Wherever Religious Belief is Waning the Society Is In Decline Also

[obvious Child]

I'm afraid you are going to have to explain exactly how your comparisons "blow my arguments out of the water" because I don't see that at all.

*sigh*

I'm starting to think you simply don't care what people write and you simply assume you are correct without any rebuttal at all of anyone's points.

Several users have compared the economic wealth of secular countries to religious countries and shown that the more religious you are, the worse your country is. You flat up stated you won't deal with that.

It seems like so much bluster on your part, actually. Cherry picked comparisons of countries or cities don't address data derived from general surveys of the American population. It's apples and oranges.

Uh, someone did the top 15 most religious and top 15 least religious. This is hardly cherry picking.

I'm sorry, but you simply have not taken the arguments and facts that I've presented on at all. You've presented a bunch of irrelevant stuff and have stood on top of it crowing that you've blown me out of the water. It's ridiculous.

Wow. I didn't even need to change a single word in that to turn at against you.

Your ASININE argument is based on old data from small samples.
You then proceed to flat up REFUSE to address arguments showing how strongly religious countries and areas are not doing better than secular countries and regions.

How can you expect anyone to buy your argument that the more religious an area is, the better then are when you FLAT UP REFUSE to address comparisons showing that not to be true?

Functionally, all you have is "I say so."

This thread is more of a failure then your Sarkozy one.

 

[jwzg]

I'm having trouble finding real data. Nominal is easy, but that doesn't mean squat. There's no question that China had massive growth in the last ten years, but it also had massive growth in the preceding twenty. Real growth in the past 10 years struggled to hit above 11%, but in the preceding twenty years had plenty of 12+% growth in real GDP.

China's gross domestic product (GDP) growth



That is true. Some people would argue that today's richer lifestyle is actually a decline in society.

I'd argue the otherwise, that increased longevity, increased personal free time, higher divorce rates (let's be honest, abusive marriages are not a boost to society), lower death rates for infants and during childbirth, greater variety of foods, and technology has lead to a boost to society.

If we look at some of the highly religious societies, they have low longevity, low personal free times, sometimes divorce is illegal, women are little more than property, high infant and child birth death rates, low variety in foods, and technology is limited to the elite. Is that a better society?

I was referring to religious growth, for which the data is far more sketchy, but even economic growth data is tough to verify.

I disagree about the divorce rate and cause, but everything else was pretty much what I consider to be signs of progress. More stuff does equal more grief in many cases, so the opposite could be argued.

FWIW, theocratic countries across the board do have a lower standard of living. Don't mistake theocracy for genuine religion though. It's easy to make people behave and keep them poor and stupid in the name of religion....especially at the end of a gun.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Spoken like a true believer.

Beg your pardon?

 

[LowDown]

*sigh*

I'm starting to think you simply don't care what people write and you simply assume you are correct without any rebuttal at all of anyone's points.

Let me assure you that I'm trying to discuss this in good faith.

Several users have compared the economic wealth of secular countries to religious countries and shown that the more religious you are, the worse your country is. You flat up stated you won't deal with that.



Uh, someone did the top 15 most religious and top 15 least religious. This is hardly cherry picking.

Yes, but, as I said, I don't think this data is relevant to what I'm talking about with regard to American culture or Western culture. Especially the bottom 15 countries, which have entirely different cultural norms. It's illegal to be an atheist in most of those countries. How can you compare that to the West?

I'm sorry, but you simply have not taken the arguments and facts that I've presented on at all. You've presented a bunch of irrelevant stuff and have stood on top of it crowing that you've blown me out of the water. It's ridiculous.

Wow. I didn't even need to change a single word in that to turn at against you.

Your ASININE argument is based on old data from small samples.

Well, data from 1960 is necessarily going to be old. But the surveys were taken up to 2010.

You then proceed to flat up REFUSE to address arguments showing how strongly religious countries and areas are not doing better than secular countries and regions.

See the argument above about differences in cultures. Do I really need to explain this further?

How can you expect anyone to buy your argument that the more religious an area is, the better then are when you FLAT UP REFUSE to address comparisons showing that not to be true?

I think most reasonable people would concede that I have a point. In other words, if you survey a country in which a person would get his head chopped off if he admits to being an atheist there is good reason to believe that the figures are not going to be accurate and should not be compared to figures from countries that practice tolerance of belief. How about Saudi Arabia or the UAE? Really rich people with high levels of religiosity, right? However, I'll resist the temptation to claim that this supports the American data because it would be bogus to do so.

