial enterprise from the beginning. virginia was similar. finally, the settlement of the vast hinterlands by scotch-irish was driven by their destitution and the troubles in northern ireland (the term "cracker" came about in part because that's all they could afford to eat).

2) as for the forefathers being religious, the most prominent forefathers were deists and religious skeptics. e.g., thomas paine, thomas jefferson, john adams (who was a unitarian), james madison. and likely george washington. the united states, and its politicaly culture, has become more religious since the founding, not less.

also, see rodney stark's the church of america: 1776-1990, which documents the rise in organized and institutional religion in the united states, which probably peaked around 1960. let's also remember that though the baptists of rhode island and quakers of pennsylvania favored religious freedom, the puritans of mass. expelled, executed and persecuted those of other religious persuasions, while most of south had established anglican churches in 1776 (southern baptists thanked thomas jefferson for disestablishing anglicanism precisely because of the mild persecution they were subject too).

let's get our history straight. we can argue about values after that.

Norway (not so religious) is doing quite well

Maybe for now, but there seems to be a direct correlation between declining religious sentiment in society and the declining population growth in Europe. They will be faced with an economic crisis of their own making very soon. Something for the sociologists and economists to analyze.

Among the most striking consequences of the decline of religion has been fewer children. The birth rate throughout much of Western Europe has fallen so drastically that the population in many countries is shrinking, indicating that women throughout Europe now routinely use artificial birth control, in defiance of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings. With fewer people entering the workforce, countries like Italy, Germany and France won't be able to maintain the generous welfare programs that have given most workers a lifetime of economic security. link

p.s. excuse the force of my post previous, don't mean to be bitchy. but, fundamentalist christians flat out lie when they the founders were 'christian', and this unchallenged meme just spreads. its tiresome when there is extensive documentation that the founders revered Nature's God, not the trinitarian god of orthodox christianity (see the reference to 'nature's god' in the declaration of independence).

Religious work is somewhat like meat-packaging, construction, farm work and other "menial" work. The services are needed by Americans and they say it is very important to them. However, they will not do it themselves. The answer is usually to import them cheaply from other countries - Mexico in the first case, the mother countries of the respective diasporas in the latter case. To make it all look nice, there are excuses such as "proper training back in the old country". Which immigrant wants his/her daughter to be a priest? Not even these immigrant priests themselves. Same story with kids of poor immigrants who other menial work.

Maybe for now, but there seems to be a direct correlation between declining religious sentiment in society and the declining population growth in Europe.

of course, that's why southern europe, which is more religious than secular northern europe, has a higher birthrate.

spain: 10.06 births/1,000 population
italy: 8.72 births/1,000 population
greece: 9.68 births/1,000 population
france: 11.99 births/1,000 population
sweden: 10.27 births/1,000 population

the atheist italians and greeks should look to the more religious french and swedes, right?

(do your homework)

I meant his/her son

How do we know religion is behind the prosperity of this nation?. Norway (not so religious) is doing quite well too while Pakistan (very religious)is not doing that well. In fact on average the religious countries are less prosperous than countries where the people are not as religious.

Niall Ferguson argues, that it is not religiosity itself that is responible for prosperity, it is the type of religion...ie, the values that a particular religion promotes. It's the Weber thesis again.

Niall Ferguson argues, that it is not religiosity itself that is responible for prosperity, it is the type of religion...ie, the values that a particular religion promotes. It's the Weber thesis again.

1) weber's thesis was falsified in germany (e.g., calvinist christians didn't outperform catholics when variables were controlled)

2) in the early 20th century weber believed that east asia would be prevented from ever developing economically because of its confucian religion. oh yes, you read that right, before confucianism was one of the groundings for the asian economic miracle, it was the reason why asia lagged the west.

3) so view these 'type of religion' arguments with caution.

btw, ferguson loves his ideas doesn't he? doesn't it seem obvious that northern european states with the most generous welfare states seem to show the fewest hours worked?

kurma
i agree. once one of my friends, who is a super successful tech/business dude, said, "if my mom wants me to do my prayers, know why i wear a turban, and be proud about it, why doesn't she tell me to be a gyaani if it is really important to her? and when i told my mom i want to be a gyaani, why did she say no beta, you study and work, that is not for you?" i think his comment echoed your statement. it is an important job to communities so long as you or your kids don't have to do it.

and an added point, many religious workers, at least in the desi communities i know, live very isolated and lonely lives. sundays are "their" day and they get to mingle with people outside of the religious institution; the rest of the week the community who brought them over is busy living their lives. not fun.

