We made the top 10

[Conan71]

I also know of some really obnoxious atheists who make embarrassing and offensive comments regarding other's religious views. I believe in respecting someone else's traditions so long as they respect my own.  That said, I don't hang out with people who can't handle that.

There's a jackass or two in every crowd, but the idea that those who have very right-leaning religious ideals need to be run out of town goes very much against the principles this country was founded on. 

Maybe you run in a more "progressive" crowd than I do.  I'm quite moderate and would be considered liberal on most social issues, yet I don't seem to hear complaints about Christian zealots from my like-minded friends in other parts of the country.

And welcome to the forum, it's always nice to have new voices here.

[swake]

If you go to the Gallup link there's some interesting information.

Oklahoma has declined in recent years. From 36th in 2008 to 41st in 2012.  I'm not sure what has made Oklahoma more unhappy over the last several years, maybe just plain unhappy that Obama keeps winning?

In individual categories we did about as you would expect. We ranked 8th in the nation in work environment but 39th in emotional health and 40th in life evaluation. We really did poorly in basic access to healthcare, 41st, physical health, 44th, and healthy behaviors 45th. Are we SURE we don't need more access to health care in this state? Can we send this Mary Fallin?

The metro areas did better than the state as a whole, no shock there. Oklahoma City metro was in the 3rd quintile ranked 86th out of 189 metro areas. Tulsa did a little worse but was still in the fourth quintile at 137th. Interestingly the 1st congressional district, which is basically Tulsa and Washington counties was the highest rated in the state in the third quintile at 229th out of 436. Tulsa's exurbs must be pretty unhappy. Rural areas in Oklahoma must be really unhappy, but then I don't think that will shock anyone.

[Conan71]

If you go to the Gallup link there's some interesting information.

Oklahoma has declined in recent years. From 36th in 2008 to 41st in 2012.  I'm not sure what has made Oklahoma more unhappy over the last several years, maybe just plain unhappy that Obama keeps winning?

In individual categories we did about as you would expect. We ranked 8th in the nation in work environment but 39th in emotional health and 40th in life evaluation. We really did poorly in basic access to healthcare, 41st, physical health, 44th, and healthy behaviors 45th. Are we SURE we don't need more access to health care in this state? Can we send this Mary Fallin?

The metro areas did better than the state as a whole, no shock there. Oklahoma City metro was in the 3rd quintile ranked 86th out of 189 metro areas. Tulsa did a little worse but was still in the fourth quintile at 137th. Interestingly the 1st congressional district, which is basically Tulsa and Washington counties was the highest rated in the state in the third quintile at 229th out of 436. Tulsa's exurbs must be pretty unhappy. Rural areas in Oklahoma must be really unhappy, but then I don't think that will shock anyone.

It depends on whether the author of the study equates certain things like access to healthcare or healthy behaviors to happiness.  Who gets to decide what issues will equate to happiness.  What is their yardstick for "life evaluation"? A poll on "unhappiness" is fraught with all sorts of room for interpretation simply based on what a group of statisticians think it should.

Many people live in rural areas because they are happier there than in urban areas.  Rural areas, by nature, don't have as easy access to medical care and people in rural areas do smoke, use smokeless tobacco, and don't have 24/7 access to a health club.  There's also a good incidence of poverty in rural areas.  I've known people who were perfectly happy living in a single wide out in the middle of nowhere working on the line in a chicken plant, probably making less than $20K per year.  Far as they care, their needs are met and they don't have the "hassle" or stress of living and working in the big city.  Certainly I don't know as many people living out in rural areas as I do urban, but I don't think someone taking a poll from New York or Chicago has any clue what makes people "happy" or "unhappy" in rural areas.

[cannon_fodder]

I'll bite.

Michael,  the reason churches do bring much negative  attention is because of the nature of  many of Tulsa's churches.  Mega-churches and fundamentalist-churches (generally evangelical churches) have a very negative impression in the vast majority of the country and most of the world. Notably, affluent and educated parts of the country/world.  These impressions exist for a reason.

It is this religious fervor that often gets us in the news with fundraising for 900 ft tall Jesus (turns out because  Oral needed a gift shop), or to pass laws bringing religion into the classroom (evolution bad), or to adopt Christianity as a state religion, the never ending quest against Women's right and "the Gays,"  to ban Sharia law, the horrid quotes from Sally Kern et al.  Sad truth, when Oklahoma is in the news (outside of sports) it is 75% of the time because some religious wacko said something stupid that Tosh, Conan, or Leno are making fun of.  That doesn't mean everyone is a wacko, or hateful, or educated...

