The Practical value of religion : Brazil as an example

[spidergoat]

I think that's going on in many countries, a kind of economic bullying. I don't want to overplay the role of religion and blame it for everything, it's a personal choice, but one I feel will gradually fade as other human institutions take it's place.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think that's going on in many countries, a kind of economic bullying. I don't want to overplay the role of religion and blame it for everything, it's a personal choice, but one I feel will gradually fade as other human institutions take it's place.

Actually as spiritual pursuits decrease, they are replaced by materialism and hedonism. So I disagree with you. I think as religious institutions slacken, they will be replaced by intense materialism, disregard for the environment and resources, more competitiveness for existing resources, less regard for human life and greater possibilities for war and human casualties. People will be more interested in the here and now and will place greater importance on fulfilment of immediate desires.

 

[Fire]

Actually as spiritual pursuits decrease, they are replaced by materialism and hedonism. So I disagree with you. I think as religious institutions slacken, they will be replaced by intense materialism, disregard for the environment and resources, more competitiveness for existing resources, less regard for human life and greater possibilities for war and human casualties. People will be more interested in the here and now and will place greater importance on fulfilment of immediate desires.

That's nonsense. America is an intensely religious country, yet it is all the things you mentioned whilst being spiritual. And I think the 'be here now' desire is far less dangerous than the 'be here after' notion as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims show on a daily basis by their lack of concern for peace and the environment.

 

[spidergoat]

What's wrong with materialism and hedonism? Appreciating the material world is the opposite of American life as it is now. We live in virtual worlds of TV and DVD, buy cheap plastic crap and abandon craftsmanship. Hedonism is fine, too. It's OK to enjoy yourself. Hedonism with a sense of moderation (so as to maximise pleasure) is called Epicurianism.

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 340–c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention. Following Aristippus—about whom very little is known—Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of our desires. The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life make it quite different from "hedonism" as it is commonly understood. [wiki]

 

[S.A.M.]

That's nonsense. America is an intensely religious country, yet it is all the things you mentioned whilst being spiritual. And I think the 'be here now' desire is far less dangerous than the 'be here after' notion as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims show on a daily basis by their lack of concern for peace and the environment.

The people may be religious but it is the politicians and scientists who regulate society and control the direction of politics and technology, who determine access to resources, exploitation of said resources and the direction that policy will take. And politicians and scientists are not spiritual.

 

[S.A.M.]

Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of our desires. [wiki][/I]

This is the main point here.

 

[Fire]

The people may be religious but it is the politicians and scientists who regulate society and control the direction of politics and technology, who determine access to resources, exploitation of said resources and the direction that policy will take. And politicians and scientists are not spiritual.

Politicians can not be elected in America unless they are religious. Even if the politicians are faking it, the policies they can get away with due to their religious voter base, when you look closely, are utterly disgusting by secular standards.

Science actually has no power in regulating society either, unless you're actually refering to corporate companies which give us all sorts of materialistic goodies. Scientists are emphatically not spiritual (at least in a religious/god sense), and this is the reason why science has made such progress in our understanding of the universe and ability to find legitimate answers. Politicians however, I don't know about the word 'spiritual', but most certainly, in many parts of the world are very religious.

The other day you posed an argument that if scientists were largely atheist, then how could they take part in building weapons... Well let me throw the same argument back at you: if citizens are 'spiritual', then how can they be in a class of their own with regards to materialistic greed?

 

[S.A.M.]

Politicians can not be elected in America unless they are religious. Even if the politicians are faking it, the policies they can get away with due to their religious voter base, when you look closely, are utterly disgusting by secular standards.

Science actually has no power in regulating society either, unless you're actually refering to corporate companies which give us all sorts of materialistic goodies. Scientists are emphatically not spiritual (at least in a religious/god sense), and this is the reason why science has made such progress in our understanding of the universe and ability to find legitimate answers. Politicians however, I don't know about the word 'spiritual', but most certainly, in many parts of the world are very religious.

The other day you posed an argument that if scientists were largely atheist, then how could they take part in building weapons... Well let me throw the same argument back at you: if citizens are 'spiritual', then how can they be in a class of their own with regards to materialistic greed?

1. so if the politicians are not religious, then they are using deception to come into and stay in power and then using media manipulation to retain their power. Makes them no different from any theist with ambition and corruption. So what is the advatage of atheism? (PS has there ever been an atheist in power who has not misused it?) And how can you really tell if a politician is really religious?