My cousins came here from Colombia a few years ago on a tourist visa and just simply stayed. They have become very active evangelical christians and have sought out some sort of protection from deportation through the church they attend. (I know, just what this country needs, right?) More evangelicals... Their particular church believes that if you are an evangelical christian, it is your right to stay here in the US and they deseminate literature with claims of the founders were 'christian' with the intention of forming a cristian nation. The flat out lies don't surprise me though, some of them will say anything if it furthers the agenda.

Makes for fun Thanksgiving talk around the table.

as for the forefathers being religious, the most prominent forefathers were deists and religious skeptics. e.g., thomas paine, thomas jefferson, john adams (who was a unitarian), james madison. and likely george washington. the united states, and its politicaly culture, has become more religious since the founding, not less.

Adams was a devout Unitarian though he rejected conventional Christianity as a whole recognized and accepted the value of religion in a community and society at large. He was an active member of the Anglican church in Quincy. I suppose you can reject Unitarian as a religion but it’s a belief system that to me is the same as any other religious belief system.

And Deists would like to believe Jefferson truly was a pure Deist but he was raised Episcopalian and had a lot of Christian influences in his belief system which are apparent thru his writings. As one of the most tolerant founding fathers he simply didn’t belong to a church and did not have strong religious bindings though that didn't happen till later in life.

Out of the 56 signers of the Declaration and yes there were other delegates and documents; a vast majority were practicing Episcopalian/Anglican. How can we simply reject that by simply taking the premier founding fathers into account?

And Washington strongly believed that the survival of the Republican government depended on religion. Almost all his letters and addresses are peppered with references to morality and faith. He believed in the power of “prayer” & “god” irrespective of how it was loosely termed. And he could have been a Deist but again that was a popular form of belief in the 18th century and to me is no different than general religion. Paganism is one such religion. It’s still a set of beliefs. It isn’t a direct rejection of religion like atheism.

I realize you are arguing that constructive Anglican religion has taken a stronghold in society today than it did before but think of how religion in America is influenced by immigrants from 100-150 years ago. From the Baptist churches in the south that are deeply rooted in communities to the rest of Protestant America, immigrants from Europe like the Italians and Irish simply fed the faith.

btw, sorry that Niall Ferguson's NYT's piece i link to in post 23 is from an odd right-wing site that i see is railing against the rothchilds and international bankers, and we know what that means.

I suppose you can reject Unitarian as a religion but it’s a belief system that to me is the same as any other religious belief system.

all religions and belief systems are not equivalent. the unitarian-universalist association was rejected from the national council of churches (which is considered liberal) because of their non-christianity (one can be a christian and unitarian of course, but it isn't necessary). religion is like any other meme, it can be 'good' and 'bad' depending on your norms.

And Deists would like to believe Jefferson truly was a pure Deist but he was raised Episcopalian and had a lot of Christian influences in his belief system which are apparent thru his writings. As one of the most tolerant founding fathers he simply didn’t belong to a church and did not have strong religious bindings though that didn't happen till later in life.

i suppose i have a lot of christian influences. so what? that's not the point, my point is that some christians will assert he was a christian because of is notional affiliation with the episcopal church. but as you note from his writings it is clear that he rejected the divinity of christ. that's a clincher for christian status for most.

Out of the 56 signers of the Declaration and yes there were other delegates and documents; a vast majority were practicing Episcopalian/Anglican. How can we simply reject that by simply taking the premier founding fathers into account?

i don't get what we are rejecting? sure, most americans were theists during the founding. i don't deny that. but patrick henry wanted to make christianity the official religion of the united states. why did he fail? because many of the founders explicitly rejected establishment. in any case, who cares that the delegates were christian? i recall ben franklin noted there was little sentiment for a prayer before convening. "how can we simply reject that"? most of the deletes also accepted a compromise on slavery, so though i do not reject the republican founders and their genius, it need not be total.

