President Eisenhower once commented that it did not matter what religion a person believed in, as long as they had one. This is a characteristically American view, reflecting the high value placed on religiosity itself.

Many Americans tend to use religion primarily for social rather than religious purposes, finding in their church a source of community and in its beliefs a justification for the American values of good neighbourliness, self-help, individualism, hard work, et cetera. There is an implicit cultural assumption that Americans should be religious - not necessarily by attending church or synagogue or temple, but at least by expressing a belief in God and in religious principles.

A 1995 Gallup poll found that only 42 percent of Americans would be willing to vote for an atheist for President (compared with 66 percent who would vote for a Jew, 77 percent for a black, 80 percent for a woman, and 92 percent for a Catholic).

Interesting...

What about us in Australia?

How vast is the adherence to religion in this country?

Is religion as highly regarded in Australia as it is in America?

Hi Foxy... to answer your last question first... religion in Australia is very low on the scale of human priorities at present I observe.

Quite a contrast now though, to how it 'was'... in 1959,

<<Until the 1970s, more than 120,000 people were sometimes crammed into the venue - the record crowd standing at around 130,000 for a Billy Graham religious event in 1959, followed by 121,696 for the 1970 VFL Grand Final.>> (Wikipedia)

So.. at that time, 'religion' (the Christian variety) rated higher than the best attended premiership ever.

When Franklin Graham, Billy's son came in 2005, the crowd was close to capacity at Telstra Dome, but still only about 30,000 ish.

The answer to 'why' is really not so hard, we humans tend to take the line of least resistance in life, and as Jesus said

<<13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.>>

We have AC/DC screaming out their lyrics "Highway to hell"

Living easy, livin' free
Season ticket, on a one - way ride
Asking nothing, leave me be
Taking everything in my stride
Don't need reason, don't need rhyme
Ain't nothing I would rather do
Going down, party time
My friends are gonna be there too

I'm on the highway to hell
Highway to hell
I'm on the highway to hell
Highway to hell

An Aunt of mine, once told me after I'd presented the Gospel to her "BD.. I'm on the slippery road to hell"

Perhaps we need a new vision... not of heaven, but of its opposite...
as a reminder of where the 'wide and easy path' leads....

It's ironic that a wild rock group can 'preach' it.....and be applauded, but an evangelists proclaims it..and be heckled.

Still, the church has been an anvil which has worn out many hammers, and God is never mocked in the final analysis.

"Come Lord Jesus, come"

Hi Foxy, I would answer this in two parts - religion and spirituality.

Part 1: Religion as a value ... organised religion serves a purpose as an institution to instill a set of values that promotes a cohesive society. Whether it still achieves that purpose is debatable, as the brand "religion" has undergone significant disruption in recent years, especially the more established Catholic and Anglican "varieties".

Part 2: The underlying message of any religion is its beliefs - though this can be lost within an institution. If you ask Australians if they believe in God, then there is a much greater acceptance than if you ask whether they attend church. Paradoxically, among our youth there has been a huge swing towards pentecostal churches.

I think the institution still has a strong role to play in society - both as a medium for the message and as a gathering place for like minded people.

I also think a set of beliefs or values need to be instilled as well - we are struggling for common ground on this front in so many ways.

Finally, I think belief in God is still very much part of Australia's culture ... though how it is adapted and communicated is a reflection of a wider journey our nation is on.

Dear David and Corri,

Thank You both for your comments. I'm grateful for any information, because my family has spent so many years in the United States. I'm not as familiar with the part played by religion in Australian life.

I know that the overwhelming majority of Americans appear to have some commitment to religion. Many of them belong to a religious organisation, and in an average week surveys tell us that about 40% of the population attends a church, synagogue, or temple. Recent studies yield a similar impression of widespread religious commitment.

They tell us that over 70% of Americans compared with only a minority of Europeans believe in life after death. But whether this commitment is deep as well as broad is another matter.

Thus, a 1992 Gallup poll found that only a quarter of those professing Christianity claim to lead a very Christian life.

A 1998 Gallup poll found that although eight out of ten teenagers say they consider the Ten Commandments to be "valid rules for living today," two-thirds of them are unable to name more than half of the commandments. (I know I'd have trouble).

And, although about 90 percent of the population claim to be Christian, most of then cannot even name the four gospels that contain Jesus's message, and most have no idea that it was Jesus who delivered that central Christian statement, the Sermon on the Mount.

I suppose none of this should be surprising. How many of us know all the words to "Advance Australia Fair?" yet we regard ourselves as
australians? How many of us would pass the Citizenship Test - were we required to take it?

Whatever our religious beliefs may be (or not), we usually learn them from other people through socialisation into a particular faith (or through resocialisation if we convert from one faith to another - or leave). The religious convictions (or lack of them) that anyone holds are thus influenced by the historical and social context in which that person happens to live.

Am I correct in making this assumption - what do others think?

Foxy,

I think it's blindingly obvious that the US is more religious than Australia. It's by far the most religious developed nation. (See, for example http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=167 and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm ) To find a more religious country, you'd have to start looking to the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

It's also documented that religious nations tend to be more violent (both their citizens - see, for example, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/afps-wgs022307.php and as a country) and have lower levels of well-being. Even in the US, the more religious, Southern states are markedly more violent than the more secular Northern states.

Academic Gregory Paul found that: "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." (See: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/10/11/better-off-without-him/ )

Yes, abortion.

Of course, this raises an interesting cause and effect question. Religion is correlated with violence and unhappiness, but are people violent and unhappy because of religion, or do they turn to religion because of levels of violence and unhappiness in their communities? I don't know, but the great god-fearing nation that is the United States of America is the most fascinating petri dish I've ever encountered.

By they way, the least religious states, conversely, are generally smaller, highly successful European countries — Sweden, for example, is the least religious — and Communist countries. See http://brewright.blogspot.com/2007/08/10-least-religious-counties-in-world.html

Foxy: "we usually learn them from other people through socialisation into a particular faith..."
If this isn't true, then the fact that the same religion is found in the same countries is just a giant coincidence!

Dear Vanilla.... nothing like a bit of an 'anti religious' diatribe to get my juices going...but don't worry.. there is no 'onslaught' or personal attack coming.

I have not the slightest clue about how those findings correlate with the 'belief' aspect of a society.. forgive me for being skeptical, but you would need to show the connection between the 'values and beliefs' of the faith concerned for such silly studies to have any meaning.

EXAMPLE. in the case of Christianity,
1/ the primary foundation is a relationship with Christ.... hence the name.
2/ A relationship with Christ is achieved through repentance from sin, and faith in Christ.

3/ The individual "outcome" of that encounter with Him, is the following:

"Love, Joy, Peace, patience, Kindness, self control, goodness faithfulness"

They will occur in greater or lesser degrees depending on the level of comittment and purity of faith of the individual.

How in Gods name you can then come up with these ridiculous studies, is truly beyond the pale.

If you do this kind of thing, you have an obligation to show exactly what is the direct connection between the beliefs/values and the study result. If you cannot do that, then please don't waste our time with simply stating their misguided conclusions.

to FOXY... yes indeed.. the values socialization thing is real. In fact it is the very reason why I keep on pushing people back to their presuppositions... right and wrong etc.. they seem to think these things come from natural man, but I suggest they came (in our case) more from the Christian values and traditions which we inherited culturally

DEar Vanilla,

Violence and religion?

Vanilla I agree with you.

Sometimes a group may be inspired by religion to challenge the existing order. Religion can play a part in social conflict because religious doctrines can provide a moral standard against which existing social arrangements may be judged - and perhaps found wanting.

These challenges rarely come from the dominant religious organisations, for they and their leaders are usually too closely linked to the social and political establishment. Instead, the challenges tend to come from religious movements near the fringes of society, from dissident groups within the dominant religion.

In many of the highly unequal and impoverished societies, (like the South in the US), and Central and South America, for example, religion has been associated with the social and economic elite. Yet in recent years a minority of Preachers, Priests and Nuns, have embraced "liberation theology," which blends Christian compassion for the poor with an explicit commitment to political change through class struggle.

Most Church leaders view "liberation theology" with dismay, but the movement poses a significant challenge to the status quo.

In the United States religion used to persistently inspire criticism of the existing order - sometimes by liberals, sometimes by
conservatives. I'm not sure how true that is today - especially under the Bush Administration - which uses religion as an idealogical weapon, emphasizing differences in faith in order to justify conflict.

cont'd

A nation at war invariably assumes that its gods are on its side -
even when, as in the case of the two world wars of this century, several of the warring nations worshiped the same deity.

Wars fought on ostensibly religious grounds are often marked by extreme bloodiness and fanaticism, but religious differences are not necessarily the causes of the wars, even though the participants themselves may think they are.

The medieval Crusades, for example, appear at first sight to have been a purely religious conflict in which European Christians were trying to recover the Holy Land from Muslims. A closer analysis suggests an additional reason, - the European nobility launched the Crusades partly to gain control of the trade-routes to the East and partly to divert widespread unrest among their peasantry.

Similarly, contemporary conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East may seem to arise from religious differences, but the tension is really over competing claims by two different ethnic groups for the same homeland.

In much the same way, the conflict in Northern Ireland on the surface seemed to be one between Catholics and Protestants, but its roots layed much deeper in ethnic and class divisions between Irish of native descent and those descended from British settlers.

The point that I'm trying to make in a 'long-winded' way, is that -
it is too narrow to blame religion for all of society's problems.

Even Karl Marx's critique of religion, was occasionally overlooked by
Communist leaders.

At a Vienna summit meeting in 1979, the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev commented that, "God will not forgive us if we fail": and in 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev, told Western reporters, "Surely God on high has not refused to give us enough wisdom to find ways to bring an improvement in our relations."

Neither remark was reported in the Soviet media.

Boazy: "you have an obligation to show exactly what is the direct connection between the beliefs/values and the study result."

Sure, I appreciate that. Well, the Gregory Paul study "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" is reproduced in its entirety here: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

If you have a look at the bibliography, you'll find many other relevant studies.

You can download Brad Bushman's study "When God sanctions killing; Effect of scriptural violence on aggression" as a PDF here: http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/brad.bushman/recent_publications

The full studies interrogate the connection between belief and well-being in the first instance, and belief and violence in the second. Both are published in refereed journals. Do you have any academic reason for finding them ridiculous, or are you saying that because you don't like what they say?

By the way, the Pew Global and BBC surveys are both straight surveys — simple stats about religiousity and nationhood.