2. who said people are really spiritual anymore? spirituality is not synonymous with religion, even though it is mostly associated with it. Spirituality has already been replaced by materialism to a very great extent. However, if you look at those people who are still largely spiritual, like Buddhist monks or the Amish, you will notice that materialism plays a minimal role in their lives.

 

[wsionynw]

I was thinking about reasons for morality that aren't linked to religion, but thinking further, this only covers some very basic morals and would not encompass any type of say sexual morality, and of course it is lack of empathy (of recognising others as same as self) that allows such things as racism to take place.

The morals that even the most atheistic of us in the west now take pretty much for granted are founded on thousands of years of religious influnce. Religiously based morals which we have all been indoctrinated with since birth. Our morals are inextricably linked with religion and I would say it is almost impossible to disentangle what moral values come from religion, what come from rational and what are innate?

You should read Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, he covers this subject matter in some detail.

 

[wsionynw]

Actually as spiritual pursuits decrease, they are replaced by materialism and hedonism. So I disagree with you. I think as religious institutions slacken, they will be replaced by intense materialism, disregard for the environment and resources, more competitiveness for existing resources, less regard for human life and greater possibilities for war and human casualties. People will be more interested in the here and now and will place greater importance on fulfilment of immediate desires.

With respect Sam, I don't see any evidence to support your claims. Here in the UK the more secular and wealthy we are becoming, the more we seem to care about social issues, the environment, protection of endangered species, climate control, poverty, etc.

 

[wsionynw]

The people may be religious but it is the politicians and scientists who regulate society and control the direction of politics and technology, who determine access to resources, exploitation of said resources and the direction that policy will take. And politicians and scientists are not spiritual.

You forgot to mention the economic heavyweights, such as big business, the world bank, etc.
Don't forget that politicians use religion to control the masses, make them think they way they want them to think. In this sense religion is a tool that people would be better off without.

 

[S.A.M.]

You forgot to mention the economic heavyweights, such as big business, the world bank, etc.
Don't forget that politicians use religion to control the masses, make them think they way they want them to think. In this sense religion is a tool that people would be better off without.

You assume that religion is the only tool.

Fear is the new religion, weapons the new tool and both of them are directed by technology, fear through the media and weapons through science.

 

[S.A.M.]

With respect Sam, I don't see any evidence to support your claims. Here in the UK the more secular and wealthy we are becoming, the more we seem to care about social issues, the environment, protection of endangered species, climate control, poverty, etc.

They still sell substantial weapons to third world countries and have corporations installed in countries where you give aid. The UK also contributes to the increase in Third World Debt.

Top 8 arms exporters in 2004

Country Current US dollars
United States $18,500,000,000
Russia $4,600,000,000
France $4,400,000,000
United Kingdom $1,900,000,000
Germany $900,000,000
Canada $900,000,000
China $700,000,000
Israel $500,000,000

Sunday June 12, 2005
British arms sales to Africa have risen to record levels over the last four years and have reached the £1 billion mark, The Observer can reveal.

Analysis of official figures shows annual weapons sales almost quadrupled between 1999 and 2004.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1504698,00.html

They support autocratic regimes.

More than a quarter of the government's arms sales machine is dedicated to selling to a single regime, Saudi Arabia.

A Ministry of Defence publication circulated to defence firms and obtained by the Guardian shows the extent of Saudi dependence on Britain to run its air force.

According to the document, no fewer than 161 of the department's 600 officials work for the "Saudi Armed Forces Project".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,10674,1433250,00.html

2006 marks the fortieth anniversary of DESO, the agency which is responsible for encouraging and supporting UK companies to export arms and military equipment.

DESO admits that it takes what it calls “a pro-active rather than reactive approach” to the promotion of UK arms and military equipment overseas and it is this push of arms that the campaign seeks to end.

A confidential DESO report, released last week under the Freedom of Information Act, reveals that Iraq and Libya are now 'priority' markets for DESO’s arms push, as are Colombia and Kazakhstan, both criticised for human rights violations.

They use Third World debts for profit.