And Washington strongly believed that the survival of the Republican government depended on religion. Almost all his letters and addresses are peppered with references to morality and faith. He believed in the power of “prayer” & “god” irrespective of how it was loosely termed. And he could have been a Deist but again that was a popular form of belief in the 18th century and to me is no different than general religion. Paganism is one such religion. It’s still a set of beliefs. It isn’t a direct rejection of religion like atheism.

if you want to be pedantic than why do you think atheism is a rejection of religion? there are religious systems which are explicitly atheistic. i'm surprised at how many south asians get caught up in the abrahamic equivalence of theism and religion on this blog (this has happened before). 40% of unitarian-universalists are not theists. does one have to be religious to be moral? than why do you point out that washington cared about morality as if that is relevant to our discussion?

my point, in response to yours (or what i perceived it to be), is that the nature of religiosity in the united states today is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the nature of religiosity during the late 18th century. we were not founded as a christian nation, we were founded as a nation predominantly of christians, and the ruling caste was heavily salted with non-christians and religious skeptics. our republican tradition was a synthesis if various strands of greek, roman, english and christian cultural strands, it wasn't defined by any one of them. things have changed a great deal in the united states (else congregationalism would be a great denomination instead of a minor one), until andrew jackson it seems likely that no american president was a christian in the sense that evangelicals or anyone who professed the nicene creed and fundamental (the vast majority of christians) would have understood, teddy roosevelt was a thoroughgoing darwinian who took an interest in science and his successor william taft was a unitarian as late as the 1910s. you appealed to history to give religion its due, but the due that we give to religion and religious sentiment in this country today is, i would argue, far in excess of the norm in the nation's past. we didn't have "one nation under god" until the 1950s after all on the coins.

relating back to point in siddartha's post, we naturally give religion a special consideration because of its nature. if someone says what they are doing is because of their "religious beliefs" we are expected to respect them. immigrants who don't want to assimilate are given more slack if it is because of their religion. and in immigration policy we give special consideration to religious professionals because of the fundamental nature of religion in human affairs. i accept that religion is fundamental, but should we always be so equanimous about it? i hold not, the culture of critique of religion has deep roots in this country, from thomas paine and the american patriot ethan allen down to jefferson's rewrite of the bible, robert ingersoll and what not. but today irreligiosity is verboten for a public figure. there is a different wind in the air. for every quote on personal piety the founders offered another warning against the tyranny of the clerisy.

It's hard to argue that the seeds of America's religious founding, in the form of new world Anglicanism (the Episcopal Church), have anything to do with today's evangelicalism. The early Episcopal Church represented monied and business interests. It's goal was the keep people OUT, not draw them in. It was the Anglo elite as opposed to, say in New York, the Dutch elite or the Catholic masses from Ireland and Italy. The lion's share of the fancy churches in Manhattan, still around today, are Episcopalian. The core interests of that elite were real estate (Trinity Wall Street was the largest landowner in Manhattan at one time) and shipping (one of the biggest industries in New York until well into the 20th century). Also, until the Civil War, the Episcopal Church was the wealthiest institution south of the Mason-Dixon line. The founding fathers were old guard conservatives, not chicken-fried yahoos like Bush and Delay

The notion that America is a religious society is a new idea, propagated by Sun-belt evangelical protestants who are not generally adherents of a mainline church (Episcopal, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic)--those these groups do have their own evangelical wings. Yes, America was supposed to be the New Jerusalem, but Christianity was never seen as some sort of organizing principal for society. People were supposed to be left alone to worship--or not worship--as they pleased.

Yes, America was supposed to be the New Jerusalem, but Christianity was never seen as some sort of organizing principal for society.

by some people. there was always a group, starting with the City on the Hill and continuing with the 1st and 2nd great awakenings which begged to differ. my only point is to dispute the notion that the religious or areligious have a lock on the past of this nation. ethan allen, an opponent of conventional religion, died for this country. thomas paine was a major player in the early years, and he was an outspoken deist. the founding was ideologically pluralistic. i would argue that in the first years (i.e., before andrew jackson) the evangelical orthodox christian aspect of our nation was deemphasized by the founders because they were aligned with the secularized aspects of the enlightenment.

Some would argue that Caucasians are bringing about revivalism for their religion as a masked attempt to 'hold on to their country.'

Let 'em try. They're already projected to lose their majority status; they might as well keep something. But let's not forget it's not simply 'their' religion - it's a religion with a multi-ethnic following.

and to be clear to reiterate the tie in to the post: there is a distinction between personal piety and institutional religion. 'religious visas' do not exist because humans have a sense of awe in the universe and intuitively believe that supernatural agents have a role to play in the cosmos and their lives, they exist because particular religions make particular demands on their followers, and assert that only "specialists" (perhaps with sacramental capacity) can truly mediate between heaven and earth. seeing as how the founders were, no matter their religion, generally anti-clerical and hostile to 'papism,' i think i am on safe ground asserting that the promiscuous reverence given to particular religious faiths and their organized superstructures knows no historical parallel.

i think i am on safe ground asserting that the promiscuous reverence given to particular religious faiths and their organized superstructures knows no historical parallel.

to clarify: there were established churches in new england until the early 19th century. but today we have a almost syncretistic aspect. to use an archaism this is the age of 'enthusiasm.'

of course, that's why southern europe, which is more religious than secular northern europe, has a higher birthrate.

