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.