But there is a statistically significant correlation between a region having a heavy influence of evangelical churches and a lack of education (and a strong correlation with the previously posted happiness chart):

Evangelical Religions:


People without a high school diploma:


Now, most "normal" or good things a church does do not make it on the news.  So this by no means is an indictment of religion.  There are reasons ORU (social security pennies for the Roberts mansions), Victory Christian (Church before children), Guts (blood sport for Jesus), et al. get a bad reputation.  It's not because everything they do is bad, but the world hears about the bad, the crazy, and the extreme. And evangelical churches seem to provide the fodder more often than other sources.

The beauty of it is, the more fundamentalist a person is the less likely they are to care about reason, logic, or an educated argument and will easily disregard anything posted contrary to their position.  So... no harm no foul.

All that said . . .

Tulsa's churches do much good in the community and provide purpose for many people.  The survey on "happiness" can be flawed in many ways and I don't think anyone has taken the time to review the methodology to criticize or accept the outcome. 

[Red Arrow]

Can you give some examples from your out-of-state "friends" and why it bothers them so much?

I have never really gotten questions about non-evangelist denominations.  I have gotten some questions about places like ORU.  I would call the questions curiously wondering how anyone could be that way and that the questioner is glad they live somewhere else.  Not much beyond that.  We are the proverbial buckle of the bible belt.  As long as it stays here, nobody somewhere else cares.

I am a frisbeetarian. I believe when you die your soul goes on the roof to stay until a strong wind.

Then the dog chews you up.   

[AquaMan]

I believe George Carlin deserves some credit for Michael's religion. Seems I heard that on one of his albums back in college.

[Conan71]

I believe George Carlin deserves some credit for Michael's religion. Seems I heard that on one of his albums back in college.

And you remember it? I don't remember much from college, at least not the times we were listening to George Carlin... or Cheech & Chong

[AquaMan]

yeah. Listened to Carlin and C&C bone straight and sober. Still the funniest stuff ever. Dave? Dave's not here.

Never got offered a joint till I came back to Tulsa. Then every time I turned around someone was trying to sell me a bag.

[Hoss]

And you remember it? I don't remember much from college, at least not the times we were listening to George Carlin... or Cheech & Chong

What kind of spices exactly do you grow in your garden again?

[TheArtist]

   Happy or unhappy can indeed be subjective depending on your criteria for evaluating what can "enhance or detract" from that, but when one looks at other stats like "High drug use, child abuse and neglect, child murder, high suicide rates, high rates of depression, poor health, high homicide rates, high poverty rates, high rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. etc." ya can't seriously say we are having a good ol time here.  

 Ever seen one of those places in the world where people are poor, in a high crime area, children are dying left and right, etc. and wonder "Why don't they get the heck out of there any way they can?"  Indeed some do, but so many others are apparently more content to live with the current situations and find "happiness" where they may, and or are perhaps so familiar with the situation that they don't "get" their relative situation as so terrible to make any drastic changes, they are content in their own way and with their own choices.

 I am still struck by the contrast I have experienced when I go visit or live in another area for a while that is more pedestrian/transit friendly for example, and then come back to Tulsa.  You feel so much more "alone" and isolated here in comparison.  I think a lot of people thrive with more, and or different types of, social interaction, not all, but many.  I remember coming back from NYC and driving down 71st around the mall, arguably one of the more "developed" areas of the city, and thinking how desolate, boring and isolating it was sitting there in that car.  One can see more within one block of good urban design than an entire mile of suburban, it's so much more engaging and stimulating.  You have so much more opportunity to come across new ideas, to meet new people, come across opportunity in general, etc. "walking" in a good urban environment versus "driving" in even the best suburban environment.

I wouldn't have realized that what I was used to was, actually miserable in so many ways lol.  Wouldn't have had the context for comparison. I wouldn't have said I felt "bad" before, but I now realize I can feel "better". 

 That's just one comparison, but I wonder if we can really say that people here "choose" to live the way we do because they prefer it?  Do we really?  Prefer implies choice, as in there are several options available. But we DON'T offer those choices. If people could see and experience a different way of life, how would their "old way" then seem in comparison?  Many, or even most, might indeed prefer how they once lived, but I bet many would not.  But again if you don't have the choice, you probably don't realize that you aren't as happy as you could be if you did live somewhere else or if we were to offer that choice to you here, even if not to live IN it, but to experience it on a regular basis.

