Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

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.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by George Monbiot

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

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!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

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
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.
Posted by: shangrilalad on Oct 13, 2005 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I find disgusting is the Self-Righteous Right’s utterly corrupt use of religion to advance their political agenda. Republicans cynically use religion as a shield and sword to achieve political goals at the expense of economic and social justice. Wealth is not God’s validation of the rich, nor a condemnation of the poor. Jesus ministered to the poor, not the rich.

Republicans have succeeded in turning Christianity inside out, upside down and backwards. Hypocrisy is their religion.

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

Religion is to deal with fear of what is after death.
Posted by: cmonhank on Oct 13, 2005 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is a man-made phenomenon that was created to put people at ease with the unknown of what is after life. Clearly, no on has "lived to tell" us what is in the hereafter. And, like anything else, eventually extremely insecure, fear-ridden people get ahold of something (religion, unions, schools, etc) and for their own purposes use it as a control device over the masses under the guize of "we are inspired by (our) God and everyone else is wrong". All religions do this to a certain extent, but Chrisitanity has perfected it. Thus, "you're either with us, or you're against us." (GW Bush). There is no doubt in my mind that more people have been killed in the name of God/Religion than anything else. And I would further argue that Christianity leads in that category. Secularism has taken an upswing in this country in my 45 years (or so it seems) and to this I say, Thank God! The further we get away from our puritanical roots of the zealots that ran away from Europe 500 years ago and "discovered" this land full of millions of spiritual and very non-religious people (that they preceeded to anihilate), the more pure and less violent we will be.

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

This will probably open a whole can of worms, but...
Posted by: Habaro on Oct 13, 2005 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't seem to recall any wars or attrocities that were carried out without the use of science and its technologies, neither. If God-based religion is the cause of all wars and oppression, then science--quickly becoming a faith-based, bureaucratic, hypocritical religion in its own right--is certainly the means by which it is carried out.

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

» Discovery Institute Calling: . Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» 21st Century Ethical Culturist Posted by: eastcoker
» Eh? Posted by: eastcoker
» Perhaps I've expressed myself badly ... Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» And the scores are in... Posted by: LMNOP
Interesting stuff.
Posted by: sgtmartin1 on Oct 13, 2005 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just tossing this out because I doubt there's been a study specifically about this, but I suspect the data exist to do some preliminary work.

There is a growing epidemic of meth production and use in rural America. I would bet that you'll see that church attendance is off the charts in the areas most afflicted.

I don't want to suggest that church is causing it (though there may be some pressures at play that force people to turn to substance abuse), I'm just saying this is another example of the God = Good correlation being bunk.

Speaking of pop psychology, if you need a bit of levity try: Dr. Phil to Intervene in Troubled Republican Family

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

» RE: Interesting stuff. Posted by: MSTHOM
JaimeB
Posted by: JaimeB on Oct 13, 2005 1:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The thing is, you cannot simply 'make' people who aren't believers believe in god, and similarly you cannot turn devout religious people suddenly into secularists. The problem we are all having at the moment is how to live side by side with each other when there is actually a large spectrum of spirituality ranging from hardcore atheists to people who constantly 'feel the presence of god'.

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

What would you expect from a perversion of human nature?
Posted by: LMNOP on Oct 13, 2005 2:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I grow older and learn more and more about the universe and about Christianity and the Christian Bible, it becomes ever clearer that their authors have nothing in common. I don't know if any of the major religions is better, but I know that none is more damaging to societies in which it holds sway than that one.

The fact that some good people continue to be and do good under its influence speaks volumes about those people and says nothing about the Christian religion. They bring their goodness to the religion. It is the 90+ % of Christians who seem to know little or nothing about authentic morality that reflect the failure of that system of thought to make people better. The religion brings nothing to the believer or the society in which it flourishes. There is more love and charity outside of the Christian church than in it. Perpetuating the myth that the opposite is the case is perhaps the greatest of the Christian frauds. In fact, this article demonstrates well the perverse and paradoxical truth of the matter.

Carrot and stick shaped behavior is not moral, it is just civil at best. True morality is motivated from within, and is only possible in the absence of a belief in a judgmental, vindictive cosmic snoop. Under such a system, people learn to lie to each other and then in an attempt to deceive the snoop, to themselves. Soon this fact is forgotten and the inauthentic Christian life continues for several decades wherein no further soul searching or effort at self-improvement generally occurs and a life of complacent mediocrity is firmly established.

Christians hate this kind of analysis because it strikes so close to home. If it were absurd, it would be laughed at instead of railed against furiously. If you can make this system work for you, that is to your credit, nor Christianity's. If you are a good Christian it is because you are a good person inside or out of Christianity. Look around you. Your church is not training good people, and that is what identifies it as a fraud when it claims to be a moral system, let alone have an exclusive claim to morality.