I don't see my first post as a diatribe — the correlation between religion and violence in nations and communities is well established and pointing this out responds directly to Foxy's question.

Foxy: "it is too narrow to blame religion for all of society's problems."

Of course, of course. I entirely agree. And I know a little about liberation theology and I know that religion (not just Christianity) can inspire social change. The black civil rights movement is another example.

Still, the correlation is interesting and worth exploring.

Dear Vanilla....

My major problem with such studies.. (I scanned the first one at this point) is that they are too broad.

The point 'religion' is not sufficiently defined. What I'm saying is that a community which is based on faith, will be far LESS violent than one based on nothing. Perhaps Ireland would be a good case to use as an example.

Connaught.... a Catholic area in the West of Ireland. Murder rate 6.46/million. Now.. move across to the border with Northern Ireland in 1972 it was 24/million and by 79 down to 8.87 this was a place of POLITICAL conflict..and I reject the idea that it was primarily 'religious'.. the religious difference was historical based on English invasions, so I deem it political. (we can play chicken and egg some other time on this one) I am aware that even in that violent context, sincere Catholics and protestants had times of wonderful joint fellowship.

The USA murder rate spiked upward as the 60s unfolded.. i.e. when the abandonment of God and embracing of secularism became rampant.

Bottom line.. I don't think one can objectively link 'religion' to violence unless it is a religion which specifically commands it..and I'm sure you don't want me to go down that well worn path here as well right?

My concern is, that you are lumping 'Christianity'(as a faith) in with 'Religiousity' and then connecting this with social disorder and violence and lack of well being when I know that such is not the case.

"By this shall men know that you are my disciples, that you have love, one for another" John 13:35 believe it....or not.

Boaz: "My major problem with such studies.. (I scanned the first one at this point) is that they are too broad."

As I read the article, your criticism is without substance. Can you explain what you mean in terms of the definitions it uses? (I assume you're talking about the first article, as you haven't read the second?) It seems to me the article defines religiousity as belief in god. If violence is political, it is not part of this study. Eighteen countries are surveyed — the small population of Northern Ireland may affect the result of the UK, but only slightly.

The crime rate in the US spiked not in the 1960s in the 1980s and 1990s (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States ) — and it is indisputably more common in the more religious states. These are also the poorest states, of course.

Boazy: "I don't think one can objectively link 'religion' to violence ..."
On the contrary. Many researchers, including the ones I cited, have done just that. Do you have any evidence to counter them other than you don't agree? (I mean substantial evidence, not just your own experience.)

Religion and violence go hand in hand ... as does violence in soccer and their fan base.

In soccer (as a player) if you are violent then you receive a penalty and possibly a red / yellow card ... there are a set of clearly agreed rules and outcomes.

While in religion it is more abstract; there are no teachings in Christianity that support violence, in fact you are to turn the other cheek. Who knows what the "rules" are for a violent act in the guise of religion - if you believe in God, then the referee will see you after your "game".

The link between religion and violence in the US can be argued in many ways, one could be those that are prone to violence look for redemption for these acts in a Sunday service, calling themselves religious without practicing.

The Ku Klux Klan is founded from a religious base, as is Al Queda and the Taliban - though their ideals certainly don't reflect their broader religious identities.

To me I come back to religion being the institution and spirituality being the practice. While many people are religious, few are spiritual.

Even less achieve what Boaz states as the outcome of believing in Christ: "Love, Joy, Peace, patience, Kindness, self control, goodness faithfulness"

Violence spawns more from ignorance than true understanding of religion, to link the two is just like linking the fan base of a soccer team and stating they are supporting the game.

Naughty Vanilla :)

My full quote included these words......"unless it is a religion which specifically commands it".. to which I should add "When properly interpreted" (just like I have to 'properly' interpet an electronic schematic..or I blow myself up)

As Corri underlined, you cannot link the correctly interpreted words and works of Jesus in any way to 'commands toward violence' for Christians today. Where such things allegedly DO occur, they do so in CONFLICT with the values they supposedly espouse. (Oklahoma bombing? Give me a break)

I'm often criticized for allegedly lumping all religion X followers in the same basket.. the very thing I'm criticizing you for here, but in my various rants, I attack the 'religion X' not the 'followers'. I provide specific evidence of the basis for it.

And if these studies are to have any real value (your links) they should take the trouble to do the same... or highlight where it is unlikely that the violence etc lack of well being, comes from those fundamentals.

BUSHMANS study was flawed. Here are the reasons.

1/ The '97%' believers in God and the Bible.. were.. MORMONS.. who believe also that Satan and Jesus were brothers!

2/ The passages chosen would not in the remotest dream be used to justify any violence 'today' by Christians who have a basic understanding of the Bible (new testament especially) because they full know that what Jesus referred to was 'aggressive unbelievers attacking peaceful Christians"

I'm going to try to look more closely at this "study" a term I very loosely use btw. Its a clear example of why most therapists have 'a therapist' :)
Bushwhacker also refers to himSELF as an 'authority' in previous studies.

Boazy: “My full quote included these words...…’unless it is a religion which specifically commands it’.. to which I should add ‘When properly interpreted’”

It’s irrelevant. This issue that I’ve brought up is not about whose religious dogma encourages violence and whose encourages peace, it’s about whether a correclation between poverty, violence, lack of well-being and religion exists. It does, as far as I can see, and no one has admitted any evidence to the contrary. This correlation does not appear to be too affected by which particular religion people follow. I am not making any observations about this correlation, I’m simply noting it. I agree with Foxy — a direct causal relationship is too easy. It’s complicated.

Boazy: "The '97%' believers in God and the Bible.. were.. MORMONS.. who believe also that Satan and Jesus were brothers!”
All religious people believe things that are untrue. Academics must choose groups to study. The author is up front about the community he studied. That you are not factionally aligned to this stripe of Christianity is not really relevant.

Boazy: “The passages chosen would not in the remotest dream be used to justify any violence 'today' by Christians who have a basic understanding of the Bible (new testament especially) because they full know that what Jesus referred to was 'aggressive unbelievers attacking peaceful Christians"
This is a meanlingless assertion. I believe you believe what you say, but the evidence clearly proves you wrong.

“Bushwhacker also refers to himSELF as an 'authority' in previous studies.”
All academics cite their own work. Not sure why you disaprove of this practice.

My sense is that you don’t want to discuss this issue but would prefer to continue to reiterate that the Bible, if properly interpretted, cannot lead to violence. I hazard a guess that this will lead in to a discussion about how Islam “doctrinally” permits — nay, insists on! — violence. But you have put me off Christianity enough to know I’m not interested in that discussion, so I’ll leave you to it

If we accept any notion of self-determination or free will, or any concept of human agency, then we must accept that it is the use of this agency, in other words, the choices of individuals, not merely influences and correlative factors, that are ultimately responsible for human actions.

So I guess you could say, "It's the people, Not Religion, not dogmas, not dialogue or rhetoric or crowds and mass opinion. These can influence decisions to be sure, but we are not automatons, and if we believe we have individuality and the right to choose and think for ourselves, then we must recognize that we, and ultimately we, as individuals, are responsible for our own decisions.

Take Saddam Hussein, for example. Hardly religious or even principled, Saddam was one of the worst perpetrators of horrific violence in modern memory. Yet, I won't say that Saddam did what he did because he was secular and not religious. The Cold War was hardly a war over religion, and yet I won't make the claim that it was political ideologies that caused it. The same goes for both World Wars, neither of which was religious in context.

On the other hand, if perhaps people actually lived the good principles and not the interpretations of the principles of religion, the world might, just might, be a better place.

Religion should not be condemned as a violence-causing or destabilizing force. It was this justification that led Hitler to slaughter Jews and Romans to slaughter Christians, among many other examples--in other words, fear of religion led to suppression and tyranny and...violence. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of the world is religious. Those people, and especially those leaders, who claim religion is dangerous should scare us just as much as those who claim religion is their divine mandate for violence.

Interesting thread you started Foxy!

Thanks for the great links Vanilla. I've bookmarked them. There's lots I want to explore further.

Boazy, you obviously only classify your own particular brand of religiosity as valid and the only one that cause its followers to behave within a particular moral code.

Corri, of course, hit the nail on the head by pointing out that just because somebody is religious that doesn't mean that they actually live a spiritual life, or religious life.

Is it possible that with the premise in Christian belief that all humans are sinners, born as sinners, Christian communities subconsciously accept that sin is always to be expected, inevitable and understandable until and unless each person is 'saved'? To me that is why logically speaking there is more violence and 'immoral' behaviour in strongly Christian communities. It is logical that sinners sin.

This is THE point I've found most difficult to rationalize with Christianity. The virgin birth, the resurrection, raising Lazarus from the dead etc do not give me nearly as much issue.

Don't try Boazy, umpteen good people have quoted from the bible, spoken about free will, the original sin, etc. All of which, for arguments sake, could be the absolute truth, but that would only support my premise. Sinners sin, ergo sin is to be expected, inevitable and understandable.

So, if religiosity is to have a value, I would say, that depends on the religion.

It never fails to amuse me Boaz, every time you set yourself up as an authority on the conflict in Northern Ireland.

It particularly amuses me - in fact it often makes me laugh out loud - when you claim that the conflict there is without a basis in religious differences.

>>I reject the idea that it was primarily 'religious'.. the religious difference was historical based on English invasions, so I deem it political...<<

Micks and Prods have been at each others' throats forever.

And it was the Scots who colonized the six counties:

http://philnorf.tripod.com/scottish.htm

Further this population shift was not the result of an English invasion. The previous landowners fled to France - by sheer coincidence, they were Catholic - and were supplanted by Scottish Lowlanders - who just happened, I guess, to be Protestants.

Here are a couple more gobbets of Irish history for you, Boaz.

1541: Henry VIII declares himself King of Ireland in an attempt to introduce Protestantism. Ireland until that point had been Catholic since the St Patrick conversions of the fifth century.

1559: Elizabeth I outlaws the Catholic Mass as part of her attempt to impose Protestantism... for a while you could buy your way out of this requirement, but this indulgence came to an end when Pope Pius V mandated that all Catholics should ignore her, since she was a "pretend Queen"

1641: the Ulster Rebellion: the English were encouraged to believe that Catholics were massacring Protestants, which culminated in Cromwell's revenge massacre at Drogheda in 1649. Of Catholics.