Functionally, all you have is "I say so."

Nope, I have the facts that lend my argument support. You have refused to even acknowledge that much.

This thread is more of a failure then your Sarkozy one.

Sorry, but the Sarkozy thread was no failure on my part. There again you grasped on irrelevant facts and crowed loudly that it trashed my argument and accused me of being dishonest, but it did not and I was not. Even ThinkProgress centered on Sarkozy's desire to escape taxes as the main point.

I'm starting to see that you "win" most of your arguments simply by exhausting your opponents with your shotgun posting style. I'm exhausted. Good night.

Here is that data I offered, in case people have forgotten, and you do seem to have forgotten:

Surveys were conducted of American white people between ages 30 and 49 and between 1960 an 2010 regarding their attitudes on a number if issues including religious belief. The top twenty percent of the socioeconomic strata were compared to the bottom 30 percent.

Of those who flat out state that they are not believers, by 2010 the two groups were equal at 21%. In 1960 the lower classes were 3% nonbelievers and the upper classes were 9% nonbelievers.

Of those who have disengaged from religious organizations and activities, the lower classes increased from 35 to 60% and the upper classes increased from 27 to 40% between 1960 and 2010.

Of those who attend religious services regularly, in the lower classes they fell from 57 to 40%. In the upper classes they fell from 65 to 54%.

Of those who support religious organizations with a lot of time and effort, the religious core, in the lower classes they fell from 22% to 12%. In the upper classes they fell from 30% to 24%.

To summarize, the decline in religiosity was significantly less in upper classes than in lower and the lower classes have now outstripped the upper classes in that regard. The lower classes have also seen serious declines in the work ethic, community involvement, and in respect for the law not seen in the upper classes.

These figures are from Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010: Charles Murray: Amazon.com: Kindle Store. Now out in paperback.

(Some of the figures I read off of graphs, so they may not be exactly right.)

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Let me assure you that I'm trying to discuss this in good faith.



Yes, but, as I said, I don't think this data is relevant to what I'm talking about with regard to American culture or Western culture. Especially the bottom 15 countries, which have entirely different cultural norms. It's illegal to be an atheist in most of those countries. How can you compare that to the West?



Well, data from 1960 is necessarily going to be old. But the surveys were taken up to 2010.



See the argument above about differences in cultures. Do I really need to explain this further?

LOL, that's hilarious. You accuse us of cherry picking, then in the same breath say that the 15 most religious countries don't count, especially because someone "isn't allowed to be an atheist". If atheism is the bane of upstanding society, and the mark of the truly uneducated, then you'd think banning it would have made them better off.

Also, how would you then explain that the top 15 most atheist countries just happen to be some of the top most prosperous and happy countries in the world?

Or even better, did you think I stopped at the bottom 15 for a reason? I only did to save space, it goes on and on and on. 16 was afghanistan. You actually don't see a respectable country until about 50. So what does that say? The top 50 most religious countries just happen to be the ****tiest and poorest. Please address that.

Just admit it, it's your opinion, you miss the good ol' days and you want to find a scapegoat. Lack of jesus simply isn't the answer.

 

[BlackBradPitt]

What other institutions create a sense of community like religion does? Having a strong religion does not necessarily mean a country will be strong and stable, but I can't think of any secular institution that is so good at organizing communities and creating a sense of fellowship.

One might wonder what the Middle East would look like without Islam. Because of its history of tribalism, the Middle East would likely be even more fractured and contentious than it is today.

With what is our society replacing religion?

I am familiar with blind faith, but this is truly living in the world with blinders on. You can not be morally serious and make a statement such as this.

Sense of community? It's more like the sense of a clan. A community includes EVERYONE, and religion is far from inclusion of all. What other institution has broken up more families and caused more division among loved ones like religion? What other institution teaches looking down on, too judge, or think of as wrong others who don't share your beliefs.

Tell me, do you think the vast majority of gay men and women feel a sense of "community" with religion? What about the member who's wife prays to another god. Can you speak glowingly to her about your after life? One she can share and enjoy with her family? Maybe how she will be with her loved ones and a part of your "community"? There likely isn't one which doesn't involve suffering for eternity, simply because she doesn't pray to your God. Even someone one who just does not believe in any god, do you think they feel like a part of your "community" or even love from it? I'm sure they'd love to hear about the great non-believers heaven! These people are just simply excluded, regardless of the content of their character, or how much others love them. I'd say that's a warped sense of community.

