EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The False Equation: Religion Equals Morality
In the United States, where it is almost impossible to get elected unless you profess a strong religious faith, it would have passed completely unnoticed. Not one of the hundred US senators ticks the "No Religion/Atheist/Agnostic" box, for example, although 16 percent of the American population do. But it was quite remarkable in Britain.
Last Friday, UK Prime Minister David Cameron urged the Church of England to lead a revival of traditional Christian values to counter the country’s “moral collapse”.Last Friday, in Oxford, Prime Minister David Cameron declared that the United Kingdom is a Christian country “and we should not be afraid to say so.” He was speaking on the 400th anniversary of the King James translation of the Bible, so he had to say something positive about religion – but he went far beyond that.
“The Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today,” he said. “Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend.”
Where to start? The King James Bible was published at the start of a century in which millions of Europeans were killed in religious wars over minor differences of doctrine. Thousands of “witches” were burned at the stake during the 16th century, as were thousands of “heretics”. They have stopped doing that sort of thing in Britain now – but they’ve also stopped reading the Bible. Might there be a connection here?
Besides, what Cameron said is just not true. In last year’s British Social Attitudes Survey, conducted annually by the National Center for Social Research, only 43 percent of 4,000 British people interviewed said they were Christian, while 51 percent said they had “no religion.” Among young people, some two-thirds are non-believers.
Mind you, the official census numbers from 2001 say that 73 percent of British people identify themselves as “Christian”. However, this is probably due to a leading question on the census form. “What is your religion?” it asks, which seems to assume that you must have one – especially since it follows a section on ethnic origins, and we all have those.
So a lot of people put down Christian just because that is the ancestral religion of their family. Make the question more neutral – “Are you religious? If so, what is your religion?” –and the result would probably be very different. There were attempts to get that more neutral question onto the 2011 census form, but the churches lobbied frantically against it. They are feeling marginalized enough as it is.
Why would David Cameron proclaim the virtues of a Christian Britain that no longer exists? He is no religious fanatic; he describes himself as a “committed” but only “vaguely practicing” Christian.
You’d think that if he really believed in a God who scrutinizes his every thought and deed, and will condemn him to eternal torture in Hell if he doesn’t meet the standard of behavior required, he might be a little less vague about it all. But he doesn’t really believe that he needs religion HIMSELF; he thinks it is a necessary instrument of social control for keeping the lower orders in check.
This is a common belief among those who rule, because they confuse morality with religion. If the common folk do not fear some god (any old god will do), social discipline will collapse and the streets will run with blood. Our homes, our children, even our domestic animals will be violated. Thank god for God.
Just listen to Cameron: “The alternative of moral neutrality should not be an option. You can’t fight something with nothing. If we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything.” The “alternative of moral neutrality”? What he means is that there cannot be moral behavior without religion – so you proles had better go on believing, or we privileged people will be in trouble.
But Cameron already lives in a post-religious country. Half its people say outright that they have no religion, two-thirds of them never attend a religious service, and a mere 8 percent go to church, mosque, synagogue or temple on a weekly basis. Yet the streets are not running with blood.
Indeed, religion may actually be bad for morality. In 2005 Paul Gregory made the case for this in a research paper in the Journal of Religion and Society entitled “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look.”
Sociological gobbledygook, but in a statistical survey of 18 developed democracies, Gregory showed that “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, (venereal disease), teen pregnancy, and abortion.”
Even within the United States, Gregory reported, “the strongly theistic, anti-evolution South and Midwest" have markedly worse crime rates and social problems than the relatively secular North-East. Of course, the deeply religious areas are also poorer, so it might just be poverty making people behave so badly. On the other hand, maybe religion causes poverty.
Whatever. The point is that David Cameron, and thousands of other politicians, religious leaders and generals in every country, are effectively saying that my children, and those of all the other millions who have no religion, are morally inferior to those who do. It is insulting and untrue.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
117 Comments so far
Show AllOrganized religions are no different than governments.
They both have self serving agendas.
Reminds me of the old Chestnuts.
Are you a Christian?
No. I'm Church of England
Church of England
Tory party at Prayer
Its high time someone tackled this issue. Thank you Mr Dyer.
In my opinion, a person who refrains from stealing because that person believes stealing to be wrong is morally superior to the person who refrains from stealing because they fear punishment from God.
That's it in a nutshell. I don't steal because I don't want people stealing frrom me. I don't fool around with married women because I wouldn't want someone else fooling around with my wife. Etc., etc. What goes around, comes around. It's a universal cosmic law with no basis in religion.
Christianity may have led to conflict, but I think social chaos and conflict is the natural result of disagreements over beliefs and values, meaning that the lack of universally held beliefs and values almost inevitably leads to conflict sooner or later (as the groups with different values and beliefs come into conflict over disagreements based on the differences). Christianity did provide a common set of beliefs and values, but they were never universal, due to the limitations provided by the arbitrariness of those beliefs and values, and now it is pretty much obsolete, as it appears almost comical with its simplistic and obviously flawed models of reality.
I believe that, if we are to survive, we need a successor to Christian and other religion-based systems that must assert values and beliefs that promote the general welfare of all human beings on the planet and the protection of the environment for future generations, i.e., be some version of secular humanism that has the potential for obtaining virtually universal agreement.