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

» THANKS BUT NO THANKS Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: THANKS BUT NO THANKS Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: THANKS BUT NO THANKS Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: THANKS BUT NO THANKS Posted by: beetruetoyou
» Immorality of Christianity Posted by: freerain
» DON'T GO THERE! Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: DON'T GO THERE! Posted by: Jasonix
» MISERY INDEX of RELIGIONS Posted by: LMNOP
Fundamentalism
Posted by: eastcoker on Oct 13, 2005 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boys and girls, if you really want to know about fundamentalism, then check out this link I just picked up from the global policy forum Fundamentalism and let me know what you think about that one!

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

And The Truth Shall Set You Free.
Posted by: SanFranDuke on Oct 13, 2005 4:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't you think it is time for people to admit that those who commit sin in the name of God are thrice damned? It is obvious that the most damnible crimes have been committed in a god's name.

I think it is time to practice what so many preach..........LOVE!

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

» Unforgivable sin Posted by: nadezhda
My Thoughts
Posted by: 1rufus1 on Oct 13, 2005 4:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not a biblical scholar nor a world religion scholar, but when I hear people argue about the problems of Christianity I think of the book of Galations, specifically Chapter 5 verse 14: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" , verses 22-25 and Chapter six. In our journey through life we struggle with selfish ambition, hatred, unhealthy pleasures, deceit, envy, etc. , but Christianity offers its followers the "fruit of the Spirit" which is joy, patience, kindness, love, self-control, etc. It means to me that if I accept Jesus Christ I will lose my desire to follow my "sinful nature" and strive for the "fruit of the Spirit". The key word is desire, not "do the right thing or else". Christians have to grow in their faith, they do not instantly become the "perfect" person. They stumble and fall like anyone else. Also there is the old adage that states, "A mouse in a cookie jar is not a cookie." Someone who goes to church does not automatically make you a Christian. There is more to it than that. A country that allows Christianity to be practiced does not become a "perfect" country. It is bound by its own laws that appease all types of circumstances, political gives and takes, and needs for survival. Start with yourself and it will grow outwardly. Also realize that the path is narrow and few will travel it. Don't fool yourself and think that Christianity is the problem. It may very well be the only hope for yourself and the world.

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

» Well put Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: My Thoughts Posted by: Aposterioriperception
Pharisees in sheep clothing...
Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer on Oct 13, 2005 4:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many Christians do not follow the words of the Master; and are no more Christian than the Pharisees of New Testament were faithful Jews.

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

Fundies laying groundwork for monarchal rule
Posted by: diof09 on Oct 13, 2005 5:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had a few "aha!" moments in the past few weeks. While singing in church (yes, as a liberal I still attend) it occurred to me that many of the Christian songs (especially this new "contemporary" Christian music )deal a lot with these themes related to Jesus: His Majesty, King, Mighty Throne, We are Your Sheep, You are the Shepherd.... you get the idea. I think Bush and his corporatists want us all to convert to Christians so we can become meek, humble, and would not dare want to organize against their "power and might" (another popular Christian phrase). Then if we do away with public education we won't be literate enough to know better. It's amazing so many rubes have fallen for their con.

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

What is so bad about religion?
Posted by: MSTHOM on Oct 13, 2005 7:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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."

True Muslim followers denounce and shun those that kill innocent people in the name of Allah. The Muslim faith preaches peace. Christianity, by a mammoth majority, are a kind, caring, loving group of people. The Holy Bible instructs to above all else the importance of love.

While it is true that there are VERY FEW, and once again VERY FEW, "true believers" out there that kill in the name of God, are acting out of their own will and not that of the god they worship. To say that the world would be better off without religion, then say goodbye to 85 percent of the worlds charitable organizations. Salvation Army, Shriners, Christian Coalition for Children, and Numerous Hospitals with the name "Saint" in them. Without these organizations helping people, how many of us would have the means and capability of reaching out to these people? Oh that's right, we are probably all bombing you anyway.

Look at what the vast majorities do as a result of their faith, and not what a few punks hide behind.

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

Don't jump to conclusions.
Posted by: djtyg on Oct 13, 2005 7:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About a year ago liberal Christians received an email about a study done on abortion in America. It said that abortions have skyrocketed since Bush took office, by more than 10% in some states.

Later the person who did the study admitted that the study was flawed, and it was eventually found out that abortions were still decreasing under Bush-although at a much slower rate than under Clinton. Nonetheless, liberal Christians everywhere had our foots in our mouths.

The point being, I wouldn't be trusting one study just yet.

Besides that, a lot of good points were brought up in defense of religious people, namely the point being that religous people do exist in the Northwest and the more liberal states. Massachusetts, Maryland, and many of the "blue" states in New England are considered Catholic strongholds in America.

Barrack Obama said "We have an awesome God in the blue states." I couldn't agree more.

