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.