Testing the proposition that lack of religion leads to violence

[trotsky]

http://religionnews.com/2017/10/05/testing-the-proposition-that-lack-of-religion-leads-to-violence/

...Tony Perkins asserted, “It’s time to recognize that the cure for violence isn’t in Washington. It’s in the hope and the healing offered through faith in God.”

Let us subject this point of view to an empirical test by examining the relationship between state religiosity levels and murder rates.

...

Turning to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for 2016, those top six religious states rank in the top 10 when it comes to murder rate: Louisiana (1), Alabama (3), Mississippi (6), South Carolina (8), Tennessee (9), and Arkansas (10). By contrast, the four least religious states rank close to last in murder rates: New Hampshire (50), Maine (49), Massachusetts (46), and Vermont (45).

...

The point is, at the societal level the pious association of godliness with good behavior is nonsense. There’s far more evidence that gun control reduces violence than does religiosity.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. And, look at the world...

Just one of many comparisons of worldwide homicide rates shows little correspondence with religiosity...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Note that Europe, which is largely secular these days, has an overall low rate, as do Japan and China. Officially atheist Russia has a pretty high one, and Africa, the Caribbean and South America are off the charts.

Political and social instability, along with associated crime, have a lot more to do with this than religion.

[atreides1]

2. Russia isn't atheist anymore!

A law passed in 1997 naming Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism as important in Russian history. Orthodox Christianity (Russian: Православие Pravoslaviye) is Russia's traditional and largest religion, deemed a part of Russia's "historical heritage" in the law passed in 1997.

In cultural and social affairs President Vladimir Putin has collaborated closely with the Russian Orthodox Church. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, head of the Church, endorsed Putin's election in 2012. Steven Myers reports, "The church, once heavily repressed, had emerged from the Soviet collapse as one of the most respected institutions....Now Kiril led the faithful directly into an alliance with the state.&quot https://www.amazon.com/New-Tsar-Reign-Vladimir-Putin/dp/0345802799)




Mark Woods provides specific examples of how the Church under Kirill has backed the expansion of Russian power into Crimea and eastern Ukraine. More broadly the New York Times reports in September 2016 how that Church's policy prescriptions support the Kremlin's appeal to social conservatives.

(https://www.christiantoday.com/article/how.the.russian.orthodox.church.is.backing.vladimir.putins.new.world.order/81108.htm)

[trotsky]

7. That's because this article is addressing a specific claim put forth by certain religious leaders.

The claim has been sufficiently falsified.

[guillaumeb]

3. Easy access to firearms in a very violent society might be 2 causes of the violence. eom

[trotsky]

4. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the OP.

But thanks for trying.

[guillaumeb]

5. But it does.

[trotsky]

6. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

However wrong it may be.

[Mariana]

8. Why is a predominantly Christian society so very violent

in the first place?

[guillaumeb]

9. All part of the US DNA?

A society founded on slavery and genocide, and birthed in a violent revolution. A state that has literally been at war since its founding.

Who could imagine that the state level violence could translate to individual acts?

[marylandblue]

10. You are begging the question

Trotsky concluded "at the societal level the pious association of godliness with good behavior is nonsense." That our society was founded on slavery, genocide and war actually supports his conclusion since the people who founded our society were mostly Christians.

[guillaumeb]

14. Which begs the question,

which belief is more causative? Is it the exaggerated chauvinism (before the term was even coined) that the English colonists imported? Or is it the faith? Or both?

Or is violence present in every human society, making it a general human behavior?

[marylandblue]

15. Religion claims to make people better

If it does not, then it makes a false claim. That is trotsky's point.

[guillaumeb]

16. How do we measure or weigh the positives versus the negatives?

Is human aggression, for example, a net positive or a net negative?

[marylandblue]

21. I'd say aggression is a net negative

[guillaumeb]

22. But if aggression is an expression of tribalism,

a reaction to a perceive threat, would non-aggression lead to extermination of the tribe by a more aggressive tribe?

Thus making aggression a survival mechanism.

[marylandblue]

24. In today's world it does more harm than good

Tribalism also does more harm than good, even if it had survival value in the past. In any event, religion claims to transcend tribalism into universal values, yet we see tribal conflicts between different religions and sects.

[guillaumeb]

26. Perhaps showing that tribalism is so ingrained as to be universal.

[marylandblue]

29. I mean universal as in transcending bounds of state, race, etc.

Not universal as in everyone has it. And I don't even know if that is true. I think liberals, on average, are significantly less tribal than conservatives.

