Religion to blame for societies problems

[Vast]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1589406,00.html"

The evidence is clear that murder, venereal disease and marital breakdown are all more common in religious cultures

Not surprising to some, but new studies shows that Christianity doesn’t necessarily mean morality.

 

[Astronuc]

This thread is treading on thin ice - it seems to beg a discussion of religion - and particularly Christianity.

But in general, knowing and understanding morality/ethics is quite different from practicing morality/ethics.

Hypothetically, every intellgient and reasonably educated individual knows (understands) right from wrong, but an awful lot of folks make a 'wrong' choice, and knowingly so!

 

[russ_watters]

I agree this thread is on thin ice, but regarding the question, it is important not to jump to conclusions about cause-effect relationships. It may well be that religious belief is an effect of poor living conditions, not a cause.

 

[Astronuc]

Besides, those inolved in murder and marital breakdown, or who contract venereal disease, problaby are not very religious. Murder goes against a main principle of most, if not all religions. Marital breakdown is a tough one, but IIRC statistically, religious people work hard at marriage. As for VD, those who engage in conduct in which VD is a risk, mostly likely are not very religious.

And by religious, I do not mean claim to a belief system, but I refer to the active practice of moral and ethical behavior, and the acceptance of responsibility and consequences of one's actions.

 

[Smurf]

Religion to blame for societies problems

Religion is a part of society.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Exactly. And who is responsible for anything except humans? Ideology, religion, and the authority of science are the social aspects that are used by humans to control the masses and gain even more power and goods. Like people have already said, religions usu frown upon murder and "fouling" the body, but twisting the details and interpreting things as you want can lead to all sorts of unpleasant things. E.G. racism in Western culture has been justified by Socrates, Christianity, and science! These ideas are used as tools of control in society. Societies "troubles" are a result of competition, controlling processes, stupidity...Heck even chimpanzees murder each other. Humans are meant to be polygynous or at least promiscuous too, according to physical anthropology. That accounts for the "trouble" of marital breakdown. Monogamy is just not natural for our species. And as for VDs, that's along the line of saying gay people all have AIDS and are responsible for the spread of AIDS! Another ridiculous interpretation of statistics.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

What are the secular, non religious societies that he is using to compare data to find a difference? Does anyone know? His article sure doesn't point to any "evidence", that's for sure.

 

[Pengwuino]

Wow this has hit post #7 without being closed?

 

[mattmns]

I am just glad that here in the US Christianity is a joke.

 

[Pengwuino]

I am just glad that here in the US Christianity is a joke.

Yah, people can't seem to understand other peoples culture so they just make childish jokes.

 

[Artman]

Those figures may be worse without religion.

 

[russ_watters]

...or who contract venereal disease, problaby are not very religious. As for VD, those who engage in conduct in which VD is a risk, mostly likely are not very religious.

There is one specific problem there, though, that can have a big impact: the Catholic Church's stance on contraception and the right-wing (often religious based) stance on teaching abstinence in lieu of condom use in school.

 

[Evo]

I think you hit on the key Russ, unrealisticly strict teachings can often create more problems than dealing with the issues in a more realistic manner.

Parents that refuse to let their children have sex education because sex is forbidden will find that kids will be kids, except their kids have no clue about safe sex.

 

[Moonbear]

There is one specific problem there, though, that can have a big impact: the Catholic Church's stance on contraception and the right-wing (often religious based) stance on teaching abstinence in lieu of condom use in school.

But in both cases, if people were actually adhering to their religious beliefs, use of condoms or other contraception would be irrelevant because they would not be engaging in ANY sexual activity until married and ready to procreate. I think this goes along with Astronuc's earlier remarks about it more likely being people who claim to have a religion but who do not actually practice it, or pick and choose what "rules" they will follow, in which case they might as well not claim to be a member of that religion if they don't follow its teachings anyway.

 

[Pengwuino]

One huge problem with this article is taht its one guys ignorant rant. He's being way too general on the statistics. It's like saying humans are murderers because a lot of murders happen on Earth. You need to go deeper into the statistics to actually make a coorelation. You need to separate a group of atheists and a group of practicing christians and calculate which group has a higher rate of homicides. That's where your coorelation can come in. An ignorant outsiders' view on a society is not necessarily the sum of its parts.