One might wonder what the middle east would be like with out Islam? More fractured??? How is that even possible? Millions of completely innocent children, women and men have died, suffered, and continue to live in conditions you or I could not fathom almost since the beginning of man. Where is your community in that? Yet, almost all of it has been done in the name of religion. Nothing has worked to stop this. Nothing. How does it get worse? To claim taking away religion would "likely make it more fractured", is based on absolutely nothing. Nothing resembling a fact or example of what you claim "likely to happen", ever occurring anywhere in the real world. It's just completely ignoring and giving a pass to the ugly role religion has played. A clan mentality.

 

[LowDown]

LOL, that's hilarious. You accuse us of cherry picking, then in the same breath say that the 15 most religious countries don't count, especially because someone "isn't allowed to be an atheist". If atheism is the bane of upstanding society, and the mark of the truly uneducated, then you'd think banning it would have made them better off.

Also, how would you then explain that the top 15 most atheist countries just happen to be some of the top most prosperous and happy countries in the world?

Or even better, did you think I stopped at the bottom 15 for a reason? I only did to save space, it goes on and on and on. 16 was afghanistan. You actually don't see a respectable country until about 50. So what does that say? The top 50 most religious countries just happen to be the ****tiest and poorest. Please address that.

Just admit it, it's your opinion, you miss the good ol' days and you want to find a scapegoat. Lack of jesus simply isn't the answer.

Sorry about rejecting your ranking of nations, but it seems to me ridiculous to compare the lower 15 with Western nations. As for the upper 15, they are germane, but then, as I mentioned some time back, they are not all exactly examples of vibrant and growing cultures. Most of them are in decline as cultures. For some of these northern European states the only growing segment of their populations are the Muslims they imported, who are very religious! I don't have any data on some of the others, but Japan among the Asian countries is pretty much in the same pickle where population growth is concerned. Mark Steyn in particular has written at length about this phenomenon:

America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It: Mark Steyn: 9781596985278: Amazon.com: Books
Someday soon, you might wake up to the call to prayer from a muezzin. Europeans already are. And liberals will still tell you that "diversity is our strength"--while Talibanic enforcers cruise Greenwich Village burning books and barber shops, the Supreme Court decides sharia law doesn't violate the "separation of church and state," and the Hollywood Left decides to give up on gay rights in favor of the much safer charms of polygamy. If you think this can't happen, you haven't been paying attention, as the hilarious, provocative, and brilliant Mark Steyn--the most popular conservative columnist in the English-speaking world--shows to devastating effect. The future, as Steyn shows, belongs to the fecund and the confident. And the Islamists are both, while the West is looking ever more like the ruins of a civilization.

So it looks like that many of these nations are not really good examples of the benefits of atheism. Atheism seems to be associated with a loss of confidence, a loss of drive, and a loss of will in some of these nations. And then, again, there is that one big honking counter-example of the US, which is still much more religious. But then within the US the trends associate non-belief with increases in all sorts of social ills, particularly in the lower classes. Which, again, I will point out is where most of the non-believers in the US are and where the most rapid growth in non-belief has been. These are the facts.

Yes, I don't have enough in the way of facts to prove the thesis that atheism is generally associated with cultural decline. But what I have pretty much wrecks the New Atheists' assumptions about belief, especially here in the US.

By the way, what is the rationale for absolving atheism of the murders of millions of people by the Soviet Union, Communist China, the Khmer Rouge, etc., all of whom were officially atheistic states? Something about them not really being atheists or some such -- if I remember correctly Sam Harris said that. Just like the left wingers claim they weren't really communist. I think that's a particularly pathetic and telling dodge on the part of both atheists and left wingers. I really don't need to bring up any other examples to discredit atheism or the left; that ought to be enough for anyone. Here again you have some big honking examples of atheism being associated with cultural decline.

 

[Jredbaron96]

By the way, what is the rationale for absolving atheism of the murders of millions of people by the Soviet Union, Communist China, the Khmer Rouge, etc., all of whom were officially atheistic states?.

Yeah, it's not like they were totaltarian states of anything.

 

[ChuckBerry]

A community includes EVERYONE

lol and you talk about ME having blinders on?