[guillaumeb]

30. Does DU represent an online tribe? eom

[marylandblue]

31. No.

[trotsky]

17. "at the societal level the pious association of godliness with good behavior is nonsense."

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

[guillaumeb]

19. If you rephrased it and inserted the word automatic I would agree.

As: "at the societal level the pious association of godliness with automatic good behavior is nonsense."

[trotsky]

20. So you think there is an association between godliness and general or overall good behavior? n/t

[guillaumeb]

23. I judge each individual by their individual actions.

By their actions shall you know them.

[marylandblue]

25. That was not a question of judging individual actions

but of cause and effect.

[trotsky]

32. That's not an answer to the question I asked.

As usual, your inability to address the topic is noted.

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. The sun never set on the British Empire.

The Romans ruled a third of the world's population at the point of a gladius. Japan was ruled by a warlord for much its history. The Italian states were in a state of constant war against each other from the fall of Western Empire until the mid 19th century. The Spanish destroyed entire civilizations in the New World. In France -- Jesus, where do we start with France -- the Merovingians consolidated the Frankish tribes through war, the Carolingians forged an empire through war, the Capetians established the Kingdom of France through war, defended itself from the English through war, retook continental English territories through war, fought Protestantism through war, took overseas colonies through war, overthrew its monarchy through war, spent several years relieving dissidents of their heads, established the French Empire through war, and then spent the years between 1914 and 1918 contributing to the mass slaughter of so many young men the population of Europe has yet to rebound.

Oh, and the Scandinavians were Vikings.

Practically every nation on this planet was birthed either through conflict or colonialism. Practically every nation has a history of state-sanctioned violence. The US is not unique in this regard.

[guillaumeb]

18. So violence is a human condition?

Agreed. Also common among chimp societies.

[trotsky]

33. Morality is common in chimp societies as well.

Without any trace of religion.

[guillaumeb]

36. Have you asked this of the chimps?

[trotsky]

37. Don't need to.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/health/chimpanzee-fairness-morality/index.html

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/chimps_and_bonobos_prove_that_moral_behavior_is_a_product_of_evolution/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/12/evolution-of-morality-social-humans-and-apes/418371/

You, on the other hand, have an insurmountable challenge in trying to reconcile any true notion of "morality" with the kind of god you believe in.

[guillaumeb]

38. Will you define your phrase:

true notion of "morality" in such a way that we all can agree?

And will you then define what "the kind of God you believe in" means? Is it your conception of my beliefs?

[trotsky]

39. I'd love to.

First, define your god.

Please proceed.

[guillaumeb]

40. I asked for clarification of your claim.

You made the 2 statements. It is your choice to clarify what you meant, or allow these vague claims to stand as your response.

[trotsky]

41. And I would love to give you that clarification.

Before I begin, however, I want you to clearly define the god you believe in, so you don't move the goalposts as you have in every other discussion here.

Please proceed.

[guillaumeb]

42. Already backing away from your 2 claims?

I understand. Both are impossible to justify.

[trotsky]

43. Nope!

Just waiting for you to define the god you believe in. You can squirm all you want, it only makes this more enjoyable. I do so delight in your continued humiliation.

[guillaumeb]

44. Formulaic, repetitive, and expected.

Your claims were a bit out there so I understand the need to attempt to reframe the discussion.

[trotsky]

45. Yes, we agree that's what your posts have become.

I see you've already engaged in your formulaic, repetitive, and expected behavior of starting a new thread once one starts going south for you.

But for now, could you please define your god so that I may proceed to demonstrate my claims?

I'm just waiting for you to provide me with that information, to make sure that I am accurately addressing what it is you believe. That is fair, is it not?

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. Humankind didn't come with an owner's manual. Or design notes.

I don't know what "human nature" is -- and neither do you.

[trotsky]

35. Oddly enough, he believes it came with both.

His wonderful "creator" planned everything, you know. Raises a hell of a lot more questions than it answers, of course, but for now I'm happy to see him dig a deeper hole for himself.

[Angry Dragon]

11. Perhaps part of that is that christianity is partly violent.

Look at the catholic church and the violence they have brought upon the world

[trotsky]

13. Yes, at the very least we can say that religion does not PREVENT violence or destruction.

But at its worst, it encourages and validates those things.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

27. K & R!!!

[Irish_Dem]

28. I think that historically more deaths are associated with religion.

Humans have used religion as a front for their violence, greed and control issues.