Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Better Off Without Him?

By George Monbiot, AlterNet. Posted October 13, 2005.


Christian fundamentalists claim religion is associated with lower rates of violence, teen pregnancy and divorce. A new study says they couldn't be more wrong.
Advertisement

Are religious societies better than secular ones? It should be an easy question for athiests to answer.

Most of those now seeking to blow people up -- whether with tanks and missiles or rucksacks and passenger planes -- do so in the name of God. In India, we see men whose religion forbids them to harm insects setting fire to human beings. A 14th-century Pope with a 21st-century communications network sustains his church's mission of persecuting gays and denying women ownership of their bodies. Bishops and rabbis in Britain have just united in the cause of prolonging human suffering, by opposing the legalization of assisted suicide. We know that the most dangerous human trait is an absence of self-doubt, and that self-doubt is more likely to be absent from the mind of the believer than the non-religious infidel.

But we also know that few religious governments have committed atrocities on the scale of Hitler's, Mao's or Stalin's (though, given their more limited means, the Spanish and British in the Americas, the British, Germans and Belgians in Africa, and the British in Australia and India could be said to have done their best). It is hard to dismiss Dostoyevsky's suspicion that "If God does not exist, then everything is permissible."

Nor can we wholly disagree with the new Pope when he warns that "we are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which ... has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." (We must trust, of course, that a man who has spent his life campaigning to become God's go-between, and who now believes he is infallible, is immune to such impulses).

The creationists in the United States might be as mad as a box of ferrets, but what they claim to fear is the question which troubles almost everyone who has stopped to think about it: if our lives have no purpose, why should we care about other people's?

We know too, as Roy Hattersley argued in the Guardian last month, that "good works ... are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists. The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand."

The only two heroes I have met are both Catholic missionaries. Joe Haas, an Austrian I stayed with in the swamp forests of West Papua, had spent his life acting as a human shield for the indigenous people of Indonesia: every few months soldiers threatened to kill him when he prevented them from murdering his parishioners and grabbing their land.

Frei Adolfo, the German I met in the savannahs of northeastern Brazil, thought, when I first knocked on his door, that I was a gunman the ranchers had sent for him. Yet still he opened it. With the other liberation theologians in the Catholic church, he offered the only consistent support to the peasants being attacked by landowners and the government. If they did not believe in God, these men would never have taken such risks for other people.

Remarkably, no one, until now, has attempted systematically to answer the question with which this column began. But in the current edition of the Journal of Religion and Society, a researcher called Gregory Paul tests the hypothesis propounded by evangelists in the Bush administration, that religion is associated with lower rates of "lethal violence, suicide, non-monogamous sexual activity and abortion." He compared data from 18 developed democracies, and discovered that the Christian fundamentalists couldn't have got it more wrong.

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction."


Digg!

George Monbiot is the author of 'Poisoned Arrows' and 'No Man's Land' (Green Books). Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Being true to yourself
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Oct 13, 2005 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Babies are not born bad and they will follow their inner-quidance to do the right thing. Ask yourself what is the greatest sin? It is not important here to believe in sin. It is more about your inner core or spirit. If you are true to yourself, you cannot be false to others. Call it a Universal Cosmic Law. I am not sure that even very religious people would get it. Jesus did say to be true to thineself and thou cannot be untrue to others. My quote might not be word for word, but that is the jest of the quotation. It is a truism across all faiths and philosophies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Being true to yourself Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
» RE: Being true to yourself Posted by: starverd
» RE: Being true to yourself Posted by: sassicatz
» RE: Being true to yourself Posted by: abuemma
» RE: Being true to yourself Posted by: ranehring
» A practical version Posted by: Bic Pentameter
» RE: A practical version Posted by: ShaSpirit
» RE: Being true to yourself Posted by: ranehring
» RE: Being true to yourself Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: Being true to yourself Posted by: ShaSpirit
» Being true to your quotes. Posted by: Recall
» RE: Being true to your quotes. Posted by: ShaSpirit
» Dude, no. Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Being true to yourself Posted by: eralfast
Interesting
Posted by: WhatNow? on Oct 13, 2005 3:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can."
-- Frank Zappa

I can not remember a president mentioning religion like the bum we have now. "Thou shalt not kill," yet he may have had more people executed than any other governor in the history of the US. So much for being pro-life and behaving like Jesus.

I am religious in a few ways. I religously eat and shower at least once a day. I never go to church though. One memory I find amusing is, when I was younger my church going friends would want me to lie to their girlfriends to get them out of trouble. I would not lie for them. I guess that is why they wanted me to lie for them. Their girlfriends knew I was trustworthy whereas they were not.