Lloyds, Midland and Barclays have all made substantial profits from selling, exchanging and making provision for Third World debts.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/ExternalArticles/impact.asp#BritishBanks

British aid money is being used to push water privatisation on poor countries. As poor people lose out on clean water, big UK companies profit from this aid.

http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaigns/aid/index.htm

"Companies must not be allowed to use the bread baskets of Zimbabwe's communities as their playgrounds."
Ebbie Dengu, Intermediate Technology Group, Zimbabwe
Why WDM campaigned on GMOs

"As we see it, the GM revolution is part of a process which pushes our farmers off their land and into plantation labour or unemployment, destroys the local environment and leaves us growing asparagus for export rather than food for our people. Corporations justify GMOs as the solution to world hunger, but these products are dictated by profit making not by farmers' needs or poor nations."
Neth Dano, SEARICE, Philippines

Consumers and environmentalists across Europe have taken up the campaign against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). This has received much attention and we are winning change. Yet these victories must also take into account the threat that GMOs pose to some of the world's most poor and vulnerable. GMOs currently being developed by some of the world's largest multinationals could have a devastating impact on farmers' livelihoods in some of the world's poorest countries.

http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaigns/GMOs.htm

And destabilise Third World economy

Britain uses export credits to subsidise arms sales to the South. 96 per cent of the debts owed to Britain by poor countries are owed to the Export Credit Department of the DTI. Many Third World countries have become deeply indebted because of high military spending. And as wars escalate, they are less able to repay the money they owe.

Debt can also lead to and contribute to war. As countries become poorer because of their debts, one route that people take is violence and protest. As this escalates, it can end in war - and does in many countries of the Third World. As the debt crisis broke in the early 1980s, violence in many indebted countries around the Third World erupted into war or escalated dramatically.

Trade justice, not free trade
Our key demands for 2006

1. Stop EPAs and change the negotiating mandate

The UK Government must ensure that the EU drops its demand for reciprocal trade liberalisation and new rules on competition policy, investment and public procurement in its new Partnership Agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.

2. Let poor countries decide their own trade policies

The UK Government should stop the IMF and World Bank imposing trade conditions on poor countries.

3. Water supply should not be covered by international trade rules

The UK Government should insist that the EU withdraw its demand that water is included in GATS.

4. Governments must be free to regulate investment in order to benefit development and the environment

The UK Government should oppose any restrictions on the ability of governments to regulate foreign investment in accordance with their development and environmental needs.

http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaigns/trade/trade1.htm

Secularism is a myth, corruption the reality

Promoting peace is for wimps - real governments sell weapons

Labour seems to see the escalating dangers in the Middle East as little more than an opportunity for business

George Monbiot
Thursday August 24, 2006
The Guardian

It's described by a senior official at the Ministry of Defence as "a dead duck ... expensive and obsolete". The editor of World Defence Systems calls it "10 years out of date". A former defence minister remarked that it is "essentially flawed and out of date". So how on earth did BAE Systems manage to sell 72 Eurofighters to Saudi Arabia on Friday?

One answer is that it had some eminent salesmen. On July 2 2005, Tony Blair secretly landed in Riyadh to persuade the Saudi princes that this flying scrapheap was the must-have accessory for every fashionable young despot. Three weeks later the defence secretary John Reid turned up to deploy his subtle charms. Somehow the deal survived, and last week his successor, Des Browne, signed the agreement. All of which raises a second question. Why are government ministers, even Blair himself, prepared to reduce themselves to hawkers on behalf of arms merchants?

Readers of this column will know that British governments are not averse to helping big business, even when this conflicts with their stated policies. But the support they offer the defence industry goes far beyond the assistance they provide to anyone else.

BAE's previous deals with Saudi Arabia are surrounded by allegations of corruption. It is alleged to have run a £60m "slush fund" to oil the Al Yamamah contracts brokered by Margaret Thatcher. The fund is said to have been used to provide cash, cars, yachts, hotel rooms and prostitutes to Saudi officials. One of the alleged beneficiaries was Prince Turki bin Nasser, the Saudi minister for arms procurement. The Serious Fraud Office was bounced by the Guardian's revelations into opening an investigation. But among the conditions the Saudi government laid down for the new deal is that the investigation is dropped. Let's see what happens.

With this exception, the big arms companies appear to have been granted immunity from inquiry or prosecution.

Should we be surprised that, as the Times revealed on Monday, Israeli soldiers have found night-vision equipment made by a British company in Hizbullah bunkers? Should we be surprised that despite a government commitment to sell Israel "no weapons, equipment or components which could be deployed aggressively in the occupied territories", British companies have been supplying parts for its Apache helicopters and F-16 bombers? The government seems to see the escalating dangers in the Middle East as nothing but an opportunity for business.