What other institution teaches looking down on, too judge, or think of as wrong others who don't share your beliefs.

All of them. Welcome to humanity, we suck.

Tell me, do you think the vast majority of gay men and women feel a sense of "community" with religion?

Probably not. What's your point? That some people don't like the standards of inclusion within a group? You're going to tell me that all gay people are in lockstep with each other simply because their gay? How many gay people have you ever known? At a minimum I know that gay men and lesbians generally hate each other, two groups of people that ought to be socially united, but they aren't.

I'd say that's a warped sense of community.

I agree.

One might wonder what the middle east would be like with out Islam? More fractured??? How is that even possible?

Are you aware of the triablism of the Middle East? A good basic example of this is the end of the movie Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence tries to unite the tribes based on common interests, but to no avail.

Millions of completely innocent children, women and men have died, suffered, and continue to live in conditions you or I could not fathom almost since the beginning of man. Where is your community in that?

You're blaming religion for the fact that life is hard? People form communities to try to share responsibilities to ward off the worst deprivations of hard life, like lack of food through agriculture, like theft and banditry through self-defense, like disease through medical care. All of these things need organization, and thus institutions. Religions have traditionally been a bulwark of institutional organization throughout history. Nationalism to a degree has replaced it, but now nationalism is out of fashion. Without religion or nationalism, what will be the uniting force to keep people together?

It's just completely ignoring and giving a pass to the ugly role religion has played. A clan mentality.

Clan mentality was not created by religion, it was created for survival, as I alluded to above. That clan mentality is often used to take advantage of others is a bare fact of history that just can't be attributed to religion. Remove religion and people will just find other reasons to hate each other.

 

[LowDown]

I am familiar with blind faith, but this is truly living in the world with blinders on. You can not be morally serious and make a statement such as this.

Sense of community? It's more like the sense of a clan. A community includes EVERYONE, and religion is far from inclusion of all. What other institution has broken up more families and caused more division among loved ones like religion? What other institution teaches looking down on, too judge, or think of as wrong others who don't share your beliefs.

People join a religious community by choice in the West. For the most part different sects co-exist peacefully. It is simply not true that religion leads to a loss of community. Exactly the opposite in fact, as surveys show.

Tell me, do you think the vast majority of gay men and women feel a sense of "community" with religion?

Many gay and lesbian people are religious, so yes, they do. They can and do find religious communities that support them.

What about the member who's wife prays to another god. Can you speak glowingly to her about your after life? One she can share and enjoy with her family? Maybe how she will be with her loved ones and a part of your "community"? There likely isn't one which doesn't involve suffering for eternity, simply because she doesn't pray to your God. Even someone one who just does not believe in any god, do you think they feel like a part of your "community" or even love from it? I'm sure they'd love to hear about the great non-believers heaven! These people are just simply excluded, regardless of the content of their character, or how much others love them. I'd say that's a warped sense of community.

One might wonder what the middle east would be like with out Islam? More fractured??? How is that even possible? Millions of completely innocent children, women and men have died, suffered, and continue to live in conditions you or I could not fathom almost since the beginning of man. Where is your community in that? Yet, almost all of it has been done in the name of religion. Nothing has worked to stop this. Nothing. How does it get worse? To claim taking away religion would "likely make it more fractured", is based on absolutely nothing. Nothing resembling a fact or example of what you claim "likely to happen", ever occurring anywhere in the real world. It's just completely ignoring and giving a pass to the ugly role religion has played. A clan mentality.

You sound like exactly the sort of intolerant and hateful people you think that you are writing about.

So, do you think that if religion were subtracted from the Middle East it would all be rainbows and roses? Or would they just find some other excuse to go on with the conflicts?

Subtracting religion does not improve human nature. We can see that much in our own society. In many cases it only gives free rein to human nature's ugly side.

 

[obvious Child]

FWIW, theocratic countries across the board do have a lower standard of living. Don't mistake theocracy for genuine religion though. It's easy to make people behave and keep them poor and stupid in the name of religion....especially at the end of a gun.

True, but in areas that don't have theocracies, they are still poor. Nigeria has high level of religious behavior, both Islamic and Christan and despite their oil wealth, they are still really poor. Same can be said for a number of countries that are highly religious but without theocracies. Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan. Christianity is strong in South America, but many of the people there are still very poor. India is highly religious, and most people there are extremely poor.