1685 - 1690 James II abolished the anti-Catholic laws (since he was of that faith), but when the English enlisted William of Orange (who was a Protestant) to their throne, they naturally had a bit of a spat, which was resolved at the Battle of the Boyne.

Which you may have heard about, Boaz, because the Orangemen march, to this day, in commemoration of that event.

So what was it that cause a Dutchman and a Scot to fight so bitterly in Ireland?

Religion, Boaz. Religion.

You should open your eyes sometime.

Dear Yvonne,

Perhaps we should go even further - if religiosity is to have value - it should be lived - not interpreted, to suit one's needs. I'm talking about things like charity, forgiveness, personal accountability, et cetera.

As I've stated in my earlier post, "It's the people, and not religion, not dogmas...
ultimately we, as individuals, are responsible for our actions."

The temptation to create an easy scapegoat for the world's problems has lead everyone from politicians to ordinary citizens to say that religion is at fault. This points the finger away from the real causes, and without recognizing these, we can never get started on fixing them.

Foxy: "if perhaps people actually lived the good principles and not the interpretations of the principles of religion, the world might, just might, be a better place."

It would be — as long as you picked your principles from the good bits of the Bible or the Koran or the Torah or your holy book of choice. Love my neighbour as myself? Excellent idea. Treat slaves as my property and leave them to my children? Not so keen.

I also believe that if people embraced the principles of love, altruism, compassion, empathy and tolerance the world would be a better place. These traits are neither religious or secular, they are simply human.

Foxy, I'm not suggesting we condemn religion. My ideal is freedom of (and from) religion within a secular state. (Although I can never understand how religious people could put up with this. Surely if you believe your religion is the correct one then you *want* to proselytize. I don't really understand relativism in the Judeo-Christian religions. Although I see how it works in Buddhism.)

And as you point out, the greatest tyrants of the twentieth century were not religious people. Human agency is paramount.

However, in comparing the US and Australia, and discussing the value of religion, these findings seem pertinent. One correlation is very clear — with the extremely notably exception of the US (although it is true *within* the US), the richer the country, the more secular it is, and the less crime occurs.

Poverty crushes and religion comforts, so perhaps there's our answer. Or one of our answers. If life is unstable or unsafe or untenable, some people will turn to the church and others to crime.

Yvonne, I *so* entirely agree with you. Original sin. Baudelaire was good on all this — he conceived of original sin as the sin in the world; our potential brutality. Which is ok for a tortured French poet, more difficult of a nervy little schoolkid. Catholic guilt is very real — I know people who feel their lives have been crippled by it.

Sorry Vanilla... 'which' religion is not only important to the discussion, it is essential.
The values of a particular religion directly connect to the behavior of its followers.

Only the shallowest analyst would generalize about 'religion' and crime etc.

You mention my alluding to a particular other religion and violence? -absolutely. If you allow yourself to be "put off" Christianity simply because of my empassioned public discussion of its merits and the demerits of a faith which has violence at its essential core, then all I can say is 'poor you'. It suggests you are not capable of or are unwilling to investigate those issues for yourself, but allow your eternal direction to be determined simply by words uttered in a public opinion forum where the various elements of faiths are openly discussed.
As far as I can see, you have never refuted anything I've said about 'Religion X'.. you have just criticized the mention of such things.

Now.. you have gone to the trouble of linking us to serious (though flawed) studies which are mean't to show how 'bad' religion is, pity you cannot make the same effort in regard to "violence and specific religions" which would actually be a useful exercise.

The first thing you'd find is that what I say is not emtpy ranting but very sober truth.

It IS 'relevant' which group is studied, you didn't mention that in your opening blast. For all we know, he could have studied Jim Jones and come up with the conclusions you threw out there for public consumption.

If Bushwacker is flawed in this study, and cites himself in others, then its doubly flawed.

PERICLES.. You so love the mention of Irish history don't you.
I'll agree that the violence is 'religiously' connected, but I assure you, it is not founded on Christ or His words.

Dear Yvonne...you said:

"Boazy, you obviously only classify your own particular brand of religiosity as valid and the only one that cause its followers to behave within a particular moral code."

If you mean 'Christianity' by 'my own brand'...then yes, guilty as charged. If you mean my 'denomination' of Christianity then it would be incorrect. I'm very loosely connected with my current denominational tradition. If I was going to choose one for 'closeness to the truth' as I understand it, I'd more likely go for Reformed Baptist than 'Community Churches of Australia' which is the tag we currently go by.

On the 'the only one/moral code' bit.. err thats pretty wild. All religions try to keep their followers to a moral code. David Koresh (Waco) tried to keep the little girls available for himself. The Mormon/LDS polygamists are currently being unveiled in the USA for 50 yr old men fathering children with numerous 16 yr old girls. etc...

ORIGINAL SIN... and your comments. Honestly, can I ask you to read a verse from scripture ? :) please.. its Romans 6:1
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=6&version=31

You were close, but missed by 'that much' Yes.. born sinners sin. 'Redeemed' sinners move away from sin. But then you implied that Christian communities expect sin from sinners, and that "this is why logically speaking strongly Christian communities have more violence and immoral behavior"..ddjkfjkenkjfnxkejjo did you hear it? the sound of my jaw dropping onto my poor keyboard? There is NOTHING logical about what you said. (true)Christian communities are paradise. Characterized by patience, love and well being on a scale you have clearly never seen. IF...there is sin..it stands out like a sore thumb and there are biblical ways of dealing with it.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=18&version=31
Matthew 18:15ff

Soooo much fuzzy wierd thinking going on here.

You are going to have to face up to it at some time, Boaz. Why not start the journey now?

Every religious person believes that their version of "the truth" is the only version that has any value at all. And a mere passing acquaintance with logic will demonstrate to you that this cannot be true.

Which is why you, Boaz, should not actually describe yourself as "Christian", which implies ownership of a vast tradition encompassing a spectrum of belief from the Roman Catholics to the Quakers, but affirm each time you need to identify your faith that you are a "Reformed Baptist".

It doesn't have quite the same ring to it, of course, and probably has meaning only for other Reformed Baptists. But it is at least more honest than claiming kinship with a population as diverse as the Pope and Dale Evans Barlow of "Yearn for Zion".

This will also assist you when it comes to discussing, dispassionately, the impact of religion on places such as Northern Ireland, which you insist upon getting spectacularly wrong.

It was encouraging to see you take the first step to enlightenment in your latest u-turn:

>>Northern Ireland... I reject the idea that [the violence] was primarily 'religious'...<< Boaz, Tuesday 8th

>>Irish history... I'll agree that the violence is 'religiously' connected<< Boaz, Wednesday 9th.

Continue your journey to enlightenment, Boaz, you will be grateful for the new and exciting life that awaits you. The scales will fall from your eyes - we can call it "Boaz on the road to Wantirna South" - and you will finally work out that the continual repetition of religious mantra, of any kind, is a force for evil in this world, not for good.

Goodness comes from within. From maintaining a set of values that respect oneself and one's fellow human beings, and their right to think, speak and act for themselves.

It most certainly does not come from religious bigotry, of any persuasion.

Including, I'm afraid, Reformed Baptists.

Boazy,

Clearly peforming and publishing a study like that represents some atheist being a bit of a ratbag. They want to have a chuckle at the expense of the religious. Thus being all in fun it probably wasn’t approached too rigorously and probably has methodological errors. I started hunting around for previous discussions where I did that for this or a similar study then realized that at the end of the day it is just a correlation so who cares? I believe there is a correlation between migrating storks and babies born in Norway. It is funny but who cares about the methodology? When it comes to storks you wouldn’t worry about it so why get so uptight just because it involves our group? They’ve done the work let them have their fun.

Yvonne,

A more obvious explanation is that in difficult circumstances (poverty) people have more problems but also more people appreciate religion. Having now refreshed the web page I can see Vanilla has already raised something like this. Rather than putting a comfort spin I’d consider adversity can bring out the good and the bad.

You (and Corri) are of course correct that just because somebody is religious that doesn't mean that they actually live a spiritual life, or religious life. That is a general rule irrespective of any study. But if this is the study I have looked at before it didn’t even relate the violence to religious people only groups with many religious people in them so there is no reason to attribute the problems to actual people who claim to be religious.

Pericles,

You might find it amusing when Boazy typed:

>>I reject the idea that it was primarily 'religious'.. the religious difference was historical based on English invasions, so I deem it political...<<

But you failed to explain why. (You couldn't have known Boazy would give cause with his subsequent retraction) How does the fact that Micks and Prods have been at each others' throats in the past change anything? England tried to take over Ireland and ended up with half of it and that is the clear source of much of the recent conflict. The Irish were Micks and the English were Prots but that is about the extent of the involvement of religion. Historical conflicts between Dutch and Scots or Prots and Micks doesn’t change that. Given that history you gave if Dutch soccer fans clash with Scottish soccer fans would you attribute that to (Christian) religion?

Foxy,

“Take Saddam Hussein, for example. Hardly religious or even principled, Saddam was one of the worst perpetrators of horrific violence in modern memory.”

Very recent memory for an individual leader. How about Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin and Hitler. They certainly held their own. Groups without such a demonized leader have also held their own quite recently. The Christians in East Timor were absolutely slaughtered by the Indonesians.

“Those people, and especially those leaders, who claim religion is dangerous should scare us just as much as those who claim religion is their divine mandate for violence.”

Excellent point! Most if not all the worst from the previous century seemed to share that approach.

Ignoring for the moment the specificities of particular religions, it seems to me that Foxy's original question is easily answered and has been by various correspondents: of course religiosity per se is more highly valued in the USA than in Australia. I would point to the very different histories of colonisation of each nation - America having been seen as a utopian haven from religious persecution for a strange Christian sect, while Australia was seen as a suitable repository for petty criminals. Consequently, contemporary America sees itself as the bastion of the Christian 'free' world, while Australia acts as its secular minion and does what it's told.

I think that Australians would have been mostly appalled if the erstwhile Deputy Sheriff had announced, as his boss did, that God had told him to invade Iraq. Culturally, Australia has always been rightly antipathetic to such superstitious sanctimony, while Americans suck it up. "God Bless America", indeed.

Conversely, the majority of Australians have historically tended to be quite tolerant of those who suffer from religiosity, so long as their rituals, beliefs and preaching don't impinge on the rest of us too much.

boaz, mjpb, I am gobsmacked that you can so easily dismiss all these studies entirely out of hand, without even considering them in the slightest.

