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.