Is religion relevant in a modern day society?

[Never say never]

Is religion relevant in a modern day society?
I am currently preparing for a public debate on the issue and would love to know your opinions and thoughts that may prove useful.

 

[spidergoat]

Apparently it is, wether we like it or not.

 

[Shaitan]

Is religion relevant in a modern day society?

no it's not, but we need something to keep the plebs amused. dont we.
it's bad enough them killing each and everyone now, but how much more dangerous will they become, if you take away there comfort blanket.
so whether it's relevant or not, purely just for health and safety reasons it should be kept.

 

[lightgigantic]

its losing relevance - hence so many problems in the world

 

[Cris]

It's losing relevance hence why our standards of living, quality of life, and knowledge around the world are generally on the increase.

 

[Prince_James]

Yes, as humanity is fundamentally religious in nature.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

It's losing relevance hence why our standards of living, quality of life, and knowledge around the world are generally on the increase.

like clean air and water, food products free from contaminants, the prospects of the globe not getting major cosmetic surgery in the next 50 years from nuclear war or due to the previous 50 years of green house emmissions, spiralling industrial develpment etc.

Or perhaps you mean the quality of contemporary industrial occupations that socially stunt individuals and communities by, causing a plethora of social ills from drug addiction and suicide to reducing social keyposts(as elementary as raising children) to the status of a hobby for the rich.

etcetc

 

[Cris]

LG,

Like modern hygeine that has only been understood in this past 1.5 centuries. The availability of anti-biotics that now prevent more deaths than any other drug development in the history of mankind. The elimination of a vast collection of diseases that tormented our ancestors. The change in infant mortality rates from abysmal to few.

Increasing average lifespan from around 44 where it was at the beginning of the 20th century to over double that now to well over 70.

These were all due to increases in human knolwedge and science. Religion made effectively no contribution to those developments and in many cases hindered science, as it is still doing today re stem-cell research.

And as for the prospect of nuclear war - that seems most likely as a DIRECT result of religion, especially in light of the ugliness of Islamic terrorism. Removing religion from the world seems certain to make the world a safer place in that respect alone.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

Like modern hygeine that has only been understood in this past 1.5 centuries.

lol - the irony of how a culture came to be a superpower by learning to take a bath

The availability of anti-biotics that now prevent more deaths than any other drug development in the history of mankind.

... with a range of super resistant viruses biting at our heels

The elimination of a vast collection of diseases that tormented our ancestors.

If we have declared war on disease it appears that we lost - we are still tormented

The change in infant mortality rates from abysmal to few.

unless you add abortion into the statistics

Increasing average lifespan from around 44 where it was at the beginning of the 20th century to over double that now to well over 70.

Discovering how to take a bath was really helpful

These were all due to increases in human knolwedge and science. Religion made effectively no contribution to those developments and in many cases hindered science, as it is still doing today re stem-cell research.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - einstein

And as for the prospect of nuclear war - that seems most likely as a DIRECT result of religion,especially in light of the ugliness of Islamic terrorism. Removing religion from the world seems certain to make the world a safer place in that respect alone.

Yes - I was personally very concerned about the religious factors that drove the cold war of the 80's

But that aside, you could argue that because religion is becoming less relevant it has become easier for persons to misrepresent it and utilize it for political reasons .... so it still amounts to the same thing - "The less relevant religion becomes in society, the more problems come"

 

[Baron Max]

Is religion relevant in a modern day society?

How could something that's considered important to billions of people on Earth NOT be considered relevant?

I would also caution you in the use of the term "modern day society". There are billions of people on Earth today living in something LESS than "modern day society". I would also caution you that many people who actually live and work in our "modern day society" are living in conditions that are considerably LESS than "modern day" conditions.

Society? What's that exactly? Are people living in the slums of New York City living in the same "society" as people who live in, say, Hollywood, CA? Society is a term that we throw around with little thought to what it actually means or to whom it concerns. I wonder ...is that our overblown ego hard at work?

Baron Max

 

[baumgarten]

Yes, as humanity is fundamentally religious in nature.

qft. Religion is not going away, it's just shifting forms.

The future!

 

[Prince_James]

I should also like to note that religion and civilization are -not- incompatible. Pagan Greece and Rome, the paragons of civilization, were widely religious.

Ultimately, a return to pagan beliefs may be a viable alternative to pure Atheism as a state religion. I myself would support a widescale adoption of such.

 

[SkinWalker]

its losing relevance - hence so many problems in the world

But when you look at nations with the highest numbers of non-religious and atheists, you see the lowest trends of violent crime. And some of those countries are making the best strides in environmental issues like recycling and alternative energy.

Looking at the other side, nations with the highest religious nutters, reveals the highest trends in violent crime and worst records in environment and alternative energy.

