This is very interesting. It could well be that other factors play a significant part—for example, conservative Protestants tend to be focused more in the South, which on average is less wealthy than, say, Catholic New England. That being said, could religion be a factor in why that happens? It would certainly be interesting for them to expand this study to answer sociological/anthropological questions like this.
God bless.

God doesn’t have to live in retirement, and pay taxes and bills. I’ll continue to save my bucks, thank you and give what I can afford to charities I choose.
If money is indeed the “love of money is the root of all evil” then I must be evil. Money is a necessary for survival. Or if indeed it is hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven, it is probably good I don’t believe in a heaven(or hell, for that matter).
It is an interesting study, however. No wonder some folks fall for the prosperity preaching, making the rip-off preachers rich and powerful. The rip-off preachers can preach from the “good book” to prove their Christian followers that they should “donate” and generously.

If they gave away money to help other people I could admire them but there’s no hint of that in the article. I can’t resist remembering the wise saying “A fool and his money are soon parted.”
Parents if you love your children don’t force a religion on them at a young age and certainly not a conservative one!

Once again some of you are displaying a significant lack of understanding of the people whose trust is in God instead of in man, money, science and the world. People of faith think differently than others, and this is not a bad thing.
You fail to understand that to a person who is committed to God, serving God and people is far more important than accumulating wealth.
Forty years ago when I was a young man, I set out with my new wife to serve God and people as a pastor. I pastored for 25 years. I did not make much money. For 21 of those 25 years I served a small church in Illinois. We did not have a lot of physical resources – that means money – but I had the opportunity to minister to people. I helped people with marriage problems, child raising problems. I stood by them in the hospital when their loved ones were dying. I ministered to a young couple whose baby lived for about one hour. I married people. I buried people. And I helped them in the years in between.
Then for ten years I taught at a Christian school. Again I was able to minister to young people and their families in a variety of situations. The pay was low, the hours were long, the stress was high. But the blessings from God were so much greater.
I know I could have earned much more money in a secular job, but looking back, I would not trade one experience I had ministering to people for any amount of money I could now have in the bank. This study, like so many studies, is faulted. It assumes that the most important thing people can do is accumulate wealth. I strongly disagree with that.
An old phrase (and, no, it is not found in the Bible) comes to mind. “You can’t take it with you.” That’s true, if all you’ve done is accumulate wealth. But if you have accumulated blessings from serving God and other people, well, you just might be able to take those blessings with you when your life is over.
Let’s see, if my choice is between treasures on earth and treasures in Heaven, I’ll take the treasures in Heaven any time. And I do not expect people whose faith is in the material to have any inkling of how wonderful that is.

It seems to me that treasures are gained from giving right here on earth and there’s no need to be “repaid” in a “Heaven”.
It’s too bad you don’t recognize how wonderful that is right here on earth and are waiting for an imaginary place to experience it.

Yeah! Things are really wonderful here on earth. Hospitals are full of people having a wonderful time. Jails are full of people who had a wonderful time at someone else’s expense. Cemeteries are full of people whose wonderful time came to a swift, abrupt and permanent end. Life on earth certainly is wonderful.
Actually, it is. I have had a wonderful time in the 66 years I have been on this earth. But I know it will end some day. And, as the Apostle Paul said, “if in this life only we have hope, we are of all men most miserable.” As I said, I do not expect people whose faith is in the material to understand those of us whose faith is in the immaterial.
The posts here always remind of the lines credited to poet Robert Frost. “Round in a circle we dance and suppose while the truth sits in the middle – and knows.”
Have a wonderful time dancing and supposing.

WC you don’t need to be religious or to expect a reward in a hypothetical heaven to want to help people and to do it. I also earned a lot less than I could have in a different career and made decisions I thought were best for those I served rather than what would get me better raises.
And if you’ll pardon me I think those who act well not expecting a supernatural reward are more moral than those who do it expecting such a reward.
And I think people who act well for a supernatural reward are dangerous in at least two ways:
First, if they come to realize the supernatural doesn’t exist they could lose their morality, at least for a time. Those of us who grow up without the supernatural can and generally do find morality from real sources.
Second, those hoping for a supernatural reward typically take someone else’s word for what will earn that reward. That other person’s word, driven home by irrational religious fervor, can do immense damage. Obvious examples are the 9/11 terrorists and the people who terrorize or kill the brave doctors who provide abortion services to a lot of people who need them. Then there are those who donate money they need to feed, clothe and educate their children to their church instead.

I might add to my post above that you can raise children to be moral (or at least aim them that way, which is the best anyone can do) without religion. A very good start is the Golden Rule, which shows up in many religions and philosophies. I realize it’s not the whole story but it’s a darned good rule of thumb.

And I guess I should make the disclaimer that I don’t mean to say all who are raised to be good because a god is watching are bad people by any means, just that the clear potential is there that if the god looking over their shoulder disappears from their head for any reason then they may decide they don’t need to be good any more.
As I said just above, if you raise a child to be good without needing a supernatural power to enforce it, that child has a much sturdier morality.

I’m sure you will not be surprised, nnmns, if I totally disagree that morality based on faith is less substantial than morality based on whatever an atheist bases morality on. I have been living a life of faith for 49 years, and, yes, my moral commitment has changed – it has grown stronger because in serving the God I love, I grow to be more like Him.
But again, I know you won’t believe that because of your presuppositions and your worldview. And, I have to say it, I resent having my morality in any way shape or form compared to the perpetrators of the 9-11 terror attacks. Those people do not believe in the God I serve. I don’t even think they believe in the God most Muslims worship. I think they were cold, calculating evil people who found a way to use religion to seek their own way for their own perverted purposes, and neither I nor you have anything in common with them!

WC, I certainly not compare your god with theirs, or indeed as you wisely point out, theirs with most Muslims’ gods. But what you and they do have in common is a belief your lives should be dedicated to a god. You no doubt have greatly different ideas of what your gods want but likely you both have taken your idea of what your god wants from someone else. If that person is homicidal, as was the case with the terrorists, he can use religious fervor to make those who listen to him homicidal and he can promise an eternal reward for doing as he directs.
In theory atheists, too, could get bad advice since we also usually get our philosophy from someone else, directly or from reading books. But I can’t imagine an atheist philosopher urging a follower to kill for atheism. As is bound to be pointed out a few atheists who were philosophers/political leaders have caused a lot of killing but that was over economics. And in any case no avowed atheist can promise a reward in heaven for murder.

“As I said, I do not expect people whose faith is in the material to understand those of us whose faith is in the immaterial.”
There seems to be a big assumption made in this statement. Can you figure out what it is?
Might want to restate one.
My faith is in the actual, which is hardly immaterial.

One ought to remember that there is an element of relativity when it comes to wealth – one doesn’t have to be financially rich to be happy or feel satisfied with their life. Another thing to point out is the difference in our expectations – especially when it comes to wealth and affluence. We want to be and expect to become financially well-off, even when that isn’t necessarily the best thing for us sometimes – the whole idea of more is more isn’t always right. Just one more thing to remember – you can’t take it with you when you die – or if you do, it won’t really do you much good.