Fair enough, I would like for you to point me in the most recent graph of crime rates over the whole world.
To avoid that, people make tests per capita to avoid any claims like that. When making a scientific chart, do you change every variable, or just one?
But the fact that they aren't religious doesn't mean that they are evil. I'll very well admit that I am glad that Kim Jong Il was reported to have a rare case of cancer, because he was really corrupt. There were also good secularist leaders, as well as good Christian and bad Christian leaders. Now I would say Thomas Jefferson, but his multiple insults to Christianity as a whole don't necessarily mean that he isn't a Christian.
Not necessarily. There is actually not that much correlation going on because I see communist areas both at the top and the bottom. Even though the US is fairly distant from the top, I also see a lot of other free countries well below it.
If you do want more though, I did hear that Louisiana has one of the highest crime rates in all of America. It is also a very conservative area and the test rankings are almost last(44th in the nation), with liberal Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut dominating every other state.(I do have sources, but I don't know if you would call them as accurate as, say, the FBI reports, even though deliberately lying is low.)
>Here< is the chart made by the FBI about the crime rates, and the more liberal areas generally have less crime overall.
I have a personal vendetta against religion myself since it inspired destruction of scientific advancement for centuries, such as the Catholic church jailing Galileo for claiming a round Earth, burning down the Alexandria library(thus destroying history as well), and causing many unneeded wars, among other things that it was at least partly responsible for.
And Correlation=/= causation doesn't always work. Even though you are correct, this information cannot be just put away and not treated seriously.