Vanilla made some valid concessionary points, like it may be likely people in more violent areas turn to religion as a salve.

But to deny that more religious places tend to be more violent areas, is just plain ignorant. Sorry, but it really is.

Stop. Just for a minute. Look around the world.

Name the least violent countries - would you consider them the more secular ones?

Before you jump on the bandwagon claiming this is because of their judeo-christian heritage which encourages secularism in government, think again.
Observe the Japanese - observe the crime rates in US states that Vanilla pointed out.

For crying out loud - you can consider reasons, you can claim religion is the solution for violent areas, but don't try to tell me that religious places aren't invariably more violent.

Boaz, in your first post in this thread, you immediately discard the studies and say "Hey guys! Let's take a look at what I say the foundation of christianity means! Ignore those pesky studies!"

Honestly.

Remove your blindfold.

I must say Foxy you've certainly got the ball rolling on this one!

Interestingly some of the highest conversion rates of non believers to believers is in prison - especially on death row.

I should state that I am a believer in a greater power - and, no I am not on death row - but I am biased in my views.

The institution of religion plays a very powerful role in more violent societies as it curbs anarchy - the "karma" resulting from non social behaviour.

Marx said religion is the opiate of the people - well, if it achieves its purpose maybe it's a drug worth using. Though as TRTL points out ... it seems religion and violence do tend to go hand in hand - even when you read the bible it is often those most in need that "find" religion.

But I still go back to my original point, there are many religious people, but few who are spiritual. Even the bible addresses this, there are those with eyes who do not see and ears that do not hear ... they go through the motions of "religion" without actually practicing or even understanding the routines and dogma that so involve them.

Dear TRTL,

Because many of the people who engage in violent acts in the world happen to be religious, or even happen to claim religion and religious doctrines as their reasons for action, does not necessarily mean that religion causes them to act as they do. After all, for every violent religious fanatic, there are many more people living peacefully beside them who espouse their same beliefs but simply choose to act differently.

As an example, for every violent Hezbollah terrorist in Lebanon, there are many more innocent, Muslim Lebanese simply trying to live their lives, and even if they sympathize with Hezbollah, they are not taking that sympathy to violent extremes, which makes all the difference in the world.

The point that I'm trying to make is - it's not the doctrine itself, but the person who decides to act. Terrorists, not Islam, are the ones who run planes into buildings, who detonate IEDs, and who explode themselves in crowds of innocents.

In reality, many leaders of violence use religion as a tool simply to unite others to their cause.

Boazy! You are cross. Nevertheless, you’re just insulting me and haven’t put forth any repudation of the study in question (aside from you don’t like it), so I’ve nothing to add. I think you should take mjpbs’s advice, and ignore it. Sure, it looks like a reputable study, and it smells like a reputable study, but the point is *it doesn’t say what you want it to say*. Therefore it’s wrong. QED.

mjpb, are all studies which find religion or religious people actually have flaws written by “ratbag” atheists in the hope of “a bit of a chuckle,” or just these two?

Actually, looking again at your post (“wasn’t approached too rigorously ” “all in fun”) I think we’ve got our wires crossed. Look again at the studies I posted. One is from the the Journal of the Association of Psychological Science. It’s citation ranking puts it in the top ten psychology journals worldwide. The other article was published in the The Journal of Religion & Society, a refereed academic journal dedicated to the publication of scholarly research in religion and its diverse social dimensions. It is blind peer reviewed. To be brutally honest, and especially given Boazy has — with a straight face — used Fox News as a source on these pages, I’m not really buying you guys’s claims “methodological errors” (that you can't actually pinpoint) in such rigourously reviewed and academically stern publications.

However, if you have indeed found methodological errors in either journal, I advise writing a sternly-worded letter. Imagine the funding these people get! For shame.

As I’ve said about a thousand times, a correlation DOES NOT MEAN religious people are evil. Are you really so invested in burying your heads in the sand that you're not even a bit curious? I’d love to read more about it, but I bet the correlation is really between poverty and religion. From there, many things happen. Poverty begets petty crime. Petty crime begets organised crime. Religious parents often breed rebellious children. As Yvonne says, sinners sin. When you impose a system of morality from the outside in the hope it will filter in, people change when they think no one is watching.

CJ. Very true. That’s what I was trying to say about the US being a petri dish — since the Mayflower, it’s been an experiment in fundamentalism. (Which is exactly why a state-by-state analysis is so interesting.) Australians almost as a unit, conversely, hate cant and hypocrisy and see a bollock-naked Emperor. K-Rudd obviously is a Christian, but if we had a pollie telling us they were when they’re obviously not (as both Democratic presidential nominees do in the US), we’d see straight through it.

Which means, I think, those who are religious — like our boffin PM — genuinely are

Foxy, I don't deny what you're saying there - I'm not saying religion is evil, or that it makes people violent per se.

Indeed, the idea that people in violent areas turn to religion seems very logical.

But it bothers me when people just stick their heads in the sand from the get go, and don't actually look at what's in front of them.

Near the start of this thread, Vanilla presented a series of studies, all of which seem quite valid.

For no particularly valid reason that I can see, both boaz and mjpb instinctively rejected them. My guess is that they perceive it to be a challenge to their belief system, but I suppose that's just conjecture.

It doesn't have to be a threat - people can accept the flaws that have accompanied their particular belief set along the ages, and the flaws that exist today.
You don't have to condone the Spanish Inquisition to accept that a large part of what fuelled it was fundamentalist Christianity.

Similarly, you don't have to reflexively reject what seems pretty damn obvious to me - this is just denying reality, and it's here that we run into strife when people can't objectively assess the situation.

TRTL,

Take a few deep breaths. It is just a correlation. The sky isn't falling in just because some people believe in a creator.

"But to deny that more religious places tend to be more violent areas, is just plain ignorant. Sorry, but it really is."

Would it be sufficient if I acknowledged my belief that adverse circumstances bring out the best and worst in people.

"Stop. Just for a minute. Look around the world.

Name the least violent countries - would you consider them the more secular ones?"

Isn't that back to front if we are considering religion or secularity's association with violence rather than vice versa as seems to be your theory. How about we look at a more reasonable time frame then this second. How about last century and what about the opposite direction? What countries seemed the most brutally violent. Examples that come to mind are Germany, USSR, China, and Cambodia. Were the latter three in any way characterisable as religious.

"For crying out loud - you can consider reasons, you can claim religion is the solution for violent areas, but don't try to tell me that religious places aren't invariably more violent."

How large does the area have to be? How much trouble is there in the Amish community or Vatican City? Choosing Mormons rather than Amish is all part of the game. Why do you take it so seriously?

"Boaz, in your first post in this thread, you immediately discard the studies and say "Hey guys! Let's take a look at what I say the foundation of christianity means! Ignore those pesky studies!""

That is an unfair misrepresentation. Boazy volunteered to look into the studies more thoroughly so the last thing he said was ignore the pesky studies. But as someone who is religious he is entitled to bring his knowledge and experience into the discussion.

"Take a few deep breaths. It is just a correlation. The sky isn't falling in just because some people believe in a creator."

I never acted as though the sky was falling and I made no mention of the creator or otherwise.

I pointed out that it was being wilfully ignorant to dismiss studies without any real basis - though I see now at least you accept there is a correlation, which was my entire point.
I made no claims as to the reasoning behind it, I just said it was foolhardy to dismiss these studies in their entirety for no good reason.

My paraphrasing of boaz was reasonably apt - there were two points:

1) Hey guys! Let's take a look at what I say the foundation of christianity means!

He said:

""Love, Joy, Peace, patience, Kindness, self control, goodness faithfulness"
They will occur in greater or lesser degrees depending on the level of comittment and purity of faith of the individual."

Well, I know plenty of people with all of those characteristics who aren't the least bit religious - so I say, it's not fair to claim your religion is the sole cause of these and has a monopoly on them, because clearly, it doesn't.

My second paraphrasing of boaz was: "Ignore those pesky studies!"

Boaz:

"How in Gods name you can then come up with these ridiculous studies, is truly beyond the pale."

No real reasoning why, save for the fact that they conflict with boaz's idea of what Christianity is - never mind the figures, or what's in the studies.

As I said mjpb - I'm not stating that religion is the cause of violence - I'm saying it's stupid to just ignore the studies because you don't like things that show a less rosy picture of religion.

As Vanilla has confirmed, of the modern western countries, the USA stands out as having the highest rate of violence and the least effective social programs. Yet it is the most religious of the modern democracies.

As Gregory S Paul summarises in his study "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies."

"when the moral and religious universe encompassing individuals involves cosmic struggles between benevolent and malevolent forces, moral struggles between “good guys” and “bad-guys,” and dichotomous choices between good or evil, then there is little or no inclination to consider any middle ground, negotiation, or flexibility in dealing with lesser conflicts and struggles in everyday life.

It may be that a religious cosmology with moral “wars” and “dueling deities” sets the stage for culture wars (Hunter 1991), facilitates interpersonal wars, and encourages people in conflict to think in terms of dueling contenders for righteousness. When moral boundaries are rigid, it may be easier to offend or “dis”@ others and harder to assume a personal responsibility for generating conflict.

When there is only good and evil and there has to be a clear moral
winner or immoral loser, then the options for controlling violent outcomes may be greatly restricted."

Boaz, in particular is an excellent example of the religious who divides people into "good" and "bad" guys.

Now normal moderate religious people do not concur with the extremist views of their proselytising brethren and anyone wishing to check the bibliography at the end of Paul's article can confirm for themselves that the study included input from religious as well as secular sources.

We can all find examples of atrocities committed by both religious and non-religious - therefore to claim that either belief or non-belief imparts greater moral integrity is a spurious claim for either. It is up to the individual to respond to their conscience.

That some people require the guidance and rules offered by religion, to conduct themselves responsibly is up to the individual. This may work very well for some (Tim Costello) and not so well for others (Jerry Falwell).

TRTL,

”I never ...”

I interpreted your expressive typing as agitated and the focus was on religion. Apologies if I misinterpreted.

”...look at what I say the foundation of christianity means!

Love, Joy, Peace, patience, Kindness, self control, goodness faithfulness.

They will occur in greater or lesser degrees depending on the level of comittment and purity of faith of the individual."

Well, I know plenty of people with all of those characteristics who aren't the least bit religious - so ... it's not fair to claim your religion is the sole cause of these and has a monopoly on them, because clearly, it doesn't.”