Let's *hope* religion is losing its relevance.

 

[S.A.M.]

But when you look at nations with the highest numbers of non-religious and atheists, you see the lowest trends of violent crime. And some of those countries are making the best strides in environmental issues like recycling and alternative energy.

And manufacturing weapons to sell to third world and dictatorial regime countries.

Title: Russia, France overtake US as top weapons exporters
Source: Radio Netherlands
URL Source: http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/#5059159
Published: Oct 29, 2006
Author: Radio Netherlands
Post Date: 2006-10-29 08:49:24 by JohnA
11 Comments

According to a study by the US Congress, the United States is no longer the world's largest supplier of arms to developing countries. Russia and France are now the world's leading arms exporters. The US share of the weapons market dropped from 35 to 20 percent.

 

[SkinWalker]

Nations of the religious are the the most violent and crime-filled. Play all the semantic games you like, but this fact will not go away. The United States is the *only* nation in among the wealthiest that has high homicide rate as well as overall crime rate.

Many very religious nations in Africa are high in human rights violations. South Africa consumes more cocaine than any other country in Africa (UN 2001); it's also the fifth most religious, under Senegal, Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, and Mali -four nations were human rights violations are a norm (HRW 2006).

References:

HRW (2006). Info by Country: Africa. Human Rights Watch [accessed 9/3/06]

UN (2001). The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998 - 2000) [PDF]. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nations of the religious are the the most violent and crime-filled. Play all the semantic games you like, but this fact will not go away. The United States is the *only* nation in among the wealthiest that has high homicide rate as well as overall crime rate.

Many very religious nations in Africa are high in human rights violations. South Africa consumes more cocaine than any other country in Africa (UN 2001); it's also the fifth most religious, under Senegal, Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, and Mali -four nations were human rights violations are a norm (HRW 2006).

References:

HRW (2006). Info by Country: Africa. Human Rights Watch [accessed 9/3/06]

UN (2001). The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998 - 2000) [PDF]. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

1. Who gives foreign aid in the form of large corporations that substitute agricultural produce for cash crops and export food out of countries that are starving and keeps them under crushing debt to maintain control?

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/Causes.asp

After the Second World War, the United States allowed Britain to repay debt at a very low rate so that it could rebuild. In 1953, the victorious allies met in London to cancel most of Germany's debt, so that it could rebuild. Now the nations of Southern Africa want to rebuild a post-apartheid society, but the creditors of today, are not willing to offer them the space Britain received from the US and the Allies gave to Germany. Instead they are demanding that the states of Southern Africa pay three to five times the level that Britain or Germany paid after World War II.

Another cause for large scale debt has been the corruption and embezzlement of money by the elite in developing countries (who were often placed in power by the powerful countries themselves). These moneys are often placed in foreign banks (and used to loan back to the developing countries). Many loans also come with conditions, that include preferential exports etc. In effect then, more money comes out of the developing countries than is given in. This depresses wages even further due to the spiraling circle downwards to ensure that enough exports are produced.

Consider the following:

* In 1970, the world’s poorest countries (roughly 60 countries classified as low-income by the World Bank), owed $25 billion in debt.
* By 2002, this was $523 billion
* For Africa,
o In 1970, it was just under $11 billion
o By 2002, that was over half, to $295 billion
* Debts owed to the multilateral institutions such as the IMF and World Bank is currently around $153 billion
* For the poorest countries debts to multilateral institutions is around $70 billion.

$550 billion has been paid in both principal and interest over the last three decades, on $540bn of loans, and yet there is still a $523 billion dollar debt burden.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/05/africa/bond.htm

How much natural capital value is removed from Africa? In South Africa, the value of minerals in the soil fell from $112 billion in 1960 to $55 billion in 2000, according to the UN, while Africa as a whole suffers negative net annual savings.

Adding not just oil-related depletion but other subsoil assets, timber resources, nontimber forest resources, protected areas, cropland and pastureland, the Bank calculates that Gabon's citizens lost $2,241 each in 2000, followed by people in the Republic of the Congo (-$727), Nigeria (-$210), Cameroon (-$152), Mauritania (-$147) and Cote d'Ivoire (-$100).

In addition to mineral depletion worth 1% of national income each year, the Bank acknowledges that South Africans lose forests worth 0.3%; suffer pollution ('particulate matter') damage of 0.2%; and emit C02 that causes another 1.6% of damage. In total, adding a few other factors, the actual 'genuine savings' of South Africa is reduced from the official 15.7% to just 6.9% of national income.

These analyses, documents and calculations are new and fresh, and should shame those who claim international integration can enrich Africa. The opposite is more true.