I have alot of reservations about christianity. I can not bring myself to belong to something that has such a long history of killing people such as religion does. I do believe the new testament is a good handbook for trying to live a decent life but so many "christians" can not seem to understand the instructions.

I pretty much try to stick with , do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Everything else will pretty much fall into place and it it does not, then fuck it. It is not worth worrying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting Posted by: Liberal
» RE: Interesting Posted by: jshubbub
» RE: Interesting Posted by: Basenjis
» Christianity Posted by: nadezhda
» Spirit is what counts Posted by: LeonDion
» you are right Posted by: eastcoker
Off-key but...
Posted by: Colin on Oct 13, 2005 3:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've not seen George Monbiot's work posted here before so I'll stick my neck out and urge the Alternet's readers to have a flick through the articles on his website.

He is without question one of the most lucid, interesting and relevant journalists going and highly recommended.

(No, we're not related)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Off-key but... Posted by: bettsoff
the creationists fear
Posted by: jimsenter on Oct 13, 2005 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The creationists in the United States might be as mad as a box of ferrets, but what they claim to fear is the question which troubles almost everyone who has stopped to think about it: if our lives have no purpose, why should we care about other people's?"

Existentialist philosophers answered this one 100 years ago:
We choose to care, we choose to help, we choose our purpose because that is what defines who we are. We either choose life or we choose death. And the universe knows us by the choices we make.

We define who we are, not some white bearded man in the sky. Not some fearless leader. We do. That's what scares the creationists. They can't handle the responsibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Absolutely! Posted by: tabaumann
» RE: Absolutely! Posted by: dai766
» RE: Absolutely! Posted by: Xynyx
» Go farther with that reasoning Posted by: Bic Pentameter
» RE: Absolutely! Posted by: redjenny
» RE: Absolutely! Posted by: Halaby
Superstition
Posted by: roadie on Oct 13, 2005 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is nothing but a superstition designed to instill fear and so control people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Superstition Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Superstition Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Superstition Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: Superstition Posted by: Ahimsa
» RE: Superstition Posted by: crusty
» RE: Superstition Posted by: johnhoch
» RE: Superstition Posted by: hardddirt
Nothing new
Posted by: jazzyjer on Oct 13, 2005 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Christian fundamentalist researcher George Barna did a survey in the last couple of years that closely matches this one: the secular Northeast has a divorce rate roughly half that of Southern Bible Belt states. Throughout this country, the Bible Belt leads in negative social outcomes.

A little quibble, though. Even though Hitler is often tossed in with the godless Commies, he suffused his message with Christian symbols, proclaiming himself a practicing Catholic and constantly referring to God and Jesus in his speeches. He also sought and received the approval of many church leaders in Germany before the war. He might have been laughing inside, but he presented the Reich as a Christian entity. Calling him an atheist just doesn't wash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Faith of our Nazis Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: Nothing new Posted by: Jimbo
» RE: Nothing new Posted by: Halaby
» RE: Nothing new Posted by: mejsmith
» RE: Nothing new Posted by: Jayzer
Careful...
Posted by: 7 Levels on Oct 13, 2005 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is how we lose some traction with getting good ideas across to good people who generally believe the media and the spin. The problem is that REAL Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. must take back their religions from the zealots and the politicians. If everyone were Christian as it is intended and not as it is practiced, there would be no need for this website and there certainly would not be this war. And there ARE a lot of people who do practice their religion in the spirit it was intended. The problem is that the evangelists and the liars use this as a shield and a battering ram. If you have no qualm sending kids off to die, why should you care about manipulating religion to rationalize it ? Non-believers can best help by supporting pacifists and Christians who ARE out there in their churches trying to spread the right kind of message. My church was nearly decimated by the gay priest issue (Episcopal) and a LOT of people left and took their resources with them. It's been a struggle to pay the bills and rebuild, but it sure feels a lot more like it was intended now that we no longer have so much intolerance within the congregation. I used to paint all organized religion like the writer of this article and found that I had excluded some genuinely intelligent, motivated and activist-prone people who could really help a cause.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Careful... Posted by: nadezhda
» Not Catholics Posted by: bettsoff
Barbara
Posted by: Barbara on Oct 13, 2005 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always thought it interesting that the USA stood out as being the most religiously fervent country in the world. And yet, in the western wrold, the USA has the highest number of gun deaths, the largest military & weaponry ( more than the rest of the world combined ), the highest infant mortality, the highest number of people with STD, the most expensive health care, an extrodinary number of people in poverty, and the religious mafia in politics. Something tells me that we should follow Frank Cappas advice, and stay as far away from christian religion as we can.
And, considering that the first part of the bible was written at least 400 years after Christs death, I'm sure there were a " few " alterations to the facts. Jesus seemed to have a good head on his shoulders, and I'm sure that if he appeared in America now,..doing his throwing the money merchants out of the temple,....the christian right in America would shoot him down. That's about how far away from any teachings of Christ they have gotten. I'm not religious, in the worshiping of some guy but it seems to me that whenever politics, money and religion are so closely linked, the whole system just goes down the toilet. More wars, more poverty. More of everything but what christianity is supposed to be about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And whoever wrote what when ... Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» Bible Origins Posted by: crz53
» To be fair ... Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» well put, to prove a point Posted by: freerain
Flawed assumptions, but good questions
Posted by: Jasonix on Oct 13, 2005 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The flaw in this study is obvious: Paul compares religious societies with secular democracies. If it were simply religious societies verses secular societies, democracies or not, the outcome would be different. For example, if China and North Korea were included in the "secular" column, the results would be very different. I think a big issue here is that religion in so-called "democracies" is largely associated with poverty and social insecurity - people look for security in religion when it's in short supply on earth. People in Sweden and Canada, for instance, probably live in the most properous societies on earth, and words like "You're fired!" don't evoke anywhere near the terror they do in the United States, which has little in the way of a social safety net. And it's fair to say that at this point, the U.S. is no longer a prosperous or rich nation. At least a third of the country lives in genuine poverty (if not being able to work full-time and afford the basics of life defines poverty), and another third is teetering anxiously on the brink.