What we have here is a failure to communicate. He is stating things that Christians are commanded by God to aspire to in response to his assumption that there is an innuendo that Christianity inherently begets violence*. Boazy is not claiming that anyone has the monopoly on anything. It is just about what Christians are supposed to try to do. He is trying to show what Christianity means to him in response to a perceived contrary definition. You don’t know how close he came to quoting scriptures. If you did you would just be grateful that he didn’t.

”My second paraphrasing of boaz was: "Ignore those pesky studies!"

Boaz:

"How in Gods name ..."

No real reasoning ….”

That has to be considered in the context of his related comments:

“BUSHMANS study was flawed. Here are the reasons…I'm going to try to look more closely at this "study"

* “Now.. you have gone to the trouble of linking us to serious ...studies which are mean't to show how 'bad' religion is,..”
* “you cannot link the correctly interpreted words and works of Jesus in any way to 'commands toward violence' for Christians today.”

Fractelle.

"...therefore to claim that either belief or non-belief imparts greater moral integrity is a spurious claim for either.”

Definitely correct. An individual’s moral integrity can't be ascertained on that basis. Please note my relevant comment above though because notwithstanding TRTL’s interpretation I don’t believe Boazy was saying that in this instance.

I see your poitn mjpb, though I don't see how the statement that those virtues will occur:

"to a greater or lesser degree dependant upon the purity of faith of the individual"

can be construed as anything other than a statement indicating that these virtues, are, well, dependant upon faith.

It's quite a direct statement.

As for the notion that jesus didn't command violence, frankly, it's not what's being discussed.

I guess my point is this - it's patently obvious that people can be good or bad regardless of what religion they call themselves. (Notably, the devout like to claim that only the 'good' ones are representative of their religion, but I'll leave that for now).

When we look at broad trends, it's obvious you can't make definitive conclusions.

My conclusions, based on the general demographics, would be that populations with low levels of education are more likely to be religious, but are also more likely to be violent.

That isn't to say well educated people can't be religious, or that religion causes violence. I'd just point out that observing the education levels around the world and secular societies, you'd find that the more education a group receives, the fewer people are religious.

There will of course be exceptions.

However, I do get annoyed when people dismiss a finding such as this out of hand, simply because they don't like the message. By all means, find other explanations for these trends if you wish.

Heck, you can even try to dismiss these trends (though I think they're pretty evident) but find a real basis for doing so, instead of parrotting those lines that jesus didn't say we should be violent. Put simply, it ain't that relevant to this discussion, and we all know how peaceful and loving jesus was etc etc.

When it's dismissed out of hand, well, it reeks all too strongly of the 'heretic' approach used in the past when facts come along that encroach on religious territory.

Okay, the reaction isn't as violent - but it's still dismissive without being open in its consideration.

The initial thread title was religiosity as a value ... which to me asks if religion is a / the road to achieving value - and I believe its intent is to provide a moral compass by which a given society abides.

The formation of "religion" or a belief in God/s seems to date back to the formation of social gatherings. It was a structured way to overcome anarchy through a promise of greater things for those that live within the constraints of a given social setting.

The fact violence seems to follow (or precede) religious conversion may be coincidental - but the heart of Christianity is violence (Jesus was crucified), the heart of Judaism the same. Unfortunately I am not well versed in the formation of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam or other variations so can't comment on whether this theme tends to run through all of them.

I still believe divorcing religion from spirituality is key - and may reflect a significant portion of Australia's culture. The majority of people (I know at least) tend to be believers in something greater - though few of them are aligned with a specific church or consider themselves religious.

An alternate question could be what is religion? Is it the institution, the dogma and tenet or is it the belief structure, the spiritual wellbeing?

Dear Corri,

In 1983, the High Court of Australia defined religion "as a complex of beliefs and practices which point to a set of values and an understanding of the meaning of existence."

The ABS 2001 Census Dictionary defines "No Religion" as a category of religion. Hence, agnosticism, atheism, humanism, and rationalism (all sub-categories of "No Religion") are - at least in terms of the census - religions.

Interesting...

The 2006 Census shows that there is a steady decline in the number of Australians who state that they follow a religion of some description.

And as in many Western countries, the level of active participation in church worship in Australia is quite low - about 7.5% of the population.

The changes found in the intercensal period between 2001 and 2006 were
Hinduism increased by 55%, Islam by 21%, Buddhist affiliation increased by 17% and Judaism by 6%.

Immigration might explain these increases?

When there are many, important themes on the forum about human rights, environment, democracy, peace, social justice, environment etc the number of participants on them is very low.
When there is a discussion about religious then there are many participants. WHY? I understand the interest of religious people but really I can not understand the participation of non religious people in this kind of discussions. It seemed to me that both sides are very religious, although their religious is very different

Dear fellow posters.. so much to respond to, and so much sincere grappling with the issue.. its quite a satisfying thread. I rejoice, in spite of personal criticism... that we have all managed to discuss this important issue.

Vanilla (frowny look) yes.. I'm 'cross'... grrrr but only that insufficient distinction has been made (in the study and in most discussion) between the SPECIFIC religious values which can be linked to any violence etc...the Study based the conclusion "There is a correlation between religious countries and greater violence"

on it's primary example.. and that being a "cult".

Its like saying "All Muslims are violent" based on the activities of Al Qaeda/Bin Ladin.

MJPB..thanx for your efforts :)

Yes..I did give reasons.. pity my critics didn't READ that bit eh...

PERICLES.. I did not 'retract'... you missed the suttleness of my followup. 'connected'.. 'religion' are two very loaded words.

The only "connection" is that one group is called 'protestants' and the other 'Catholic' 'Religion' was meant in the nominal cultural sense. THAT kind of religious difference is based on history, and English invasions and oppression. (now you want to blame the Scots? :) is there no end to your defense of your English-ness?)

"When Henry VIII of England had put down this rebellion he resolved to bring Ireland under English government control so the island would not become a base for future rebellions or foreign invasions of England."

Now...Pericles.. its 'your' scaley eye which need the healing balm of the Lords special touch. It is so patently obvious that the Catholic/protestant divide was purely incidental to this bigger concern about Ireland being a base for invasion...i.e. 'POLITICAL'..... I'll guarantee if Ireland had been protestant..but independant...Henry would still have tried to bring them under his crown.

Good Morning Everyone,

Thank You All so much for Your responses. Of course TRTL is correct when he says that this topic should be looked at objectivally from all sides. I think that's what we've done to date. So much food for thought...

I've still got so many questions related to the topic. Questions like - Why have the traditional religions lost so many adherents in the West? Is this to the benefit of society? Why have so many New Age religious movements appeared in the last few decades? Why are fundamentalisms on the rise?

Is the human spirit satisfied with consumerism? If not what else does it need? Is a spiritual quest, of necessity, an individual one?

And the list goes on, in my continued search for meaning/spirituality in the modern world.

Hi Foxy,

Traditional religions have lost traction in most developed societies, and I believe this is due mostly to their traditional nature. The Catholics still insist on no birth control, no sex before marriage, priests who are celibate ... and this doesn't reflect modern society. (Please note I am not making a judgement whether this is appropriate or not). The Anglicans are also steeped in tradition and many of the services fail to attract a younger audience.

While pentecostal churches have updated their service with live bands, multi media, congregation interaction.

My parents lament the loss of values in today's society ... but culture has changed significantly. I don't believe I know anyone personally on this site, but have communicated with many of you. I also play Scrabulous on Facebook, liaise with Bands on MySpace, watch the latest short film releases on YouTube ... my global connections are far beyond those of our ancestors. In any day I could communicate with 1000's of people ... through blogs, threads, YouTube, etc - while in centuries past most people would not communicate outside their local village.

How does traditional religion compete with this? And it’s not only religion that is struggling; languages are disappearing, micro cultures are being globalised, traditional foods, dress, customs are becoming tourist attractions rather than maintaining their meaning. Christmas is celebrated throughout the world in non Christian countries including Israel, Japan and it’s a man in a red suit with a beard. Easter is about Easter eggs and a white bunny … Halloween about pumpkins and “candy”.

I agree with Foxy that faith is a personal journey … religions aid you in that pursuit. The question I have is how would we fare if there were a second coming? Are our values so out of whack now or have we actually advanced our social thinking?

Is society better today than it was last century? Last millenium? At the time of Christ? Sure we live longer, consume more, meet more people and travel further ... but are we more fulfilled?

Dear Corri,

I've just googled 'Religious Values and Human Society,' and came across the following website:

http://www.gratefulness.org/readings/dl_values.htm

Its what His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso, The Fourteenth Dalai Lama had to say on the subject. I'll quote some of it:

"...When we speak of religion, we need not refer to deeper philosophical issues. Compassion is the real essence of religion. If you try to implement, to practice, compassion, then as a Buddhist, even if you do not place much emphasis on the Buddha, it it all right.

For a Christian, if you try to practice this love, there is no need for much emphasis on other philosophical matters... The important thing is that in your daily life you practice the essential things, and on that level there is hardly any difference between Buddhism, Christianity, or any other religion. All religions emphasize betterment, improving human beings, a sense of brotherhood and sisterhood, love - these things are common. Thus, if you consider the essence of religion, there is not much difference.

We must implement these good teachings in daily life. Whether you believe in God or not does not matter so much, whether you believe in Buddha or not does not matter so much; as a Buddhist, whether you believe in reincarnation or not does not matter so much. You must lead a good life. And a good life does not mean just good food, good clothes, good shelter. These are not sufficient. A good motivation is what is needed: compassion, without dogmatism, without complicated philosophy; just understanding that others are human brothers and sisters and respecting their rights and human dignity.

That we humans can help each other is one of our unique human capacities. We must share in other peoples' suffering; even if you cannot help with money, to show concern, to give moral support and express sympathy are themselves valuable. This is what should be the basis of activities; whether one calls it religion or not does not matter..."

Your reading of Irish history is clearly affected by your distance from it Boaz. It allows you to make the most ridiculous claims, safe in your lack of understanding of the emotions that underpin the Micks/Prods divide. I nearly destroyed another keyboard when I read this one:

>>I'll guarantee if Ireland had been protestant..but independant...Henry would still have tried to bring them under his crown.<<

You'll guarantee it, Boaz? Go back to your books at once, boy, and read about it more carefully this time.

>>"When Henry VIII of England had put down this rebellion he resolved to bring Ireland under English government control so the island would not become a base for future rebellions or foreign invasions of England."<<

Pray tell, where would these rebellions and invasions come from?