 Also, thoughts and attitudes change when in one type of built environment vrs another (shared community things like parks, transit, etc. become more important and your attitudes towards community and responsibility, including even health, change). And those who already have one "bent" would either flourish, or unknowingly struggle and wither in the opposite environment.  I don't have time to go into all that right now, have to get to work lol, but suffice it to say that "if your a person who has, even if you don't realize it, a different "personality" say, and you live in an area that constantly tries to shovel you into thinking, living, and being a different way, that can cause some distress.

Plus, over all population wise, opportunity to better oneself in general is limited with less diversity and choice.  Not everyone wants or needs the same things all the time. Making one type of lifestyle illegal or "looked down upon", while at the same time encouraging and pushing for only the opposite, not only limits the city over all but limits who we are as individuals and families and what we think and do.  Sorry to be so vague and general but some of those comments work on so many different levels that are often quite connected to each other.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I have never really gotten questions about non-evangelist denominations.  I have gotten some questions about places like ORU.  I would call the questions curiously wondering how anyone could be that way and that the questioner is glad they live somewhere else.  Not much beyond that.  We are the proverbial buckle of the bible belt.  As long as it stays here, nobody somewhere else cares.

Then the dog chews you up.   

I get a few questions about the churches.  From New York, I regularly encourage acquaintances to visit, and invariably get the question about the Indians...is it safe with all the Indians running around loose....   Yeah,...seriously!  

I tell them it is usually safe in the big metro areas, but keep moving on the turnpikes between OKC and Tulsa - sometimes people arrive and have the occasional arrow stuck in their car....  Hook, line, and sinker....

We are fly-over country.  There is East Coast, West Coast, and that narrow band in the middle that is made to just be gotten past!

[heironymouspasparagus]

That's just one comparison, but I wonder if we can really say that people here "choose" to live the way we do because they prefer it?  Do we really?  Prefer implies choice, as in there are several options available. But we DON'T offer those choices. If people could see and experience a different way of life, how would their "old way" then seem in comparison?  Many, or even most, might indeed prefer how they once lived, but I bet many would not.  But again if you don't have the choice, you probably don't realize that you aren't as happy as you could be if you did live somewhere else or if we were to offer that choice to you here, even if not to live IN it, but to experience it on a regular basis.

Worked with a guy who grew up in Tulsa, enlisted after high school (early 60's), spent his time in Germany.  Came back, got married, job, kids, etc.  Has never been further than 250 miles from home since that time in Germany.  He is very content with that life.  I have been "lucky" to do a LOT of travel in different jobs, seen an extremely wide variety of ways-of-life, and have yet to find anyplace other than Toronto that really appealed as a better place to live than Tulsa.  Vernal Utah, and Emigrant Montana are two places I could spend some time in, but not to live there indefinitely....   But the 'sit at home' lifestyle he has would turn me into a raving lunatic!!

[Red Arrow]

  Happy or unhappy can indeed be subjective depending on your criteria for evaluating what can "enhance or detract" from that,...

 I am still struck by the contrast I have experienced when I go visit or live in another area for a while that is more pedestrian/transit friendly for example, and then come back to Tulsa.  You feel so much more "alone" and isolated here in comparison.

I have enjoyed my visits to various cities (probably nowhere as many as you have visited) but I don't so much feel alone when I return as relieved to get out of the crowd.

I remember coming back from NYC and driving down 71st around the mall, arguably one of the more "developed" areas of the city, and thinking how desolate, boring and isolating it was sitting there in that car.  One can see more within one block of good urban design than an entire mile of suburban, it's so much more engaging and stimulating.  You have so much more opportunity to come across new ideas, to meet new people, come across opportunity in general, etc. "walking" in a good urban environment versus "driving" in even the best suburban environment.

I'll have to agree that there is no stimulation, other than frustration, sitting in traffic on 71st St.  My usual reaction to "one block of good urban design" has usually been more along the line of "who buys stuff here and how do they stay in business".

Making one type of lifestyle illegal or "looked down upon", while at the same time encouraging and pushing for only the opposite, not only limits the city over all but limits who we are as individuals and families and what we think and do.  Sorry to be so vague and general but some of those comments work on so many different levels that are often quite connected to each other.

You have been pretty good about mostly wanting an urban opportunity without trashing everything suburban but I do get a bit irritated when some urban promoters try to trash the entire concept of anything between farmland and downtown NY City.  The usual derogatory term lately has been "unsustainable".  It gets applied to almost anything someone doesn't like.