Perhaps most damning is this. Blair claims that Britain's security comes first. Yet one of the means by which his government managed to secure this deal was to speed it up. How? The Sunday Times reports that "the first 24 planes for the Saudis will be those at present allotted to the Royal Air Force, with the RAF postponing its deliveries until later in the production run". In other words, the Saudis' perceived need for fighter planes takes precedence over our own.

A report by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) shows that 39% of all the senior public servants who go to work for the private sector are employees of the Ministry of Defence moving into arms firms. In return, scores of arms dealers are seconded to the ministry. The man who runs DESO, for example, previously worked for BAE, selling arms in the Middle East.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1856915,00.html


The church is actually trying to help.

Thirty UK Church leaders have signed a statement calling for the closure of the government arms sales unit, the Defence Export Service Organisation (DESO).

Two Presidents, fourteen Bishops and a Nobel Prize winner are among the leading church figures from the Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Roman Catholic and United Reformed Church who have joined the Fellowship of Reconciliation’s ‘Stop Living by the Sword’ Campaign.
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_06102deso.shtml

More:
http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaigns/past/index.htm


Environment:

The UK is currently 15th in the Top 20 consuming nations of the world, and if everyone had an impact – a "footprint" – as big as the average person's in the UK, we would need three planets to support us.

 

[wsionynw]

Sam, my point was not to do with the current goverment and it's foreign policy, I was stating that the the current trend in the UK is not being directed by religion but towards making the world a better place for our present and future generations. The government is becoming increasingly unpopular, especialy our Prime Minister (who has been criticised for defending his actions in respect to the war in Iraq by claiming that God will judge him, not the people). The Conservative opposition are trying to promote their environmental policies as much if not more than any other issues.
You still haven't supported your claim yet.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam, my point was not to do with the current goverment and it's foreign policy, I was stating that the the current trend in the UK is not being directed by religion but towards making the world a better place for our present and future generations. The government is becoming increasingly unpopular, especialy our Prime Minister (who has been criticised for defending his actions in respect to the war in Iraq by claiming that God will judge him, not the people). The Conservative opposition are trying to promote their environmental policies as much if not more than any other issues.
You still haven't supported your claim yet.

But the people enjoy a certain lifestyle through these policies. Are they still willing to make the world a better place if it means sacrificing this lifestyle?

And the politicians will claim whatever it takes to come into power, they may even pass a few bills to support that claim, but the arms trade has been denounced since the 80s and is still in full swing (see the latest of the news reports).

If prices increase, will people still feel the same way? Will they be willing to sacrifice material comfort and pleasure for the betterment of future generations?

I cannot prove that.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Practical value of religion:

In Finland they provide cheap day clubs for kids. And they often organize meetings for mothers and children with free 'pulla' (sweet bread). No need to be religious to eat the pulla. God didn't curse them for atheists.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Actually as spiritual pursuits decrease, they are replaced by materialism and hedonism. So I disagree with you. I think as religious institutions slacken, they will be replaced by intense materialism, disregard for the environment and resources, more competitiveness for existing resources, less regard for human life and greater possibilities for war and human casualties. People will be more interested in the here and now and will place greater importance on fulfilment of immediate desires.

Typical fear reaction. Preachers always say stuff like this...but did you know that the Roman Catholic Church has lost USD 1.5 Billion in sexual misconduct lawsuits (admittedly over a number of decades, but can the same be said of say...Playboy?). And let's not even go into materialism...a la Benny Hinn.

Side note: by strict definition, there's nothing wrong with hedonism. It is mis-defined by the religious Reich to nurture the same fear response.

(Keep in mind before you fire up your keyboard with the difference between spirituality and religion, you actually used them interchangeably here by associating spiriualism with religious institutions).

Bottom line: humans are always concerned with the betterment and indulgence of self. This is not solely an athiest trait. It is a human trait, regardless of beliefs (and granting the ever present and very minor exception to the rule).

 

[falcon22]

What about practical value of religion in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, South Africa, and Mexico? Would you say it's practical there? If you do some research, you'll be horrified to find out that religion actually severely damages these countries when it comes wo women's rights, birth control, AIDS issue, homelessness and poverty, and medical treatments. REligion may have value in a country, but in most cases, it's only damaging.