Having said that, everytime there is a posting on here or on the liberal blogs about religion, I see a hundred non-relgious people attacking religion, particularly Christianity.

Knock it off. Our goals are the same. We're every bit as liberal as you are. And we have no place else to go. The religious right won't take us because we're not conservative. And the left doesn't seem to want us because we're all a bunch of Jesus freaks (or Allah freaks, or whatever). There are many conservatives who aren't Christians. But they had enough sense to let the religious right have their say while they came to power. This argument just divides us while they win.

Besides that, there are many religious people in America who I would like to see vote for progressive candidates and policies. Bashing their faith won't bring them to our cause.

There are athiests and non-religious people out there who are good people who don't need a religion to tell them that it is good to help the poor and defend the oppressed. And if you're one of those people then good for you. But there are those of us who do it because we read in the Bible (or a Koran, Torah, etc.) that it was the right thing to do. We both want to do it and the argument over who is stronger for their motivation is just made by those seeking after their own self-righteousness. In other words: It doesn't help.

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

» It's not personal Posted by: LMNOP
An Issue Of Responsibility
Posted by: Christa on Oct 13, 2005 8:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps one of the reasons that we like the idea of religion is because the belief in it , to some degree, seems to absolve us of personal responsilbility. If I believe in a "higher power", I can ask it for guidance, help, etc. If I turn that same focus inward, then I am responsible for all that I am at this moment-I have no one else to blame, or to credit, for my current situation. I understand the human need for hope-for without it, a difficult life may be unbearable. I also understand that every decision that I have made in my life thus far has brought me to this place and vantage point in time. Maybe the idea that we are born alone and die alone is so terrifyingly lonely to us that we have created a sense of "other" in the form of religion. To be fully accountable and responsible for one's actions is a heavy, but necessary, weight to bear if we are to become the self-actualized individuals we have the potential to be.

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

Jesus say's, JEEZ
Posted by: Michiganman on Oct 13, 2005 8:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read alot of your points/arguments and turned and said," Hey Jesus check this stuff out". He read for awhile and then shook his head saying, "everyone is still trying to tell everyone else what to think". I came back here to say that anyone who wants can have a personal relationship with me. I'll help you make up your own religion that best suites you. You don't need preachers or churches or political support, just love for others and yourself. I shook my head in agreement and hit the joint that magically appeared in my hand. I passed it but he said,"no go ahead, I've got to go spread some more love"....Do unto others as you would want done to you.

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

» Love Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Love is for all.... Posted by: Michiganman
Jesus and the bankers
Posted by: take pills on Oct 14, 2005 2:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
did anyone notice that jesus was killed almost a week after he kicked the financial people at of the church??

you guys know about the "U.S. Federal Reserve Note" not really having anything to do with the united states at all. It is a private international corporation. The money we use everyday, a debt, private corporation. Creating a fake money, getting you into a fake debt, and charging you interest. Jesus wasn't down with it. They offed him. IF they offed him, they will off you too. Relegions have always been obsessed with money and power. Just ask one of their victms, jesus.

A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back, he ever wants to see a f###ing cross? Kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on, you know. -BILL HICKS
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Hicks

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

And John Lennon said . . .
Posted by: russianblue1 on Oct 17, 2005 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Imagine no religion,
it's easy if you try,
no hell below us,
above us only sky"

And this (the whole song actually) is a good summation supporting the article. (And I mean ANY religion!)

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

tests for mentally healthy religion
Posted by: beetruetoyou on Oct 18, 2005 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some questions we can apply that would measure whether a religious faith is healthy or not might be:

1. Does the form of religious thought and practice build bridges or barriers between people?

2. Does it strengthen or weaken a basic sense of trust and relatedness to the universe?

3. Does it stimulate or hamper the growth of inner freedom and personal responsiblity?

4. Does it encourage the acceptance or denial of reality? (Magical vs. mature belief)

5. Does it emphasize love (and growth) or fear?

6. Does it accommodate itself to the neurotic patterns of the society or endeavor to change them?

These and more come from Howard Clinebell, Jr.'s book The Mental Health Ministry of the Local Church.

It seems to me all faiths could use these to evaluate the health of their beliefs. All faiths could answer no to them and yet some, within each faith could answer yes.

For different stages of faith and moral development see James Fowler and Kohlberg's works. Immature faith describes what many of you are speaking of above. (unquestionable deference to power, reliance on authority, literal interpretations of holy books, conformist, little self-reflection, legalism, engaging in witch hunting,etc. etc. etc.)

These guys define mature faith/morality as being more univerally conscious and altruistic in selfless service. There are stages of development for these aspects of life just as there are different stages of development for our physical, mental, and emotional health. To simplify religion into simply good/bad is to deny complexity of what people choose to do with it and what they've been exposed to. Hopefully we'll all move to a mature level of faith and moral development emphasizing virtue, integrity, wisdom, and care.

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