All those figures are below the 2.1 children/woman levels needed to maintain population replacement levels. And the richer northern secular states have replaced what used to be covered by religion with government policies that actually in this context preach the same thing as the church does : "have more babies" in addition to providing something the church cannot: employee subsidies and incentives.

the atheist italians and greeks should look to the more religious french and swedes, right?

France has instituted a very aggressive government funded policy to combat the declining birth rate:

As Europe Grows Grayer, France Devises a Baby Boom

But the propensity of women here to have more babies has little to do with notions of French romance or the population's formerly strong religious ties to the Roman Catholic Church.

France heavily subsidizes children and families from pregnancy to young adulthood with liberal maternity leaves and part-time work laws for women. The government also covers some child-care costs of toddlers up to 3 years old and offers free child-care centers from age 3 to kindergarten, in addition to tax breaks and discounts on transportation, cultural events and shopping.
The linked text

I'd be curious as to what would happen if the French government removed its support.

And the same with Norway:

Norway's welfare model 'helps birth rate'

The present system of 10 or 12 months leave with 100% or 80% pay was introduced in 1993. Since then, the fertility rate has been a steady 1.8 - higher than most European countries. Norway has enjoyed a steady economic growth since the early 1990s. Marit Ronsen a senior researcher with Statistics Norway believes it is a combination between that growth and the family policy that has kept the birth rates here on a steady high.
link

Two cases of heavy government involvement in boosting the population growth. Southern Europe is not as affluent as Northern (less religious) Europe. I doubt Italy and Greece have the financial means to provide for such an aggressive policy to bolster the birth rate.

In Northern Italy, the Agony of Aging Not So Gracefully

“They say, ‘Make babies; it’s our future,’ but how can you really?” asked Marco Ranucci, who owns a tiny cafe, where he works 10 hours a day, noting that the government’s current $1,285, “baby bonus” per child does not even pay for a year of baby formula.
link

And another sociological reason that is affecting the birth rate in Italy:

No babies? Italy blames its 'mamma's boys'

The latest report from ISTAT, the Italian Statistical Institute, shows that 40 percent of Italian men between the age of 30 and 34 still live with their parents.
There are multiple reasons: stagnant incomes, lack of affordable housing, education and employment.Needless to say, the Roman Catholic Church is very unhappy with this picture.

The pope recently called on governments to do more to encourage and support parents who chose to have more kids. Benedict’s efforts are widely reported in the media here, but his words aren’t stirring the population.

There were 10,000 fewer marriages in 2004 than in 2003, for a total of 250,000. In a country of 58 million people, that’s not very many.
link

A summary of parenthood policies in Europe: link

Easy even for you to see that the richer Scandinavian countries have invested heavily into birth friendly policies as compared to the poorer Eastern and Southern European countries. The State is the new Church.

France has instituted a very aggressive government funded policy to combat the declining birth rate:

no sh*t. thanks for doing research! we have to keep in mind all the variables which influence the main effect. it isn't as simple as more religion = more kids, or more wealth = fewer kids. the general truisms simply confuse more than they illuminate IMO.

of course, that's why southern europe, which is more religious than secular northern europe, has a higher birthrate.

All those figures are below the 2.1 children/woman levels needed to maintain population replacement levels. And the richer northern secular states have replaced what used to be covered by religion with government policies that actually in this context preach the same thing as the church does : "have more babies" in addition to providing something the church cannot: employee subsidies and incentives.

the atheist italians and greeks should look to the more religious french and swedes, right?

France has instituted a very aggressive government funded policy to combat the declining birth rate:

As Europe Grows Grayer, France Devises a Baby Boom

But the propensity of women here to have more babies has little to do with notions of French romance or the population's formerly strong religious ties to the Roman Catholic Church.

France heavily subsidizes children and families from pregnancy to young adulthood with liberal maternity leaves and part-time work laws for women. The government also covers some child-care costs of toddlers up to 3 years old and offers free child-care centers from age 3 to kindergarten, in addition to tax breaks and discounts on transportation, cultural events and shopping.
The linked text

I'd be curious as to what would happen if the French government removed its support.

