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.