Bear in mind that Henry had just metaphorically spat in the Pope's eye, and established... what? Why, himself at the head of his own church, that's what.

Given that the Pope felt obliged to object, Henry might reasonably expect some Catholic opposition, yes? And Ireland was catholic, yes? And so was Spain, France etc.

His defence was against opposing religions, Boaz. And of course, wherever there is religion there is politics. But to pretend that religion was only a by-the-way consideration in these activities is to deny the nose on your face.

>>The only "connection" is that one group is called 'protestants' and the other 'Catholic'<<

Ha ha ha ha. Ho ho. Hee hee.

That's all right then, if that was the only connection. Let's conveniently ignore this particular elephant in the room, shall we?

Unfortunately, you have chosen an impossible position to defend in Northern Ireland, just as you choose to defend the bloodlust of the Crusades.

Not convincing.

Pericles,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/elizabeth_ireland_02.shtml
Anyway, haven't the English been after Ireland since about the 12th Century? How does that support your theory? Maybe Boazy can find something that supports your theory but I didn’t. You seem to be stringing a long bow.

Corri,

I believe that there is a truth in what you are saying about traditional religions and growth but it may be subordinate to the other factors you cited such as communication.

If traditionalness is looked at by itself it doesn’t always work that way. Like the Pentecostals the Jehovah’s Witnesses also seem to display remarkable growth even in the face of their continually failing prophecies. They require lock step obedience to traditional Christian notions albeit with an unusual twist (Jesus is an angel not God). Further, Pentecostal churches have quite colourful outreaches but they tend to be biblical fundamentalists. They aren’t so much a part of the secular culture as imitators of the culture in the ways you cited. I believe that the overlap is partly their way of marketing their religion.

Then of course you have the issue of churches that embrace modern culture completely performing even worse than the ones mentioned and the fact that, while Catholicism is inherently a very traditional religion, many people in the Church anomalously aren't.

Both the Catholic and Jehovah’s Witness religions demand a universality within the religion (with JWs being totally lockstep with obedience) but I suspect that approach is easier for a smaller group like the latter which has several million or so members compared with the approximately 1.5 billion Catholics.

CONT.

”...How does traditional religion compete with this?”

I expect to compete it would need to understand contemporary culture and improve communication if, as is likely the case, communication is the issue. I have been amazed how even in recent years the journey of communication in the Catholic Church is incredibly slow.

“And it’s not only religion that is struggling; languages are disappearing, micro cultures are being globalised, traditional foods, dress, customs are becoming tourist attractions rather than maintaining their meaning. Christmas is celebrated throughout the world in non Christian countries including Israel, Japan and it’s a man in a red suit with a beard. Easter is about Easter eggs and a white bunny … Halloween about pumpkins and “candy”.”

I think this aspect (if separable) may also be more important than any traditionalness. Christianity demonstrated that this can be a powerful tool by sometimes relating existing customs to itself to effect conversion. Recently a reversal has happened. The birth of Christ is now about a Coca Cola Santa who’s name bears a superficial resemblance to a Catholic Bishop from the middle ages that noone has heard of. Basically Coca Cola did a better job of marketing (communicating) than the Church. Add these types of things with the tourist attraction situations and commerciality seems to be the modern god.

I loved that quote Foxy so I will paste it again. :)

"...When we speak of religion, we need not refer to deeper philosophical issues. Compassion is the real essence of religion. If you try to implement, to practice, compassion, then as a Buddhist, even if you do not place much emphasis on the Buddha, it is all right."

That really sums it up for me.

As far as Religiosity compared between the US and Australia, it could have something to do with our beginnings. US white settlement comprised mainly of a strict religious sect who had been persecuted in Britain so bought those entrenched views with them whereas Australia's white settlement was primarily via convicts and some free settlers from a more diverse background.

For me the Religions themselves are unimportant it is the actions that speak louder than the words.

mjpb, although you may find the odd observation here and there that it was business as usual, most historians agree that religion is at the heart of the Troubles.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/northernireland/protestantpresence.html

"Though [Henry VIII] did it more from pragmatism than from passion, the fighting he started in England between Catholic and Protestant wasn't done for over 200 years. In Ireland it's going on still."

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/parade/abj76/PG/pieces/british_archipelago.htm

"Much of the religious paving for a "British" union was Protestant, and from the sixteenth century Ireland voiced its resistance to an English embrace through a strong retention of Catholicism over most of the country. Centuries of effort to retain Ireland in a British union foundered from 1916, leading to the creation of a largely Catholic state over 26 of the island's 32 counties"

>>Anyway, haven't the English been after Ireland since about the 12th Century? How does that support your theory?<<

My "theory" is that the Troubles in Ireland have religion as their primary cause and motivation. And what happened in the twelfth century?

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire1100.htm

"MacMurrough appealed for help to King Henry II of England and changed the course of history by doing so. This opened the door for the Norman invasion of Ireland beginning in 1169"

Normans, mjpb. Not English. Nor even Scottish.

Back to school for you too, I'm afraid. You can sit next to Boaz if you like, and you can learn together.

1. about non religious in Australia.
In the 1996 Census there was 2.948.900 non religious persons or 16.6% of Australian population. In the 2006 Census there was 3.706.600 non religious persons or 18.7% of Australian population. The non religious Australians in 10 years increased 25.7%, in the same time the Anglican DECREASED 4.7% the Uniting Church DECREASED 14.9% and Presbyterian and Reformed DECREASED 11.7%. (This information is from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade)
2. About the very Christian life, or very religious life SEN. JOHN McCAIN, accepted the Endorsement from Anti-Catholic, Anti-Gay, Anti-Muslim Pastor John Hagee and he is very proud of John Hagee’s spiritual leadership to thousands of people. John Hagee has recently published a book in which he predicts the end of Israeli independence as a result of giving up the Golan Heights and then signing a treaty with the Antichrist. He also believes that Jews can go to God without going through Jesus He called the catholic league 'The Great Whore,' the 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ' and a 'false cult system' He believes the AIDS was a sign from God that homosexuality was an “abomination. Do not forget the Christian fundamentalists, the Christian Taliban,
What kind of values can create this kind of religious leaders ? What kind of messages can they sent?
The moral values, is a personal issue and their creation depend on many, many factors, not only or not mainly from a religion.
Personally I see most religious leaders as the champions in hypocrisy!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

ASymeonakis

I am in complete agreement with the points you have raised, if ever there was an ideology that lends itself to rorting and hypocrisy it is religion.

It is so easy for someone to pretend to high morals by claiming they are religious, it is far more impressive that a person conducts themselves with complete integrity irrespective of whether they are religious or not.

For myself, I believe that everything is interconnected, that everything we do has consequences and I try to be mindful of that.

"We are formed and molded by our thoughts.

Those whose minds are shaped by selfless thoughts give joy when they speak or act.

Joy follows them like a shadow that never leaves them."

Buddha

Dear Fractelle,

The Dalai Lama made similar points when he spoke about religious values and human society. He said:

"In one way - in material terms - this present generation has reached a high level of development. Yet at the same time, we human beings are facing many problems. Some are due to external events or causes, such as natural disasters. These we cannot avoid.

However, many problems are created by our own mental defects; we suffer due to an internal lack. I call these problems unnecessary ones, for if we adopt a right mental attitude, these man-made problems need not arise.

Often they are due to differences in idealogy, and unfortunately different religious faiths are also sometimes involved. Hence it is very important that we have a right attitude.

There are many different philosophies, but what is of basic importance is compassion, love for others, concern for others' suffering, and reduction of selfishness.

I feel that compasionate thought is the most precious thing there is.
It is something that only we human beings can develop. And if we have a good heart, a warm heart, warm feelings, we will be happy and satisfied ourselves, and our friends will experience a friendly and peaceful atmosphere as well. This can be experienced nation to nation, country to country, continent to continent.

We must implement these good teachings in daily life. Whether you believe in God or not does not matter so much... You must lead a good life. A good motivation is what is needed: compassion, without dogmatism, without complicated philosophy; just understanding that others are human brothers and sisters and respecting their rights and human dignity..."

Yvonne and Foxy and Fractelle and everyone,

Thinking about compassion reminds me of that old definition of racism — believing that other people have a less rich inner experience than you do — that because of what they look like on the outside, something on the inside is diminished.

I know I irritate some of you because I always insist on pointing out the failings of religion. I am sorry. But it is that notion of emotional and intellectual and I'm trying to fight — that notion that some people are lesser people because of something arbitrary, prejudiced and scriptural. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who saw this today: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bkirby-attackb-gay-judge-to-feel-wrath-of-god-priest-says/2008/04/09/1207420538821.html

When Bill Heffernan was forced to apologise to Justice Kirby for calling him all sort so horrible poofy names, Kirby J said, ""I accept Senator Heffernan's apology and reach out my hand in a spirit of reconciliation. I hope my ordeal will show the wrongs that hate of homosexuals can lead to."

Compassion and forgiveness in the face of all that hatred. Which is also what he manages to do on the High Court every day.

Did anyone see Tim Costello on the tell tonight? 4,000,000 people have died in the Congo since 2000 and something — 1,000 people a day. Whatever spirituality is, it is the thing that helps us even conceive of this kind of horror, and hopefully, in whatever tiny way, help.

Dear Vanilla,

You always put your point of view across so brilliantly.

Please keep right on doing it.

Don't ever change!

PS: sorry, I wrote the post above very quickly after a glass of wine and did not proofread it!

If you can't understand my ranting, I meant to say:

Thinking about compassion reminds me of an old definition of racism I once heard — racism is believing that other people have a less rich inner experience than you do, that because of what they look like on the outside, something on their inside is diminished.

I know I irritate some of you because I always insist on pointing out the failings of religion. I am sorry. But it is that notion of emotional and intellectual inferiority that some people attribute to others that I'm trying to fight — that notion that some people are lesser people because of something arbitrary, prejudiced and scriptural. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who saw this today: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bkirby-attackb-gay-judge-to-feel-wrath-of-god-priest-says/2008/04/09/1207420538821.html

When Bill Heffernan was forced to apologise to Justice Kirby for calling him all sorts of nasty poofy names, Kirby J said, "I accept Senator Heffernan's apology and reach out my hand in a spirit of reconciliation. I hope my ordeal will show the wrongs that hate of homosexuals can lead to."

Compassion and forgiveness in the face of all that hatred. It astounds and impresses me. It's also what he manages to do on the High Court every day.

