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.