Here is a really interesting article regaurding social health and some of the factors that go into it. Maybe you agree with it maybe you dont but it make some very good points.

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Very interesting article. I would like to comment and/or respond to some of the comments made in the article.


This is a very interesting point. I am not sure if this is entirely true, but if it is, then it would show how communites that believe they have a tight fist with religion really don't.



However, moving on to another point I am not so sure what crime rate and secularism has to do with a society. I understand that an efficient society can be secular or non-secular.

This is very interesting considering that in the movie Syriana the men that ultimately do the final scene of blowing up the petrol ship were being told that 'questioning' ones faith is indeed a sign that you do have faith. So, if one were reading the bible and began wondering and/or questioning some of the things they read then they would have more faith wonder if that is what they are being told.

Yes, I have to say on many things I agree. I even imagine that one day I might writhe a novel perhaps related to this subject.

Well this is actually true.
The twisted thing is that the less belivers/agnostics and atheist are influenced by what is called judeo-cristian values.
They can be even more atached to them, respect them, and reinforce them (far) more than narrow minded fanatics.


Even atheists have faith. There is always something to have faith in, wheter it's an omnipotent divinity or something else.

Here is a link to the actual report if you guys would like to read it.

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

There might be a correlation between 'religion' and crime and teenage pregnancy, but correlation doesn't mean causation.

Minor but oh-so-important point.

The rest of the article is the guy's speculation. Take this, for example:
Well, I suppose that the first sentence might be plausible. It goes downhill from there. The second sentence contains the qualifier, "for many". The rest is just anything he wants it to be, really.

How do people who are "chosen" or otherwise have diminished respect for others? From my own beliefs, that should not be the case. Even if it is so, how is that any different for the all-too-evident diminished respect this guy has for people whose beliefs are different from his own - "they lose their intellectual curiosity and their ability to reason"? Surely that is a lack of respect for those who have religion.

I suppose that, if he's talking about Christians, then sure, the priority isn't so much this world, which will be temporary. However, God tells us to go out and make him known throughout the world, and to love others. I guess that groups of any sort, social or religious do tend to become inward-looking, but that's more 'how it is' rather than 'the way God wants it'.

Lastly, why is the columnist talking about it as though Christianity is the only religion out there?

Seems to me like the guy has a bone to pick. A supersized one.

Good points. If we're all monkeys, why should I not kill other people? Why should I not eat them? Where's the reasoning behind that? Will society boil down to "might makes right" - the only reason why you should not kill others is that the government says not to, and that they have the power to imprison you if you do?

Yep, even atheists have beliefs of some sort, even if it's only the belief that there isn't a God. There's no "proof" either way. I suppose that's why they're called beliefs.

One more thing - why are many people so adamant that people with religion shouldn't be allowed to participate in government or public affairs and public commentary? That "there is no God" is a religious view in itself, in terms of category. Furthermore, even if not, then people with religion still count as citizens and should be accorded every right that any other citizen has, including the ability to speak in public, be a president or be a judge.

uh Ha! I see Hobbes and Locke sneaking into this thread to say a word or two about the 'state of nature' and 'the law of nature.' How interesting to see what this is eh?

Snake you have provided very valid point in reference to the article.

Well, on the most basic level it's because it is possible to achieve more in a group than on your own. Even monkeys "know" that.

Of course not. It is easy to turn that statement around and say that the only reason religious people don't commit crimes is because they believe that if they do, they'll end up in hell. Morals, ethics and values (or lack thereof) are not religion-dependent per se.

All people should be allowed to participate, but one religion should not be able to rule over others and religious freedom should be guaranteed, and one's religious values should never be imposed on others. Legislation, therefore, should (IMO) never be based on religious dogma but on common sense.

MikeJ this is very true and very well said.