 

[obvious Child]

Yeah, it's not like they were totaltarian states of anything.

Or the fact that the USSR actually brought back the Orthodox Church. Lowdown leaves that out. Like he leaves out everything he can't deal with.

 

[obvious Child]

Let me assure you that I'm trying to discuss this in good faith.

Then you have to excuse me for thinking you are lying. I've seen many of your threads. They are little more than badly written bait threads.

Yes, but, as I said, I don't think this data is relevant to what I'm talking about with regard to American culture or Western culture. Especially the bottom 15 countries, which have entirely different cultural norms. It's illegal to be an atheist in most of those countries. How can you compare that to the West?

No, it's not illegal to be an atheist in most of those countries. Jesus Christ, are you even capable of using Google or do you just make up whatever you want?

And I cited a country that has seen reduced Religious strength and power in the past years as the richest nation in the world.

And I cited two regions with the US that are doing very differently and have very different religious strengths. You ignore all of this because you don't actually have an argument. You are soapboxing.

Well, data from 1960 is necessarily going to be old. But the surveys were taken up to 2010.

Wow. Small sample surveys blended with old data. That is suppose to tell us what?

See the argument above about differences in cultures. Do I really need to explain this further?

No, I have to explain this to you.

It's culture that matters, not religion. Highly religious countries range from basket cases to economic powerhouses. On one hand you have Nigeria who's dirt poor despite having oil and then you have Japan where Buddhism and Shinto are beliefs held by virtually everyone there and Japan can economically punch well above its weight. I then cited Detroit, a city with strong religious roots that we all know is a joke, compared to San Francisco which, despite low religious strength is doing well. You admit you cannot deal with any of this.

I think most reasonable people would concede that I have a point.

Your definition of reasonable thinks that Sarkozy is leaving France to avoid taxes by moving to the UK who has in many ways a worse tax system and that the police raids and his removal of immunity have nothing to do with his plans. Your definition of reasonable is completely screwed up.

In other words, if you survey a country in which a person would get his head chopped off if he admits to being an atheist there is good reason to believe that the figures are not going to be accurate and should not be compared to figures from countries that practice tolerance of belief. How about Saudi Arabia or the UAE? Really rich people with high levels of religiosity, right? However, I'll resist the temptation to claim that this supports the American data because it would be bogus to do so.

Saudi Arabia is a poor country. The wealth is stacked in the elites with the elites buying off the masses. Actual per capita income in Saudi Arabia is quite low when you remove handouts. IF you bothered to do any research rather then just assuming whatever the hell you want, you'd knows this. The Saudi Monarchy enacted a massive welfare scheme right at the time Egypt was going down to prevent an Arab Spring in their backyard.

And the UAE is a poor nation too. You are assuming everyone enjoys the wealth of those who live in Dubai. That is not the case. In many ways, UAE is worse then Saudi Arabia.

Non-hydrocarbons make up small portions of their economy. Take out those and both nations quickly have little to show for their economies. Both survive largely because of hydrocarbon exports. Tell me how that's related to religion. Try.

Nope, I have the facts that lend my argument support. You have refused to even acknowledge that much.

What facts? You have cited little more then your own opinions.

Sorry, but the Sarkozy thread was no failure on my part. There again you grasped on irrelevant facts and crowed loudly that it trashed my argument and accused me of being dishonest, but it did not and I was not. Even ThinkProgress centered on Sarkozy's desire to escape taxes as the main point.

The thread failure is entirely your fault. And you were highly dishonest there. And I don't give a **** what thinkprogress says. They are just as bad as Drudge report. Simple fact of the matter is you screwed that up.

I'm starting to see that you "win" most of your arguments simply by exhausting your opponents with your shotgun posting style. I'm exhausted. Good night.

I only do that to people who have no actual arguments and never admit they are wrong.

Get used to it. Unless you actually start producing decent claims. Which I doubt will ever happen.

Here is that data I offered, in case people have forgotten, and you do seem to have forgotten:

(Some of the figures I read off of graphs, so they may not be exactly right.)

And how does it define their class and religious behavior?
Oops.

Another dumb lowdown thread.

 

[Fisher]

There is always a chicken and egg argument to these type correlations.

 

[obvious Child]

There is always a chicken and egg argument to these type correlations.

It's not even that. Lowdown is trying to argue on the basis of a vague survey that his argument is right and that nothing else could even remotely be responsible.

