How overtly employed varies widely, but yes; generally I did and do see it as a tool of control. That the notion is so widespread gives it social proof, so howe

How overtly employed varies widely, but yes; generally I did and do see it as a tool of control. That the notion is so widespread gives it social proof, so however contrary to doctrine or scripture it might be, it drives our behavior at a far deeper level. As for your second question, there's a significant subset of my sample population that's moderately geographically bound (Plains and Upper Midwest), but I have people of faith from all over, including internationally, in my social graph, and see some variation on the notion almost across it. I agree that as people spread out, the phenomenon tends to diminish. Research has shown that a profoundly effective mechanism for combatting insular beliefs is exposure to people who don't share them. Not enough people do that to meaningfully combat the phenomenon, though; something over half of Americans have never left the country, and the median distance adult Americans live from their mother is, IIRC, under 20 miles. As well, people who move out of places where Hell is more of a thing may lose the belief, some, but many of them are probably leaving because they don't share the belief, to whatever degree, and people who move to those places might already believe it themselves, or may face a group that's selected, positively or negatively (by people leaving) for holding it.