That said, I don't think religion - or ideology - is an unqualified good. I think Jesus'd agree with that - after all, his biggest opponents were the religious of his own day. We need to approve or disapprove of policies, ideas, and traditions based on their merits, not on whether or not they come from someone's reading of a holy book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not so flawed really. Posted by: Colin
» RE: Not so flawed really. Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Not so flawed really. Posted by: Colin
» RE: Not so flawed really. Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Not so flawed really. Posted by: Colin
» RE: Not so flawed really. Posted by: Jasonix
» some good in religion? Posted by: Djon
agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on Oct 13, 2005 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A grave and imminent danger to our democracy is that fundamental religiosity has reached its unholy tentacles into our government.

Christ did not seek political power but to free the captives, restore sight to the blind and that all would WAKE UP and know that all life and all of Creation is interconnected and inter-dependent.

Christian fundamentalists worship a Punitive patriarchal false god that demands obedience, seeks power, control and empire building.

Progressive Christians worship a God of love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness and intuit God is as much Female as Male, as much Mommy as Daddy.

On Pentecost Sunday 2005, Father Matthew Fox nailed a new 95 theses to the same door in Wittenburg that Luther nailed his to 500 years before-
A NEW REFORMATION is available
www.WisdomUniversity.org

The likes of Falwell, Robertson and Dobson DO NOT represent the views of progressive WAWA Christians.

www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: agitator church and state Posted by: jazzyjer
» RE: agitator church and state to jazzyjer Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
» RE: agitator church and state Posted by: LoveYourEnemies
» RE: agitator church and state Posted by: cellis56
» RE: agitator church and state Posted by: Basenjis
What Do They Mean By 'Religion'?
Posted by: Snoopy Brown on Oct 13, 2005 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm deeply suspicious of blanket generalisations. When talking about "religion" in such a vague fashion, are we talking about all religions? Monotheistic religions? Self-identified fundamentalist sects? I'd like to see the precise definitions.

You see, almost everyone I know here in the northeastern USA is deeply religious. Christian, Pagan, Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem. And pretty much all of them are inspired by their faiths to involvement in liberal to radical politics, a strong appreciation of other religious or non-religious philosophies, support for LGBT equality, etc. So it seems that it's not RELIGION that's the problem, but the FORM it takes, the environment it is embedded in. Allowing some areas to be classed as "religious" and others as "secular" is to allow the religious right to frame the argument - there are many religious and secular people in both areas, but there are big differences in the way religion is publicly positioned.

It may be that the study is far more nuanced than the articles about it (it wouldn't be unusual), but I think it's important to look at the complex of attitudes and experiences, including religious outlook, that accounts for the differences between the "religious" states and the "secular" states.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

reminds me of a poem...
Posted by: astraea on Oct 13, 2005 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...by Alison Luterman called Jesus Incognito. Here's a snippet:

"Is it ok for me to love Jesus but not be a Christian?
I could try to open my heart and give away all my possessions.
It's not that different from being Buddhist, after all, except for a history
of witch burnings, the Inquisition, the subjugation,
rape and pillage of indigenous peoples all over the world,
not to mention twenty centuries of vicious antisemitism."