Second, he can't even define what societal decline is.

 

[LowDown]

Then you have to excuse me for thinking you are lying. I've seen many of your threads. They are little more than badly written bait threads.

That's where I stopped reading. You can't bait me into becoming uncivil. Goodbye and good luck.

 

[obvious Child]

That's where I stopped reading. You can't bait me into becoming uncivil. Goodbye and good luck.

Stop being dishonest and I'll stop treating you poorly.

 

[Fisher]

It's not even that. Lowdown is trying to argue on the basis of a vague survey that his argument is right and that nothing else could even remotely be responsible.

Second, he can't even define what societal decline is.

Like pornography, I cannot define it, but I recognize it when I see it.



:lamo

Poorer people tend to be more religious than wealthy people as a group, but there are always exceptions. "Decline" is a relative term to itself and really is just a subjective thing. I think traditional worship service is going to have to compete increasingly with web/TV, but that does not mean that faith is in decline, just maybe churches.

 

[obvious Child]

Like pornography, I cannot define it, but I recognize it when I see it.

What's the difference between a Kardashian and a Cardassian?

I hear that one is a ruthless cold-blooded reptile-like creature, and the other one is from Star Trek.

Poorer people tend to be more religious than wealthy people as a group, but there are always exceptions.

I think it's more of a function of where you were raised. Someone poor and grows up in Sweden is less likely to be religious then someone who is rich and born and raised in Saudi Arabia.

"Decline" is a relative term to itself and really is just a subjective thing. I think traditional worship service is going to have to compete increasingly with web/TV, but that does not mean that faith is in decline, just maybe churches.

Church attendance seems be dying off in most parts of the developed world, but those who identify as "spiritual" seem to be rising. What that means? I have no idea.

 

[Fisher]

What's the difference between a Kardashian and a Cardassian?

I hear that one is a ruthless cold-blooded reptile-like creature, and the other one is from Star Trek.

:lol:

I think it's more of a function of where you were raised. Someone poor and grows up in Sweden is less likely to be religious then someone who is rich and born and raised in Saudi Arabia.

Maybe, but within the same society, I stand by my general observation

Church attendance seems be dying off in most parts of the developed world, but those who identify as "spiritual" seem to be rising. What that means? I have no idea.

My gut instinct is that people feel like they will go to heaven just because they feel good about themselves but do not want to be bothered by those pesty old rules and such that come with religion.

 

[jwzg]

There is always a chicken and egg argument to these type correlations.

x2 this. I was trying to think how to put it, but that's it.

@OC I got your point. I'd be interested to see how this broke down by the type of religion. Also, some countries are poor, but on the rise based on the criteria you and I discussed earlier (China's economic economic and religious growth in the past 30 years).

Being a Christian, it's hard not to be biased. It IS an interesting correlation the OP has given, but one I'm incapable of researching given other obligations I've got going on at the moment. Good luck to all.

 

[jwzg]

Church attendance seems be dying off in most parts of the developed world, but those who identify as "spiritual" seem to be rising. What that means? I have no idea.

One last point, church attendance and spirituality are indeed two different things. I think that the liturgical form of worship has become much less appealing to the current generation and many are focusing more on prayer, study and genuine relationships with fellow believers rather than the Sunday morning "nip, sip and two-dollar tip" customary in most places.

 

[CriticalThought]

I don't really get this thread. If the logic held true then Vatican City would be the most prosperous and happy place on earth. That just isn't the case. Hell, the countries that surveys consistently find where religion is held as highly important are African places like Niger, which are not exactly bastions of prosperity.

The Abrahamic religions, which this thread is really about, are tribal religions. They promote a moral code that is good and time tested for small, nomadic tribes seeking to survive. They are not religions for a modern, technological civilization of tens of millions of people. That is why they are constantly being reinvented and resold in different ways so that they can remain relevant in the developed world.

The fact is Abrahamic religions are successful in the undeveloped parts of China, just as they are successful in the undeveloped parts of the rest of the world because they are useful for undeveloped peoples who are living lives not too dissimilar to the ancient nomadic roots of those religions.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't really get this thread. If the logic held true then Vatican City would be the most prosperous and happy place on earth. That just isn't the case. Hell, the countries that surveys consistently find where religion is held as highly important are African places like Niger, which are not exactly bastions of prosperity.