 

[Pengwuino]

But in both cases, if people were actually adhering to their religious beliefs, use of condoms or other contraception would be irrelevant because they would not be engaging in ANY sexual activity until married and ready to procreate. I think this goes along with Astronuc's earlier remarks about it more likely being people who claim to have a religion but who do not actually practice it, or pick and choose what "rules" they will follow, in which case they might as well not claim to be a member of that religion if they don't follow its teachings anyway.

That is very true. If someone gave me their definition of what they thought in some detail of what a christian was... it would take me years (actually ... finding a 2nd one would because i do actually know someone who follows it to a T) to find someone who fits their definition of a christian. I've seen so many people get drunk on saturday and go to church on sunday and say they are christians... I've seen pro-abortion people say they are practicing christians... murderers say they are practicing christians... well if these people are true practicing Christians, then I am the Second Coming.

I had a conversation with my mother a few years ago and she was talking about the mexican girls she use to know in Texas. They'd party and do drugs and have sex and when she asked them how they could call themselves Christians, they go "Oh well, I can just say a prayer and I'm forgiven". Please... Oh and what I love is when people go "oh well I am a practicing christian... but I've never read the Bible... but I'm pretty sure God wouldn't mind if i stole this thing". So really... i can name probably 100 christians... and then name 2 that even remotely follow the Christian faith.

 

[mattmns]

Yah, people can't seem to understand other peoples culture so they just make childish jokes.

Huh, maybe you misunderstood me. I meant that I am glad that christianity is not taken seriously here in the US. Sex before marriage is a no-no in Christianity right? So, does no one take their religion seriously anymore? Or are kids today no longer Christians?

edit... I guess MB already addressed this issue

Also, I have a lot of respect for Muslims, or any group for that matter, that take their religion seriously. I may disagree with them, but at least they are not making a joke of their religion

 

[BobG]

There is one specific problem there, though, that can have a big impact: the Catholic Church's stance on contraception and the right-wing (often religious based) stance on teaching abstinence in lieu of condom use in school.

You're mixing contraception and sexually transmitted diseases. Do they even have a stance on VD? In other words:

Catholics believe only married couples should have sex. Unmarried teenagers having sex are committing a sin, but I'm not sure taking precautions against VD is piling more sins on top of the first.

Catholics believe it's a sin for married couples to use condoms. (unless maybe they're worried about their spouse giving them a STD? or worried about giving their spouse a STD? eesh, they might be a little more worried about retribution in the here and now than in the after life for that)

Successful religions are usually very practical and enhance the survivability of their civilization. The idea of be fruitful and multiply was a very practical virtue for most of human history and the discouragment of promiscuity has also been a very practical virtue considering how long sexually transmitted diseases have been a problem. Some (most?) become a little too rigid and fail to adapt to a new environment (like over population, for example). Historically, religions that can't adapt to a new environment become irrelevant and die out - no great loss, since new religions better adapted to the environment tend to spring up. A religion still meeting the needs of their people can handle a few social changes without losing their core values (not having a written language might be a benefit in this instance).

 

[Pengwuino]

Catholics believe only married couples should have sex. Unmarried teenagers having sex are committing a sin, but I'm not sure taking precautions against VD is piling more sins on top of the first.

There is nothing regarding STD's in the Catholic doctirne as far as I know. The problem is that its a natural and unpreventable disease (as far as i know... which is very little about diseases) as far as tossing something on is concerned. It'd be like saying getting a cold is a sin as far as I know.

Catholics believe it's a sin for married couples to use condoms. (unless maybe they're worried about their spouse giving them a STD? or worried about giving their spouse a STD? eesh, they might be a little more worried about retribution in the here and now than in the after life for that)

Since when? My whole family is catholic and no one has ever said that and I've never heard of that in my life

Successful religions are usually very practical and enhance the survivability of their civilization. The idea of be fruitful and multiply was a very practical virtue for most of human history and the discouragment of promiscuity has also been a very practical virtue considering how long sexually transmitted diseases have been a problem. Some (most?) become a little too rigid and fail to adapt to a new environment (like over population, for example). Historically, religions that can't adapt to a new environment become irrelevant and die out - no great loss, since new religions better adapted to the environment tend to spring up. A religion still meeting the needs of their people can handle a few social changes without losing their core values (not having a written language might be a benefit in this instance).

