no sense john ([info]concurer) wrote in [info]adbusters,
@ 2005-09-27 15:39:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current music:'The Purple Bottle' - Animal Collective

Society and Religion
According to a study posted on times online, "Societies are worse off when they have God on their side".


According to this article, countries that have a very high belief in religion are worse off because they ignore facts that hurt their societies.  Although i can't agree that religion is to blame for some of the horrible things about the United States (higher homicide rates, higher STD rates, etc.), i do think it doens't help when a number of our high ranking officials proclaim themselves to be "the administration of God".  This article compares the United States (very religious) to countries like the UK, Japan and other more secularized countries.

I can't believe for a second though, that religious people are an ill on society.  Religion is a beautiful thing for many people, but persecution of other religions are counterproductive, for society and the persecuting religion.

and maybe this shows that the saying: "you can't be morale without religion" is completely wrong.


(Post a new comment)


[info]kensson
2005-09-27 10:58 pm UTC (link)
Higher STD rates can be blamed at least in part on abstinence-only sex-ed.

I also believe that religion can be a great thing. But when it is used as a justification for idiocies like teaching ID in schools, then it can only cause more harm than good.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]naruvonwilkins
2005-09-27 11:27 pm UTC (link)
And anti-sex stigma in general. That's almost entirely religion's fault.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]naruvonwilkins
2005-09-27 11:30 pm UTC (link)
I'm pretty sure that religion has no positive impacts that wouldn't be greater from the same money/time spent in community planning - there are much better ways to build community, through things like public architecture and projects to P-patches and various festivals (which can be historic, contemporary - anything).

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]frickinmuck
2005-09-27 11:34 pm UTC (link)
agreed. and those things don't come with the dissemination of absurd, often harmful superstitions, like religion does.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]naruvonwilkins
2005-09-27 11:37 pm UTC (link)
Exactly. Religion does provide for strong communities, but usually the beliefs of the religions segregate those communities in extremely damaging ways.

For instance, I'd trade all the art of Christian and Muslim culture if we didn't have to deal with the constant fucking holy wars.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]frickinmuck
2005-09-27 11:44 pm UTC (link)
except that clearly religion doesn't create strong communities. :^)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-27 11:51 pm UTC

[info]punk801
2005-09-27 11:33 pm UTC (link)
I don't know if it was just the article, or the paper itself, but it seemed that the paper only linked religion and depravity as a correlation, not as causation. Just because there is a lot of religion, and moral decay, does not mean that one causes the other. If so, then consumption of ice cream causes a higher incidence of rape. (More ice cream is eaten in the summer, and more rapes happen in the summer) It's not as if eating ice cream causes the rapes to happen. (Sorry that's kind of an abrasive analogy, but it gets the point across) Maybe the paper did find a way to say that religion causes moral decay, but I doubt it, and it wasn't stated clearly in the article.

I'm not a fan of religion. I think, in general, it's not a great idea. It allows too many people the ability to cite some irrefutable source that gives them moral/social/political absolutes that cannot be rationally changed (to them). There is a place for spirituality in society, and I think it can be a very beneficial thing to the individual, and society as a whole. But I don't think that a hierarchical religion is to the benefit of humanity at large. How many evils have been done in the name of whatever religion? It gives too much certainty to believers, and puts them in a position of moral supremecy that more than makes up for any wrongs they do. Many suicide bombers do it in the name of religion. They have a belief structure that allows them to kill other humans because they believe something different, and not only is the bomber not punished, they are exalted for their deeds. No one has convinced me that that kind of belief structure is healthy. Look at Bush and how he forges ahead with his plans, regardless of the actual realities he's facing. He has an absolute certainty in his convictions, and when someone who has power, isn't too bright, but has those immovable beliefs, well that's just dangerous.

I know there can be some wonderful things about religion, and that many religious people have helped many others in the world, but overall it's not something that I think will move humanity to (hopefully) the next, more benevolent step in human progress.