Did anyone see Tim Costello on the telly tonight? Four million people have died in the Congo since 2000something — 1,000 people a day. Whatever spirituality is, it is the thing that helps us even conceive of this kind of horror, and hopefully, in whatever tiny way, help.

Hmm.. Fractelle...having a little 'religious promo/rant' there ? :)

Dear Vanilla...there are a couple important points you raise requiring some 'close air support' type attention.

1/ THE ATTACK ON KIRBY <<Mr Lane's attack was provoked by Justice Kirby's assertion on ABC Radio late last year that the Anglican and Catholic archbishops of Sydney, Peter Jensen and George Pell, had, via religious instruction, made it hard for people to adopt a more tolerant attitude to gays.>>

Now.. while you might not share Reverent Lanes faith, (nor mine) you should at least understand that the (Biblically based) Christian world view does not, and if scripture means anything, will never accept homosexual behavior as either normal or acceptable. Here we have a man.. a high court Judge, actively campaigning for recognition of something which is an absolute abomination to God. (along with Incest and bestiality and child abuse)

and.. a Christian priest/pastor.. 'reacts' to this as a memeber of a democratic society, and under the belief that he has a duty to prophetically address this situation. Some 'tolerance' would be welcome here. Remember.. tolerance is 'tolerating those you disagree with'.....

2/ PEOPLE ARE LESSER.... now.. this is becoming a rather predictable theme in not only your writings, but some others. Moral injuctions about human behavior is NOT, repeat NOT, about 'this person is more valuable/better' than another. It is about one thing, and one thing alone.. "sin". The person practicing such and such behavior, which is unnaceptable to group such and such, simply means that the person will not be accepted in the group IF, they persist in behavior which is in conflict with the values of the group.

If one group (gays) wishes for ALL groups in society to accept them, then that is just as much 'soft proselytization', as it is for another group (Christians, Muslims, Buddhists) to seek to change the flavor of the social mix with a bit of their own spice.

Investigators searching the temple of a polygamist sect in Texas found a bed used by men to have sex with their under-age "wives",
Members believe a man must marry at least three wives in order to ascend to heaven. Women are taught that their path to heaven depends on being subservient to their husband.
Girls as young as 13 were "spiritually married" to older husbands in the sect, investigators say, in a cycle of abuse.
More than 400 children and 130 women have been removed from the compound since it was raided on 3 April.
Do you see? some religious leaders use the religious to cover their their sex needs!

Boaz, I can't help but take issue with your comments on gay society and the view of Jesus. I don't believe Jesus taught us that we should condemn a person due to their sexual persuasion ...

"Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you." (Matthew 21:31) – now the context of this is because they heard and adhered to his message of repentance more than the “chief priests and elders”, so I am not trying to state that Jesus supported prostitution either.

I do not understand the "gay" mind, I am not gay and therefore cannot understand the attraction to another man - but neither can I condemn that thought. For me if a gay male shares the same love with a man that I share with my wife how do I judge that as wrong? Equally if it is just about lust, well then that is equal to lust for another woman.

This loosely goes to my point of religious dogma and the spiritual message: the keys to Christianity (for me) is love one another and treat others as you would like to be treated. Judging someone for their sexual orientation or other sins does not sit well with how I'd like to be treated - especially when I am obviously ignorant of their situation.

Jesus came at a time when the Jewish religion was steeped in tradition, routines and dogma ... he broke the rules, he encouraged gentiles to worship with Jews, he welcomed tax collectors and "harlots", he broke with the Church (synagogues).

What would Jesus make of todays religions? traditions? teachings? Would he overturn the tables of Hillsong? Would he condemn the teachings of Pell and Jensen?

I've often wondered upon death what are the key themes that will mean something on the other side? Sexual orientation? Race? Gender? Power? Borders? Will any of these be what God or heaven look at? Will any of these serve any importance whatsoever to my spiritual side?

Now Boazy you are telling porkies again.

"The person practicing such and such behavior, which is unnaceptable to group such and such, simply means that the person will not be accepted in the group IF, they persist in behavior which is in conflict with the values of the group. "

Thats not really how it is for you fundies is it. You know it, I know it and everybody who has read posts about homosexuality by you and the other resident fundies knows it.

You don't just seek to exclude practicing gays from your wednesday night bible study group or sunday morning worship service, you campaign to stop them having the same legal protections as other adults in consentual relationships within the broader community.

Your buddies (I can't recall if you personally do this one) continue to try to tie gays to child sexual abuse and generally incite hatred against them in the community.

Hands up everybody who thinks that their god is a god of truth and who also thinks that should impact on how they live.

R0bert

R0bert: << Now Boazy you are telling porkies again. >>

Boazy wouldn't do that! It's against his religion.

Foxy,

Sorry for this diversion.

Pericles,

“... most historians agree that religion is at the heart of the Troubles.

"Though [Henry VIII] did it more from pragmatism than from passion, the fighting he started in England between Catholic and Protestant wasn't done for over 200 years..."”

Noone is denying the labels put on the groups though the most ardent contributor I’ve met was an atheist in spite of his partisan alignment for political purposes. Boazy was just saying religion is peripheral and not related to the modern conflict.

Anyway why use a cbc news reporter’s comments to try to demonstrate what most historians agree (cf. the link I had to the comments of Professor Steven Ellis)?

"Much of the religious paving for a "British" union was Protestant, and from the sixteenth century Ireland voiced its resistance to an English embrace through a strong retention of Catholicism over most of the country. Centuries of effort to retain Ireland in a British union foundered from 1916, leading to the creation of a largely Catholic state over 26 of the island's 32 counties"

That is closer but that more explains how Brits lost the land before 1916. Are you saying but for the Catholic withdrawal by 1916 the English would have had the land and wouldn’t have invaded so there is a religious nexus albeit historical? Note that the theatre director who wrote the information in your second link pointed out that Roman Catholics had civil rights in England by 1829 so the real religious conflict between the Anglicans and Catholics was over well before 1916. Hence Boazy’s assertion it was about land.

"My "theory" is that the Troubles in Ireland have religion as their primary cause and motivation. And what happened in the twelfth century?

"...This opened the door for the Norman invasion of Ireland beginning in 1169"

Normans, mjpb. Not English. Nor even Scottish.

Back to school for you too, I'm afraid...”

King Henry II ensured that he took the place of Normans about 1171 to ensure Normans didn’t form a rival Norman state in Ireland.

Thanks to everyone who's contributing to this thread.

It just keeps rolling along...

Corri, I agree with your thoughts on the religious leaders who exclude people because of their sexual preference. I cringe every time Pell opens his mouth...

I prefer to listen to what the Dalai Lama has to say - he makes more sense to me.

boaz... you couldn't resist throwing bestiality in there could you?

For the umpteenth time, what has that got to do with the price of moon pies in Tanzania?

Wait, no, forget it. Whatever it is, I'm sure you've developed some diabolical way to tie gay people to any kind of immorality. Next they'll be more prone to parking infringements.

As for "my god says it's bad so it's mean of you to say I'm bad because it's what my god says and how dare you criticise the beliefs of my god"

You lot managed to ditch the craziness in the OT, and much of the other assorted bigotry. But evidently, you still have a way to go: start here, boaz: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

After the 'intolerance' section, you can move on to the 'cruelty and injustice' bit, then the 'injustice' section.

Vanilla,

“I know I irritate some of you ... pointing out the failings of religion. I am sorry.”

If you thought things were the other way around you wouldn’t be an atheist. Tempering your expression with the idea that Fractelle cited would remove any excuse for anyone to be offended:

"We are formed and molded by our thoughts.

Those whose minds are shaped by selfless thoughts give joy when they speak or act.

Joy follows them like a shadow that never leaves them."

Buddha

Wow that priest sure was optimistic thinking he could argue with such an accomplished lawyer as Kirby. Now he has a High Court Judge publically interpreting the Bible to make him look emotional and silly. No wonder he is hiding from media:

“In reply he argued Mr Lane's interpretation of biblical injunctions against homosexuality was not a universal one, and the biblical quotations used were unreliable mid-19th century translations...".

"To defy modern knowledge and to stick to uninformed interpretations is truly irrational... It is a reason why the churches are losing rational adherents."”

“But it is that notion of emotional and intellectual inferiority that some people attribute to others that I'm trying to fight — that notion that some people are lesser people because of something arbitrary, prejudiced and scriptural."

Good luck with fighting those things.

In their personal correspondence Lane didn’t hold anything back did he? I bet a High Court Judge wouldn’t take too kindly to being called a “hypocrite”, “coward”, “liar”, “deceiver”, and a “lawless one”. I’m guessing that while he considered the Archbishop’s reply to his complaint sensible he wanted something more and his choice of those letters as tools for “public conversion” at the St James Institute was no coincidence. He knew that articles like this would be produced. Many of Rev Lane’s parishioners probably won’t like his letters.

“Four million people have died in the Congo ... Whatever spirituality is, it is the thing that helps us even conceive of this kind of horror, and hopefully, in whatever tiny way, help.”

I think you are onto something there.

TRTL.. I lump homosexual behavior in with the other listed behaviors because they listed in Leviticus 18 and mentioned frequently in the New Testament.

It appears, that the gay lobby has done a 'job' on the community by convincing many that gay sex is ok between consenting adults but not adults and children. Now.. you know, and I know, to borrow your terms, that Islam allows/permits/ marriage of old men to pre-pubesecent children. (though most muslims when pushed will claim 'pubescent' is the minimum..but they simply don't know their Quran) The point being.. Western society currently condemns child sexual abuse, but not homosexual behavior. It once DID condemn both. So...whats changed?

Simple.. a very active and sustained political and information war against previously held beliefs. That same war is now being fought by Nambla, for their pet cause.
But lets not hijack the thread into a gay rights thing please.. out of consideration for the main topic.. 'religiosity' as a value.

It seems that the biggest difficulty some of you have is that the Bible does in fact condone some behavior and condemn other types. This is something which relates primarily to the Church, the only way this connects to the broader society is that we all live in a democracy and if 'we' can gain enough votes to outlaw homosexual behavior again.. there is possibility it might happen. The chances are pretty slim on that one, because most people prefer the Highway to Hell... even when they know its heading there.

TRTL..we can never.. EVER escape the fact that morality is an issue which divides the community. If anyone thinks I'm going to cave in on this any time soon, they are dreaming. It goes with this, that there will be competing interests at work in the political realm.
Such...is life.