Religions aren't meant to be utilitarian... I mean if you really believe in the one God, how exactly new beliefs are formed is somewhat beyond me. There's nothing about God's beliefs "adapting" to new beliefs and ways of life in the Bible. As far as I can tell, the people who have religions that "adapt" are basically fooling themselves. If all this religion thing is in fact, correct (there being a God and the Bible is right etc etc), how exactly are people capable of saying "we need a religion that is adaptable and modern"? It's like saying can we develop a new type of physics that is more hip and socially acceptable. If you try, you're fooling yourself. If God exists, he obviously made 1 set of rules and morals to live by just like there are only 1 set of laws for Physics. People are really starting to confuse religion with culture here...

 

[Integral]

Both the evils of society and religion have been with mankind as long as there have been humans. They are simply facets of our existence. To try to blame one on the other is like blaming the sky for stars. They both are, and both always will be a part of our existence and that is the only link between the 2.

 

[Pengwuino]

So, does no one take their religion seriously anymore?

Apparently not. I honestly have a tough time finding people who do... but i already made a post on that. I don't see why you would be glad however. The people who murder and steal are the ones who are not taking religion seriously (if they are religious).

 

[mattmns]

I am glad because Christianity is not forced on me, at least not to the extreme. I would be glad if everyone were just moral, and no I don't see a need to have to be religious to be moral: I can act moral for the sake of myself and society.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah that is one of the good things about most western societies, religion isn't forced onto you (unless you're incredibly weak minded and can be convinced to run into a wall if someon decides to). Hell you have more people trying to force you to become a democrat then there are to be christians.

 

[Smurf]

Yah that is one of the good things about most western societies, religion isn't forced onto you.

:rofl: bull****, you don't get "religion" forced onto you.

 

[Pengwuino]

:rofl: bull****, you don't get "religion" forced onto you.

like i said, with the exception of weak smurfish minds

 

[Smurf]

go hump a rock.

 

[Pengwuino]

go... do whatever you do that i forgot...

 

[Averagesupernova]

Since when? My whole family is catholic and no one has ever said that and I've never heard of that in my life

In the past there has been a higher percentage of birth defects in catholics because of the fact that they practice the rhythm method of birth control. In my opinion that really isn't birth control anyway. Mr. Sperm meets with Ms. Stale Egg. Sex without the intent to procreate is considered a sin. Sooooo, bang away with no protection, take the word literally, and yet think in the back of your mind your safe from getting pregnant. See how pointless religion is? Maybe this is why religion evolves Pengwuino. With knowledge of the monthly cycle we figured out a way to beat the system. If we are to continue to have sex ONLY with the intent to procreate that requires us to have sex during those magic couple of days. Does that mean that we should avoid sex other times during the month? Again, religion... pointless...

 

[Astronuc]

I meant that I am glad that christianity is not taken seriously here in the US.

There are many people in the US who profess some form of Christianity, yet they do not practice the morality and ethics rigorously, and such behavior can be found among those of other religions as well. However, there are many Christians in the US, who do take their religion seriously and observe a high standard of moral and ethical behavior.

As for sexually transmitted diseases, abstinence (celibacy) is 100% effective in preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Barring that, being monogamous or use of condoms or other protective means is generally effective.

Clearly engaging in unprotected sex or promiscuous behavior is risking exposure to a variety of otherwise preventable diseases.

The same can be said for any communicable disease such as tuberculosis, small pox, typhoid fever, . . . There is a reason people with these diseases are quarantined.

 

[Pengwuino]

Again, religion... pointless...

Well I guess if you're narrow minded enough to think the only purpose of religion is sex rules... then it does seem pretty pointless (stop watching CSPAN for you're religious questions)

 

[Evo]

Ok, the thread is going downhill. I won't be here to watch it all night, so, time to put it to rest.