And the same with Norway:

Norway's welfare model 'helps birth rate'

The present system of 10 or 12 months leave with 100% or 80% pay was introduced in 1993. Since then, the fertility rate has been a steady 1.8 - higher than most European countries. Norway has enjoyed a steady economic growth since the early 1990s. Marit Ronsen a senior researcher with Statistics Norway believes it is a combination between that growth and the family policy that has kept the birth rates here on a steady high.
link

Two cases of heavy government involvement in boosting the population growth. Southern Europe is not as affluent as Northern (less religious) Europe. I doubt Italy and Greece have the financial means to provide for such an aggressive policy to bolster the birth rate.

In Northern Italy, the Agony of Aging Not So Gracefully

“They say, ‘Make babies; it’s our future,’ but how can you really?” asked Marco Ranucci, who owns a tiny cafe, where he works 10 hours a day, noting that the government’s current $1,285, “baby bonus” per child does not even pay for a year of baby formula.
link

And another sociological reason that is affecting the birth rate in Italy:

No babies? Italy blames its 'mamma's boys'

The latest report from ISTAT, the Italian Statistical Institute, shows that 40 percent of Italian men between the age of 30 and 34 still live with their parents.
There are multiple reasons: stagnant incomes, lack of affordable housing, education and employment.Needless to say, the Roman Catholic Church is very unhappy with this picture.

The pope recently called on governments to do more to encourage and support parents who chose to have more kids. Benedict’s efforts are widely reported in the media here, but his words aren’t stirring the population.

There were 10,000 fewer marriages in 2004 than in 2003, for a total of 250,000. In a country of 58 million people, that’s not very many.
link

A summary of parenthood policies in Europe: link

Easy even for you to see that the richer Scandinavian countries have invested heavily into birth friendly policies as compared to the poorer Eastern and Southern European countries. The State is the new Church.

Easy even for you to see that the richer Scandinavian countries have invested heavily into birth friendly policies as compared to the poorer Eastern and Southern European countries.

wrinkle:

italy: GDP PPP - 28,7000
sweden: GDP PPP - $29,800

if northern italy was its own country it might be the wealthiest in the EU.

Vikram, your post just disproved the 'direct correlation' that your originally referred to.

It helps that Christianity has grafted so easily onto capitalism.

Are Judaism and Confucian traditions more opposed to capitalism? That's news to me.

it isn't as simple as more religion = more kids

No, in the face of economic crisis and unemployment, other factors do take precedence. But religion plays into the equation very strongly:

Religiosity as a demographic factor- an underestimated connection?

On the basis of demographic data and the results of the World Value Survey, which has been conducted in 76 countries since 1980, U.S. American political scientists Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart have observed that a loss of religious meaning in society is the primary cause of the subsequent decrease in birth rate.

Norris and Inglehart suspect that social safeguards are the cause of religion’s loss of meaning, which, in turn, brings about a decrease in birth rates. Wherever a “welfare state” frees people of existential concerns, traditional values and religions lose their primary function and are replaced by secular and individualistic attitudes, which lead to a drop in fertility. link

Vikram, your post just disproved the 'direct correlation' that your originally referred to.

refer to post #42. Also one thing to determine is what segment of the population is religious: the older (and not child bearing) or the younger.

JOAT-
"Why are people often surprised that people are religions here?"

Because some people, esp, new immigrants, are not well versed in this nations history, when they arrive.

vikram, i think religion is more likely to be a dependent variable actually. in cases where religiosity is positively correlated with modernity and education within a country, like south korea, i don't recall seeing higher fertility for the religious precisely because of the correlation noted above.

This:

Norris and Inglehart suspect that social safeguards are the cause of religion’s loss of meaning, which, in turn, brings about a decrease in birth rates.

reads better as

Norris and Inglehart suspect that social safeguards bring about a decrease in birth rates.

JOAT:

It happens to be the longest continuous republic in the world and the oldest constitution in the world.

Religious roots run deep in this country. Why are people often surprised that people are religions here?

As my very frustrated linguistics prof said to me once: 'there is no single literal interpretation of a physics problem, forget the Bible'.

That can happen only in the US.

countries where the religion of peace dominates are also cretinish.

I am an Ethiopian 43 years old married and a father of 4 children. I have tried Dv lottary many times but I couldn't get the chance. I am a member of ful gospel church.Concerning my ministry, I had been a full time Jesus film team member since 1995- 2003 and planted many churches in the country side of Ethiopia.I have a dream to live and serve temporarliy in your country there by to learn in one of theollogical colleges then I will come buck to my country for further ministry.
Therefore, please tell me how can I be acheived my gole.
Thank you