The heart of Christ was love. That's the impression you get when you read Jesus' words. When I meet most Christians now, I don't FEEL love coming from them. I think I know the difference between love and indifference (or outright contempt).

It makes me sad. I would probably follow Jesus to the ends of the earth...but I wouldn't follow his modern-day followers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: reminds me of a poem... Posted by: Habaro
profmarcus
Posted by: profmarcus on Oct 13, 2005 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's unfortunate that, after reading the article, one could reasonably confuse religiosity with spirituality... they are not the same... i consider myself very spiritual but i have no truck with religion... religion, i agree, is perhaps the most divisive force on the planet but i would fiercely defend that belief in a god, higher power, whatever you might choose to call him/her/it is not a precursor to the devastation that has been wreaked in the name of religion or, perhaps better-termed, rigid pseudo-spiritual dogma...

http://www.takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: profmarcus Posted by: Basenjis
Self Doubt
Posted by: eastcoker on Oct 13, 2005 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I disagree with alot that is said in this article. First of all we can not base our understanding of religion on the rapture right. That is a fallacy if I have ever heard of one. You all are being lazy. You are letting the most obnoxious and vocal aspect of 'christianity' define christianity for you. You complain of the president being intellectually lazy. Look at you all!

Second of all in regards to this:
"We know that the most dangerous human trait is an absence of self-doubt, and that self-doubt is more likely to be absent from the mind of the believer than the non-religious infidel." This couldn't be farther from the truth. The missionary which I am going to praise in the next paragraph was straight up ALARMED at the amount of self doubt I had and have and I am a member of the canonical church. He was actually scared by the lack of trust I had in my self. So I do not agree with this statement.

The only two heroes I have met are both Catholic missionaries."
Yes, I agree with this. I know a very heroic Orthodox missionary personally in Uganda working as an educator. I would agree that missionaries who are social activist are very conscious and evolved beings and must not be dismissed easily. They are emptying their lives out, endangering them for the welfare of their fellow man, total strangers. What could be a higher calling than this?

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction."

This can easily be explained by the epistle of Saint Paul where he explains that knowledge of the law produces sin. Why? Because once someone knows what they are not supposed to do it becomes so obvious they will always do the wrong thing. This goes to show the kind of legalistic Christianity we have here in America is not the christianity of the bible. It is a corrupted and perverted form of christianity. Letting it all define christianity for you again is a sign of intellectual laziness that you are all so fond of accusing your loathed president of. Well, look in the mirror!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Self Doubt Posted by: feduphoosier
» Christians define christianity Posted by: decembrist
» Why does Matthew ban me? Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Why does Matthew ban me? Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: Self Doubt Posted by: TEO
» RE: Self Doubt Posted by: crusty
» RE: Self Doubt Posted by: decembrist
» A different way? Not from me. Posted by: eastcoker
» For crusty Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: For crusty Posted by: crusty
» RE: For crusty Posted by: eastcoker
» Membership? Posted by: nadezhda
» RE: Membership? Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Membership? Posted by: nadezhda
Prosperity churches
Posted by: eastcoker on Oct 13, 2005 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In the US, where governments are still guided by the Puritan notions that money is a sign that you've been chosen by God and poverty is a mark of moral weakness, Christian belief seems to be at odds with the dispersal of wealth."
Right these are called prosperity churches, you reported on them in wiretap, and the prosperity gospel and it is a problem in Australia as well as in the US. The US is not the only beset by these problems folks. Believe me.

The American left is extremely intolerant and narrow minded in it's view of the church. The church and the state are separate, right? Now if I love the state as a member of the church, at least show respect to the church as a member of the state, and stop bashing the whole of Christendom for the mistakes of some ignorant fools claiming to belong to the church!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you for the answer Posted by: eastcoker
It's not the religion but how it's used
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 13, 2005 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush's party could have been atheist and the same damage to this country would have been done. It's just that the folks who make up the "religious right" with their politicians, or shall I say political cronies, have MISUSED religion as an excuse to run the country into the ground. Presidents Eisenhower, Carter, and even Ford were religious but they didn't misuse religion to waste taxpayers' money on reckless defense spending to go to war with other nations without rhyme or reason. In fact, the same Eisenhower who put "under god" in the pledge of allegiance also warned the nation about the THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. There are plenty of devout Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc ... who are trying to push for peace, understanding, and tolerance and we must make them a large part of our allies. Also, let's remember that secular is not the same as atheist. An atheist is totally against religion whereas a secular individual is simply indifferent to religion meaning they don't like it or hate it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you for this apology Posted by: eastcoker
Leaps of Logic
Posted by: Juergo on Oct 13, 2005 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As personally satisfying as essays like this one are for me to read as a staunch secularist, it's a little sketchy to make overgeneralizations and logical extensions like some of the ones I see here.