The Abrahamic religions, which this thread is really about, are tribal religions. They promote a moral code that is good and time tested for small, nomadic tribes seeking to survive. They are not religions for a modern, technological civilization of tens of millions of people. That is why they are constantly being reinvented and resold in different ways so that they can remain relevant in the developed world.

The fact is Abrahamic religions are successful in the undeveloped parts of China, just as they are successful in the undeveloped parts of the rest of the world because they are useful for undeveloped peoples who are living lives not too dissimilar to the ancient nomadic roots of those religions.

The Vatican lost power during the unification of Italy when it was forced back and confined to a small border at the edge of the city. Prior to that, it was Napoleon whose French armies temporarily defeated the Vatican and brought sanity to what is now southern Italy. Before the Vatican lost power, they were confining Jews to ghettos and removing their merchant rights much like Hitler would later do (the men even had to wear embarrassing hats and a yellow Star of David in said ghettos, yellow being the colour of shame at the time); they were killing their own citizens left, right and center for heresy and suppressing all knowledge of the sciences that ran contrary to their God-centered universe. (It was around the time of Galileo's trial.) The Vatican ruled through fear and when the opportunity arose they were struck down by the impetus of a newly forming country made by people who were fed up with theocratic rule.

Your logic therefore does not completely follow. The Vatican did not abdicate due to modernity but rather under force. There are many modern Catholics, in the billions actually, who live in urbanized areas. Many are even educated in modernity and have more moderate views, but if you are raised dogmatically then it's hard to completely reform. The Vatican itself still rakes in billions of dollars annually and holds priceless treasures, tomes and artifacts from 2000 years of rule, as well as the profits of war and gifts from state rulers like Hitler. You're making it seem like the Vatican is irrelevant but it's not. They hold political conference with world leaders all the time. The Pope has more access to leaders than the electorate does. The Vatican bank is a major broker in the world economy and they control huge stakes in Europe, much like the other royal families. They are just biding their time in case a political crisis happens where they can takeover rule again. Not likely to happen, but like the monarchs, they exist based on the possibility. In the mean time, they play world politics like they are still acknowledged heads of state.

The inquisition itself didn't end until halfway through the 1800's. The Vatican renamed its office of the inquisition to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but it still functions in the same capacity to this very day: ""The proper duty of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world; so it has competence in things that touch this matter in any way." (Wiki) Its powers are only limited by its restricted political influence. The Vatican was tamed by Napoleon which brought the liberalization of science and freer thinking to the Italian regions, but once the victory was reversed after Napoleon fell at Waterloo, the Inquisition tracked down all the progressives and killed them - but not before torturing them to find their accomplices. The history of the Vatican shows us that they do not change, they only bide their time.

The Rothschild banking family of Naples developed close ties to the Vatican Bank in the 19th century and that relationship continues to this day. The Rothschilds, in case you don't know, are one of the richest families in the world. They own massive stock and capital assets everywhere, and their influence can shift national economies, especially in Europe.

I think you greatly underestimate the political and financial influence that religion has on today's world. If our secular institutions are ever corroded, religious governance will just swoop back in again. Unlike the laissez-faire attitude of many secularists who think that their freedoms are duely enshrined and permanent, the religious institutions think it is their Divine Right to rule again in order to bring order to an increasingly sinful world. 100 years is not that long, the Vatican has been around for 2000 or so. They can wait, and in the mean time they hold economic and social influence over a lot of people. I don't think this is a good thing, but it is what it is. It's not just people in backwaters whose free thinking becomes compromised, but anyone who can be readily overpowered by someone skilled in dogma.

People of secular mindset need to be aware that the institutions of their freedoms are relatively new, historically speaking. They are built on the idea of justice and the concept of unalienable, innate qualities; but just because we say so doesn't mean another force can't just take them away. They are actually quite fragile and prone to corruptions. Church and State are separate for this reason. The Church operates on Divine Will but secular humanists operate on innate human free will to craft their own destinies.

People, even atheists, really need to understand that the core of a civilization operates upon a spiritual ideology. Society does not wax or wane based on the presence of religion, but on whatever the core spiritual assertion is. If you start to get all subjective and wishy washy about it, someone else is going to come in - who views their beliefs as more concrete than yours - and take away everything that you have. That's why we need to collectively make a choice and then defend it instead of vengefully destroying each other's rights out of spite.

 

[jwzg]

Great post, NL.
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express