And as for not being moral without religion, that's just bullshit. I, obviously, am not religious, but everyday I contemplate how my actions will affect others, and how they will benefit, or harm, anything. If you equate non-religious with immoral, that's just wrong, and pretty damn offensive too. But that's just my opinion.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]naruvonwilkins
2005-09-27 11:38 pm UTC (link)
I don't think that we can find societies with religion (as opposed to spirituality) that haven't visited incredible atrocities on each other.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]punk801
2005-09-28 12:51 am UTC (link)
But does the religion cause the atrocity? Pretty much every society, large or small, has some sort of religion. Pretty much every society, large or small, has some sort of atrocity that can be attributed to them. So how do we know what causes what? We could blame atrocities on every society that drinks water, just as easily as every society that has religion. What atrocities would have, or have not, occurred if religion were taken out of the equation?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]naruvonwilkins
2005-09-28 06:06 am UTC (link)
I think it's justification - most major (community; society) atrocities seem to be committed with religion as justification/rationalization.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]shnellee
2005-09-28 01:06 am UTC (link)
i agree with the poster below. it's not only specific to religions but tonnes and tonnes of various groups and people since the beginning of time, who have committed atrocities on each other.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]naruvonwilkins
2005-09-28 03:04 am UTC (link)
Can you think of any that aren't religious?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]shnellee, 2005-09-28 04:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 04:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]shnellee, 2005-09-28 04:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 04:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]shnellee, 2005-09-28 05:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 05:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]shnellee, 2005-09-28 05:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 05:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]shnellee, 2005-09-28 05:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 05:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]agnoster, 2005-09-28 09:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 02:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 08:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]agnoster, 2005-09-28 11:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 11:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]shnellee, 2005-09-29 12:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]colonel_froggie, 2005-10-05 11:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]shnellee, 2005-10-06 02:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]colonel_froggie, 2005-10-06 02:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]shnellee, 2005-10-06 02:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]colonel_froggie, 2005-10-06 03:00 am UTC
I was just cruising through, but... - [info]colonel_froggie, 2005-10-05 11:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]colonel_froggie, 2005-10-05 11:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-10-05 11:30 pm UTC

[info]gillen
2005-09-28 03:22 am UTC (link)
"I can't believe for a second though, that religious people are an ill on society. "


Religion is a plague and religious people are like plague victims - they should be helped but also isolated to contaion the contagion.

(Since everyone else was being so nicey-nicey about it)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]punk801
2005-09-28 03:57 am UTC (link)
Do extremist views ever make anything better?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]naruvonwilkins
2005-09-28 05:03 am UTC (link)
Absolutely. Extremists temper the mainstream of any movement - they ensure that new ideas are brought to light.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]concurer
2005-09-28 06:13 am UTC (link)
or they squash ideas due to their arrogance and narrow viewpoint.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 02:17 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 02:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]punk801, 2005-09-28 07:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 08:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]punk801, 2005-09-28 08:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 08:37 pm UTC

[info]punk801
2005-09-28 12:58 pm UTC (link)
New does not mean better. Are you supportive of extremist Muslim views, or would you rather live with moderate Muslims peacefully? What about extremist racist views? Do we need the KKK to keep popping up to remind us that maybe whites would be better off living without black people? Of course not.

Do you have any examples of where an extremist view helped?

Just being outside the mainstream doesn't mean it's extreme either. Hitler had extremist views, and he was the mainstream (for his time and place). Letting women vote in the early 1900's was outside the mainstream, but could hardly be considered extreme. So what happens when the extreme viewpoint is the mainstream, and the moderate viewpoint is the minority? Maybe rationality and ideology are better barometers of extreme vs. moderate, than simply the popularity of an idea, which you suggest.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 08:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]punk801, 2005-09-28 08:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]naruvonwilkins, 2005-09-28 08:56 pm UTC

[info]shnellee
2005-09-28 05:24 am UTC (link)
generalizations are nothing but generalizations.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]gillen
2005-09-28 12:40 pm UTC (link)
Yes, statements which apply to a group as a whole. If they didn't apply, they would be called over-generalization.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]shnellee, 2005-09-29 12:43 am UTC

[info]cimmonym
2005-09-28 05:34 am UTC (link)
I didn't like how so much of that article was poorly supported, by data or anything else. It was definitely a description of a correlation instead of a causation, which was unclear and thus was misleading. Although I do believe that religion has made itself a problem in the United States.

I would tend to believe that the reason the U.S. has higher STD/homicide/suicide rates is the same reason that religion dominates much of our society, instead of the religion itself being the cause. (but now I am guilty of theorizing)
The US is not a nation of creative or free thinkers. American citizens have probably caused themselves a lot of damage by abandoning progressive thought for conservativism and fundamentalism.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ex_aj492
2005-09-28 03:58 pm UTC (link)
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jubeanation
2005-09-28 01:40 pm UTC (link)
I agree that religion can abstractly effect these things, but what can you do? Abolish religion? hehe... no.

(Reply to this)


[info]ex_aj492
2005-09-28 03:58 pm UTC (link)
The text of the actual article which this article is discussing:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies - A First Look" by Gregory S. Paul

(Reply to this)


[info]jennieosmith
2005-10-25 09:03 pm UTC (link)
There's nothing wrong with religion, it's the people who use religion for their own agenda that i have a problem with !!!!!

Oh yes and people who try and force their views on you !!!!!

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…