An important thing to remember here is that Gregory Paul, whose study is the only one cited, is a paleontologist--not a social scientist. Alternet's own Joshua Holland wrote a nicely scathing review of Paul's study shortly after it was published. Alfie Kohn's 1990 book, The Brighter Side of Human Nature, cites plenty of well-reviewed social studies (on individuals, not societies) shattering misconceptions about religion and morality.

As Holland's article mentions, poverty (more specifically wealth distribution) is a much better predictor of the societal ills cited.

These studies DO NOT show that religion is bad for you or your society.
What these studies DO show is that "faith" does not equal "values," and that lack of religion is not inherently harmful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Leaps of Logic Posted by: dai766
» RE: Leaps of Logic Posted by: dai766
» RE: Leaps of Logic Posted by: Snoopy Brown
» RE: Leaps of Logic Posted by: Basenjis
Is This Supposed to Sway Anybody?
Posted by: BMaxwell on Oct 13, 2005 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The basic tenet of religion is faith in what you have been taught. Facts aren't supposed to matter. Statistics especially, they are so easily manipulated. Religion doesn't respect facts that may undermine its claims. Religion today is a relic of the past, a crutch for the feeble and able minded alike, it cannot survive without indoctrination of the young. Fierce adherents of releigion do not care about the damages that their delirium-driven policies might cause, it's god's will if anything goes wrong. Let's stop with the whole sick experiment in control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» For Habaro Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: For Habaro Posted by: Habaro
Religion or Politics/Government
Posted by: PaJu on Oct 13, 2005 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think religion is necessarily the cause though many religions must take the blame for some horrible crimes.

I think people can sometimes be intellectually lazy, selfish and have such a need to conform that they surrender their freedom and follow foolish ideas. Religions can motivate people to commit crimes and autrocities but so can politicians and governments.

Remove all religions from the world and I don't think the world would be any better.

Remove all professional politicians from the world and it may be slightly better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Actual Study doesn't support article
Posted by: Selwynn on Oct 13, 2005 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The caption of the article reads:

"Christian fundamentalists claim religion is associated with lower rates of violence, teen pregnancy and divorce. A new study says they couldn't be more wrong."

Wow, aren't non-religious folks supposed to like, value reason and truth more than "religious" folks? That's what non-religious folks always tell me.

Well here's the study:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

And here's a quote from the study:
"Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions.."

The study does not show causal links between anything. Correlation does not equal causation. People who are attempting to use this study as a "poof text" against "religion" are acting exactly like fundamentalist dogmatists. Its funny, there are as many secular fundamentalists as there are religious fundamentalists, and they're just as dishonest, just as disengenuous, and just as willing to lie about the truth if it serves their purposes and worldview.

Shame.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you! Thank you! Posted by: PaJu
» RE: Thank you! Thank you! Posted by: decembrist
» smoking doesn't cause lung cancer Posted by: decembrist
» Secular fundamentalists Posted by: eastcoker
Thank you! Thank you!
Posted by: PaJu on Oct 13, 2005 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Years ago I was conducting a session where several people were opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment. I asked if anyone had read it. Not one person had. The following week I took copies of the amendment and distributed them. The first words out of the mouth of one of the most vocal opponents was "I'm not opposed to that!".

It's interesting how intelligent, educated people act on hearsay, rumor, gossip and propaganda.

Go to the source!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

argumentation
Posted by: karyse on Oct 13, 2005 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was surprised that nearly the first half of the article supported a religious life. Was it the author's attempt to compensate, for the fact that he didn't really know christian history? He did not mention either the Crusades, nor the Inquistion. And (as another poster pointed out, Hitler represented himself as working for God and the Catholic Church supported him. Stalin thought he WAS god.)

The result of NOT understanding separation of church and state, and therefore NOT teaching religious history (good or bad), leads people to think that religion has no history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Selwyn
Posted by: esactun on Oct 13, 2005 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You didn't read very closely. The author specifically said "associated," not "cause". The author even asks "Is this a cause or an association?"--something not answered by the study.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Selwyn Posted by: Selwynn
Hypocrisy is their religion.