Unlike Trevor Manuel, African justice activists like those who met at groundWork's conference know it. They wrote to officials of the World Petroleum Congress: 'At every point in the fossil fuel production chain where your members "add value" and make profit, ordinary people, workers and their environments are assaulted and impoverished. Where oil is drilled, pumped, processed and used, in Africa as elsewhere, ecological systems have been trashed, peoples' livelihoods have been destroyed and their democratic aspirations and their rights and cultures trampled.'

The letter concluded, 'Your energy future is modeled on the interests of over-consuming, energy-intensive, fossil-fuel-burning wealthy classes whose reckless and selfish lifestyles not only impoverish others but threaten the global environment, imposing on all of us the chaos and uncertainty of climate change and the violence and destruction of war. Another energy future in necessary: yours has failed!'

2. Who supports dictators in Third World regimes to ensure a good market for their arms (bought with the money ostensibly given as aid) and to exploit resources?

There are almost no legal or regulatory requirements amongst the G8 states for the inclusion of international human rights or humanitarian law content in the various military, security, and police force training services that they provide to states in all world regions. Even where human rights criteria are referred to in laws governing arms export and foreign military and security aid, they are often loosely interpreted. In particular, inadequate attention is given during export decision-making by governments to the long lifecycle of most types of arms and security equipment and technology - and hence to the prolonged risk of abuse.

Instead, it is short term profit making and political advantage that guide the bulk of the international arms trade. Currently, the G8 governments allow companies to engage in secretive, loosely-regulated, international trade in weapons, technologies, and training. Using the excuse of "commercial confidentiality", the provision of meaningful and timely information to legislators, media and the general public about arms export decisions is lacking, thus undermining parliamentary scrutiny and public accountability of the trade. In addition, companies in the G8 countries have been allowed to establish foreign production facilities, sometimes under licensing arrangements with foreign companies where the licences and their impact are not subject to effective human rights conditionality or oversight. This practice allows G8 companies to evade domestic arms control restrictions by establishing production in foreign countries which have weaker arms export controls.

Some companies in the G8 countries have been involved in the supply of security equipment and devices whose prime practical purpose is for torture or ill-treatment. In many more cases, companies supply devices designed for security and crime control purposes but which in reality can easily lend themselves to torture and ill-treatment. For example, US, Russian, French and German companies are amongst the two hundred and thirty companies in 35 countries making, distributing or brokering the supply of electro-shock weapons. G8 governments do not have in place effective laws and regulations to prevent the export of such equipment to foreign security forces that are known to abuse legitimate devices to inflict torture.

3. Who supplies arms to these countries under brutal military regimes causing the death of millions through starvation and violence?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,1922978,00.html


So what does all this mean?

For poor countries, third world debt is a crucial issue. Crippling third world debt kills:

* Rich countries have pressured these poor countries to sacrifice health and education spending and prioritize on debt repayment;
* Rich countries have protected their agricultural markets while forcing poor countries to open theirs, leading to dumping and flooding of products, driving local people out of businesses and livelihoods.
* For rich countries, the debt figures involved are tiny;
* For poor countries, these same figures are a matter of life and death:
o Extrapolating from UNICEF data, as many as 5,000,000 children and vulnerable adults may have lost their lives in sub-Sharan Africa as a result of the debt crunch since the late 1980s.
o The United Nations fears another 3 million children will die in the poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa by 2015, the target for the Millenium Development Goals to cut poverty by half.
o Some 11 million children die each year around the world, not just Africa, due to similar conditions of poverty and debt.
o These statistics typically define childeren as those under the age of five. What about 6, or 7, for example?

Instead of developing the Third World, it is clear that the Third World dependency is a policy of the major powers, and the world leaders insist on restricting consumer buying power in the Third World as a price for what is essentially maintenance loans. Meanwhile, these same leaders easily agreed that West Germany must put $1 trillion into the former East Germany to simultaneously build industry, social infrastructure, and markets. And when the relatively poorer countries of Greece, Portugal, and Spain wanted to join the Common Market, these leaders “implemented a 15-year plan which included massive transfers of direct aid, designed to accelerate development, raise wages, regularize safety and environmental standards, and improve living conditions in poorer nations.”... Emerging former colonies receive no such care for their economies to become viable.