Corri, I understand ur position, but respectfully decline to agree :)

Re homosexuality: The fact is it doesn't really matter what religious people (particularly Christians and Muslims) think about gay people. I mean it matters — all views should be aired and be up for debate — but it doesn't matter any more than what my neighbour thinks about Collingwood Football Club supporters or mjpb thinks about the Association of Psychological Science or what I think about creationists. At the end of the day, our personal prejudices do not a policy make, and we live in a secular community generally committed to equal rights for all its citizens, and homosexuality in Australia is legal and very broadly accepted by the community. The only exception is when gay people — like Kirby J for instance — want to be a part of the church that rejects them. Then it's for that church to have that conversation. As indeed, in that case, they are.

Likewise, people are free to connect homosexuality with pedeophilia or beastiality. But the fact that no such link actually exists to intelligently inform the way we live in our communities.

mjpb, I'm afraid I'm once again having trouble following one of your posts. Some of it, I think, is just pointing out that I'm a bit of an idiot in for suggesting, "notion of emotional and intellectual inferiority that some people attribute to others that I'm trying to fight." You're right. It sounds silly looking back at it, and I'm sure it's very hypocritical of me and I am frequently guilty of the exact same thing. I had a couple of glasses of wine and got pretentious

Cont...

As for Rev Lane, you're saying that Justice Kirby was being malicious when he brought up the letters with David Marr, right? Do remember that Rev Lane had already suggested making the letters public amongst the clergy, so perhaps in the environment they were and the conversation they were having Justice Kirby felt it was time to make these issues part of a wider debate. Maybe you're right — I've no periscope into the heart of Justice Kirby. But I sincerely doubt it.

I tend to think people are maliciously motivated much less frequently than we generally imagine. The fashionable view appears to be that people are cunning and manipulative, but most people, I think, muddle along, trying to do their best, some succeeding more than others. I by no means agree with Kirby J on everything — for a start, god — but it looks to me if he's trying to push the debate into the public arena. Perhaps he should have been more sensitive about who was in his way, but he had been receiving abusive letters, and that, too, may have clouded his judgment.

PS Foxy - thank you!

Wow, what a thread ... from values to violence, Henry VIII to Eisenhower, Karl Marx to Justice Kirby, Christianity to Atheism ... and everything in between. What was the topic again?

I've truly enjoyed this debate and the views of such a diverse group of thinkers.

Boaz, I respect your beliefs and commitment ... the growth of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormans is very closely aligned to those "spruiking" the faith ... and based on your comments I am sure this leopard won't change its spots.

As for societies values and moral compass, I feel there are enormous gaps appearing and its closely linked to a lack of teaching in the areas of ethics and values. I don't proclaim religion is the only way to a moral society, but a little like the statement on democracy, it's not the best form of government, but show me a better one.

Thanks Foxy, a lively, informative and diverse thread.

Corri

“ mjpb thinks about the Association of Psychological Science”

LOL Sorry I didn’t get around to responding to that post.

”mjpb, ...pointing out that I'm a bit of an idiot in for suggesting, "notion of emotional and intellectual inferiority that some people attribute to others that I'm trying to fight." You're right. It sounds silly looking back at it, and I'm sure it's very hypocritical of me and I am frequently guilty of the exact same thing. I had a couple of glasses of wine and got pretentious”

Actually no but I’m open to it and the possibility that I might have been guilty of the same on occasion.

“As for Rev Lane, you're saying that Justice Kirby was being malicious when he brought up the letters with David Marr, right?”

Yes some deliberation involved.

“...Maybe you're right — I've no periscope into the heart of Justice Kirby. But I sincerely doubt it.”

Maybe you are right. Neither do I. I just know he is quite clever and would be in a better position than many to predict the consequences and suspect he feels strongly about the issue.

”I tend to think people are maliciously motivated much less frequently than we generally imagine...”

I know there have been times when people have read things in that I didn’t intend so that definitely happens.

“I by no means agree with Kirby J on everything — for a start, god”

You mean that God exists?

“…but it looks to me if he's trying to push the debate into the public arena. Perhaps he should have been more sensitive about who was in his way, but he had been receiving abusive letters, and that, too, may have clouded his judgment.”

It would be an understandable reaction particularly from someone in his position given the comments that I quoted.

Foxy,

As Corri said thanks for a lively, informative and diverse thread.

Boaz, simply repeating the same tired old mantra doesn't improve its credibility.

>>I lump homosexual behavior in with the other listed behaviors because they listed in Leviticus 18 and mentioned frequently in the New Testament<<

Frequently? Hardly. A handful of vague references that may or may not indicate disapproval. Of something.

As for Leviticus, we've been there before, that verse has as much relevance to 2008 as the one about scourging bondmaids, or this one, which is my favourite:

"Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard" Lev 19:27

I seem to recall you mentioning that you are bearded, Boaz.

Have you marred its corners recently? I sure hope not.

And mjpb, I tried hard to understand your last point about Ireland, but it was far too sophisticated for me.

>>Noone is denying the labels put on the groups though the most ardent contributor I’ve met was an atheist in spite of his partisan alignment for political purposes. Boazy was just saying religion is peripheral and not related to the modern conflict.<<

And I was saying that Boaz is totally wrong, a view that would be supported by anyone who has actually been to Ireland, as opposed to just having an opinion on the topic.

An opinion formed purely on the basis of the wish being father of the thought, I might add.

Seems pretty obvious to me boaz, that Christianity has evolved over time. There are so many variants, so many interpretations, that have existed over the ages, that you can be sure that the version of Christianity you follow is entirely different to that which was practised a few hundred years ago.

Notice how most of the older, scriptural versions of Christianity die out as people realise that it has become outmoded, and needs to evolve with the times?

Hunted any witches lately? Or is it just the gays that are relevant these days?

According to Gallup polls, in 1982, only 34 percent of Americans "believed that homosexuality was an acceptable alternative lifestyle." In 2007 61% of those polled by People for the American Way supported at least civil unions for gays. Contrary to religious beliefs, human values change fast

'Whereas the boy is being trained to be a leader, the girl is being trained to be a follower.'Reverend Jack Hyles, pastor of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, writer of many books.
"We are moving against the tide in order to establish family and gender roles as described in God's word for the home and family," said Seminary President Paige Patterson. "If we do not do something to salvage the future of the home, both our denomination and our nation will be destroyed." the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas
"Men should be out there doing whatever it takes to insure that mom can spend as much time as possible with her family because she is uniquely equipped by God for the role of managing the household and the kids on a daily basis."

"Even before birth, your baby's little heart was already programmed for sin and selfishness."

A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that only 31 percent of white evangelicals said that torture is never justified, 41 percent of secular Americans agreed that it is never justified.

Interesting news for readers of this thread:

"Oxford researchers have received a £1.9 million grant for the development of the study of the cognitive science of religion – a scientific approach to why humans believe in God and other issues around the nature and origin of religious belief.

The award has been made by the John Templeton Foudation to the Oxford Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion and the Centre for Anthropology and Mind. It will be used to draw together and promote the latest scientific ideas about the meaning of religion and its origin in the human mind.

The cognitive sciences include all aspects of the study of the mind and intelligence, ranging across fields as diverse as evolutionary biology, neuroscience, linguistics and computer sciences. They offer a complex set of tools for looking at the full range of human behaviour.

Dr Justin Barrett, a psychologist who has been at the forefront of the development of the cognitive science of religion, will be playing a lead role in the new study. He said: ‘Cognitive science can help to explain the origin and nature of human religion. For example, developmental psychology has been instrumental in determining that belief in religion seems to be an integral part of human nature – it is found across all cultures and is something that we grasp from a young age."

More here:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/080222.html

Note that the Templeton Foundation is the bete noire of Richard Dawkins. It is not an unbiased foundation, it is a religious foundation, and tends to like research that backs up its beliefs.

Still, interesting.

While secular society has gone a long way in establishing values through its legal system this mantle has fallen from the pious whose purpose in life seems to be to want to retract most of these freedoms.

Dear Vanilla,

Thanks for the study you mentioned, it does sound interesting.

Thanks also to everyone who contributed to this thread.

I feel that I have nothing much more to say on the subject.

Except to add,I like Gore Vidal's satirical portrayal of the "sky god," the distant arbiter of our existence for whose attention we have to perform this many-faceted dance.

Why can't we relax and let the God within us flow?

Religiosity is cohesive but it is not necessary to recognise morality. Secular humist do just fine.

The Hindus, Janists, Confucians [essentially secular], Taoists and the Jew Rabbi Hillel all propose forms of The Golden Rule. The Code of Hammurabi precedes the Ten Commandments and probably influenced Moses' formation of the Commendments.

At the bottom of all this our intelligence tells what is right and what is wrong. Think of how few men have been involved fist fights after as adults, then think of how many millions of men [and women] have died fighting religious wars.

O.

There was something about Dawkins recently so I thought this would fit in. (I'm thinking of Dawkins as the opposite extreme to people who believe in demons.)

I came across the most remarkable study that at the very least people should find interesting. The researchers involved are well published and together with Guild they are famed for demonstrating differential responding to forced and consensual sex for rapists and non-rapists. The above finding has been subsequently replicated by a number of researchers.

The study arguably can't be taken to show more than (some?) transgender people can make remarkably quick recoveries in the most unlikely circumstances. However an exorcism is involved and hence Gibo I hope you like this. Adding to the remarkable event I note that prior to the exorcism the patient had signed up for surgery and had undergone hormone therapy and just apparently got dragged into it. That makes it doubly surprising.

Three behavioural scientists Abel, Barlow, and Blanchard were engaging in more standard work with transsexuals undergoing sex-reassignment treatment. The subject, "John", who considered himself female but was biologically male had undergone psychotherapy to adapt to his new gender in conjunction with taking female hormones. He was living as a female and about to undergo surgery. He then suddenly dropped out of the study. Researchers later accidentally encountered him and he informed them about the exorcism. Surprisingly he considered himself cured of transsexualism. Naturally the researchers hauled him in and put him through the standard battery of tests. To their amazement, by all scientific standards, John was a functional male with biological and psychological gender in perfect harmony. According to the authors at p394:

"What cannot be denied, however, is that a patient who was very clearly a transsexual by the most conservative criteria assumed a long-lasting masculine gender identity in a remarkably short period of time following the apparent exorcism."

I'm sure it will come as no surprise that they published. Abel, G., Barlow, D., & Blanchard, E. (1977). Gender identity change in a transsexual; An exorcism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 6(5), 394.