 |
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) dark_christian
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) ccroft | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Times, England: "RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today. According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems. The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society. It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality. Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills. The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world. “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies. “The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.” Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions. He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy. The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested. Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.” He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added. Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. “I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states,” he added. He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said. “The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. “The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.” URL: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.htmlTags: religious violence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eh, not realy, to me it reads like any other Atheist "Religion is bad" screed, blaming topics more or less unrelated to religion on religion. Now, if they were to single out fundementalism as the cause, that I could buy, as fundementalism is at least partialy responsible for SOME of the issues listed, although not all of them by a long shot. To me, this article is demonstrative of the exclucivity and elitism that often pervades atheist writings, nothing more. Had they just written about Dominionist "Abstinence Education" and the subsequent rise in teen prgenancy and STDs that accompany these programs, it would have been an interesting and thought provoking article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: enkinhou |
Date: September 27th, 2005 10:10 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
You probably are right. I let my own feelings get ahead of the logic in this comment. Indeed, a lot of the problems listed in the article are more complex than a lot of people think (although I do believe the overzealousness of many Americans in terms of religion does have some role in why "suicide" and "murder" rates are higher here than in other countries; in no way, however, is religious overzealousness the sole reason for social ills, however).
The article does seem like it's attacking all of religion, but note that the other countries labeled "less religious" than the U.S. still have many, many church-going, religion-loving people (Catholics, Protestants, and non-Christian religions such as Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.). The only difference is that they don't have as many people in power trying to cram religion down everyone else's throats like we have here in the U.S. and force religion into every facet of social life (not that they don't have their religious wackos, but they're not in the right places to manifest a theocracy in their respective countries, unlike here)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good article, interesting study. I take issue with a few of the article's implications, though:
1) Why is "sexual promiscuity" automatically conceded to be a social ill? IMO, it's morally neutral at worst. I think it's perfectly OK -- maybe even healthy -- for a person to have consensual sex with whomever s/he wants to, especially if all parties take precautions. The fact that I personally abide by a stricter code of sexual conduct does not necessarily make me better than someone who is "promiscuous."
2) I think that reducing the need for abortion, and therefore the incidence of it, is a laudable goal. However, I take this position based on concern for women's physical and mental health, not on some notion that abortion is the "lesser of two evils." Again, I consider the act of abortion to be morally neutral, in and of itself.
3) Unless I'm misunderstanding the scope of the research here, "religion" in this context should be taken to mean Christianity only -- and only the most "devout" forms of it.
Maybe I'm missing the point. It's quite possible, but this article excites certain sensibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: enkinhou |
Date: September 27th, 2005 10:18 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
Maybe...
...but these are hypocrites that do not see the error of their ways (either intentionally or unintentionally)...
...however, the ones in power are the former variety, insisting that they're right and everyone else's wrong.
However, I do agree, these Dominionists are blasphemers and heretics, twisting the word of God for their own purposes (which God, in the Bible itself, says is one of the worst sins that could be committed). Unfortunately, many people (outside and inside Christian circles) take these Dominionists as representing the "Christian doctrine", thus hurting what is, in actuality, a perfectly good religion...
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: _wastrel |
Date: September 29th, 2005 02:52 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
The article is sophomoric, insane and insulting, not only for its anti-religious feelings but for how US-centric it is. There are religious people in every country in the world, including here in Canada, the main differences being that we don't mix Church and State on the one hand, and with all due respect, that we don't mix Church with the patriotic American cultural mindset. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, and going out of one's way to state the opposite as if one really believed it for the sake of provokation and shock value strikes me as deliberate bad faith. We need every ally we can get in our fight against Dominionism, and pissing off the religious left is strategically shooting ourselves in the foot. This is coming from someone who hasn't set foot in a church at all this year, for the record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Previous Next 