Conflicts in Africa

For the June 2002 G8 summit, a briefing was prepared by Action for Southern Africa and the World Development Movement. In that, they also pointed out similar causes to the above, when looking at the wider issue of economic problems as well as political:

It is undeniable that there has been poor governance, corruption and mismanagement in Africa. However, the briefing reveals the context — the legacy of colonialism, the support of the G8 for repressive regimes in the Cold War, the creation of the debt trap, the massive failure of Structural Adjustment Programmes imposed by the IMF and World Bank and the deeply unfair rules on international trade. The role of the G8 in creating the conditions for Africa’s crisis cannot be denied. Its overriding responsibility must be to put its own house in order, and to end the unjust policies that are inhibiting Africa’s development.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa.asp


There's lots and lots more right here:

http://www.globalissues.org/
http://www.saferworld.co.uk/

 

[SkinWalker]

Just because capitalism is exploiting the nations of the periphery doesn't detract from the fact that the most religious nations in the world have the worst records of crime and human rights violations. The United States leads these religious nations in at least the crime aspect (some would also argue the human rights violations aspect), so, therefore, your arguments that the non-religious wealthy nations are the cause of crime and human rights violations in the periphery are pure bunk.

Moreover, if these nations were gullible and credulous with wacked out ideologies of superstition, there mightn't be a market for the evils of the wealthy, exploitive west.

The fact remains: religious nations lead the world in crime and human rights violations, the U.S. included. QED.

 

[S.A.M.]

Just because capitalism is exploiting the nations of the periphery doesn't detract from the fact that the most religious nations in the world have the worst records of crime and human rights violations. The United States leads these religious nations in at least the crime aspect (some would also argue the human rights violations aspect), so, therefore, your arguments that the non-religious wealthy nations are the cause of crime and human rights violations in the periphery are pure bunk.

Moreover, if these nations were gullible and credulous with wacked out ideologies of superstition, there mightn't be a market for the evils of the wealthy, exploitive west.

The fact remains: religious nations lead the world in crime and human rights violations, the U.S. included. QED.

You mean to say the fact that the enlightened Western secular countries with their higher education and greater knowledge of human rights and non-religious morals is not culpable for selling arms, installing dictators, redrawing borders, and ensuring that crushing debt leads to violence, war and starvation BUT the uneducated poverty stricken, starvation and disease ridden people in the Third World countries with no escape from oppression and exploitation are?

Glad you cleared that up.


As for the US, are the politicians really religious? Or this is more smoke from the so-called secular humanists?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15228489/

 

[SkinWalker]

I only noted the correlation. You're the one implying a cause in non sequitur fashion. The correlation is: religious nations have the highest incidences of crime and human rights violations. Obviously, the implication that this is due to the exploitation (which I don't deny) of impoverished nations by wealthier ones isn't the case, since the United States is one of the most religious AND one of the wealthiest. It also has the one of the highest rates of both homicide and overall violent crime.

I freely admit that my conclusion above about these nations' religiosity contributing to their exploitation to be speculative, but I think its a speculation that can be defended if I cared enough to dig at it. I mean, honestly, would there be a market for Russian made weapons in Eastern if there weren't religious conflicts where the participants believed that genocide is ordained and approved by their superstitions?

You're truly beginning to sound silly, sam. It's starting to look like you're blaming "atheism" and "secularism" for poverty and genocide. The fault may lie partially (or fully) with the exploitations of the West, but there's no evidence to suggest that this exploitation is done in the name of, or even because of, atheism. However, I would admit that the exploitation is secular, since this implies that it is occurring in spite of religion or lack thereof. Capitalism is not a religious/atheist institution, but rather a secular one in which participants can be both religious and non-religious and still find the same goals in common.

The fact remains: religious nations lead the world in crime and human rights violations, the U.S. included.

 

[S.A.M.]

I only noted the correlation. You're the one implying a cause in non sequitur fashion. The correlation is: religious nations have the highest incidences of crime and human rights violations. Obviously, the implication that this is due to the exploitation (which I don't deny) of impoverished nations by wealthier ones isn't the case, since the United States is one of the most religious AND one of the wealthiest. It also has the one of the highest rates of both homicide and overall violent crime.

I freely admit that my conclusion above about these nations' religiosity contributing to their exploitation to be speculative, but I think its a speculation that can be defended if I cared enough to dig at it. I mean, honestly, would there be a market for Russian made weapons in Eastern if there weren't religious conflicts where the participants believed that genocide is ordained and approved by their superstitions?


The fact remains: religious nations lead the world in crime and human rights violations, the U.S. included.

So there is no association between poverty plus poor education plus unemployment plus lack of basic amenities plus dictatorship AND violence/crime/HRV?

Its all religion/superstition? And I'm silly?

Also you forget, the current drop in violence in Europe can be explained by the fact that it is barely 60 years since the last World War (both of which occurred in Europe for nonreligious reasons) and people may simply be tired of violence. Especially after the horrors of Nazism.

However, the trend towards racism (always present in Europe) has never completely been eradicated and is now on the rise against immigrants. So are the secular atheists proof against this?

It's starting to look like you're blaming "atheism" and "secularism" for poverty and genocide.

Seems like a pretty strong correlation to me, what do you think?