Christianity false doctrine of unhealthy shame creates the sociopaths and or psychopaths that compromise the government, religulous, business leaders of this country. They are free to be criminals without fear of prosecutions by the sociopath/psychopath government. Instead these criminals are funded by the the USG by the forced contributions, withholding taxes, collected by the government and transferred to the criminals banksters. All of the withholding taxes are used to pay the interest of COUNTERFEIT DEBT created by the private banksters and their Federal Reserve, itself owned by private banksters, that created the COUNTERFEIT DEBT. I refer those interested to Max Keiser.com and his links about the history of this DEBT.The forced contributions also fund the $billions in bribery that the politicians collect by the banksters. Ironically, it is those whom protest against the criminals are arrested for protesting and not 1 bankster has been charged with the crimes, fraud, bribery, even murder as in the case of a Southern company employee who was going to spill the beans about the fraud that Southern was committing, charging its customers for its nuclear energy equipment ,which didn't texist, government funded program. He was flying to testify about the fraud but his airplane crashed shortly after take off.He died.
"Christianity may have led to conflict, but I think social chaos and conflict is the natural result of disagreements over beliefs and values, meaning that the lack of universally held beliefs and values almost inevitably leads to conflict sooner or later (as the groups with different values and beliefs come into conflict over disagreements based on the differences). Christianity did provide a common set of beliefs and values, but they were never universal, due to the limitations provided by the arbitrariness of those beliefs and values, and now it is pretty much obsolete, as it appears almost comical with its simplistic and obviously flawed models of reality. "
Nope.
The problem with your anaylsis isn't Christianity, the problem is your belief that somehow some universal system of beliefs and values is possible.
Unless you keep those beliefs and values extremely extremely basic, they aren't going to be universal. And since they are so basic, they will not be able to deal with many situations.
In fact, I would argue that it is this desire for some universal beliefs, that is one cause of conflicts.
What is needed is tolerance, not some mad desire for universal beliefs.
"I believe that, if we are to survive, we need a successor to Christian and other religion-based systems that must assert values and beliefs that promote the general welfare of all human beings on the planet and the protection of the environment for future generations, i.e., be some version of secular humanism that has the potential for obtaining virtually universal agreement."
You have just demonstrated the problem here. You want secular humanism, no doubt because you are a secular humanist. Now how do you convince people who are not secular humanists to agree with you? Note, your goal is to avoid conflict and chaos.
I have reached the opposite conclusion. The value of tolerance is the illusion of the age. Tolerance only works for beliefs that are unimportant to the believer. A person of race X is not likely to tolerate beliefs by persons of race Y that race Y is superior, particularly when those beliefs are taught to Y's children, or even taught in schools in Y communities. Just as a person of gender A is not likely to tolerate beliefs by B's that B is superior, and vice versa.
The differences will lead to different choices that will cause inevitable conflict. The plutocrat may believe that a desirable outcome is a society composed of a small percentage of the extremely wealthy and a large percentage of the very poor. Hell, I'll bet that some plutocrats want to bring back slavery (it could even be voluntary slavery, where adults sell themselves to avoid living on the street). Many of the non-plutocrats will have different values that will lead them to decide not to tolerate the plutocrat, leading to likely violence (given that the plutocrat, from all we've seen, is not likely to give up without that sort of fight).
For years, the plutocrats have been telling us to be tolerant of others' religions and ways of life, including their personal lives and sexual behavior, but they have never told us to be tolerant of leftist political beliefs. The plutocrat from the Christian country tolerates non-Christian beliefs because the plutocrat does not really give a flying fig about Christianity. But the plutocrat does not so easily tolerate beliefs in communism or egalitarianism, as those are perceived as threats to what the plutocrat holds dear.
There are inevitably going to be conflicts as people come together and form larger and larger groups, with more and more shared interests and yet fewer resources that could spur competition. In order to avoid cataclysmic conflict, they need to develop a common philosophy, including common beliefs and values, as they merge together into one people. There will be bumps in the road on that path, and, from what we have seen in the past century, one of those bumps will quite possibly be fatal for the species. I do not think that believing in the tolerance fairy is going to avoid those bumps, though it may make some feel better, as a sort of opiate, as they wish away the problem.
Would this suggest, afterall, a need for many nations, to allow the existance of many cultural differences?
People are not going to be convinced to tolerate different beliefs and values that they find threatening, though it is often possible to convince people that certain beliefs and values are non-threatening in that they do not tend to create an unsatisfactory outcome. The existence of different nations that cannot dominate each other can make the beliefs/values of those in other nations appear non-threatening, and I think that creating such a system could be an important step in the movement toward a world society. Over time, people in each nation could see how well the other nations' belief/value systems work out for them, and so they could come to see the other values/beliefs as non-threatening even if the barrier of the national border were removed.
The reason they find those beliefs and values threatening is that they believe their owne beliefs are definitely superior, and should be imposed on others. IE, a desire for universal beliefs.
"I have reached the opposite conclusion. The value of tolerance is the illusion of the age. Tolerance only works for beliefs that are unimportant to the believer. A person of race X is not likely to tolerate beliefs by persons of race Y that race Y is superior, particularly when those beliefs are taught to Y's children, or even taught in schools in Y communities. Just as a person of gender A is not likely to tolerate beliefs by B's that B is superior, and vice versa. "
No wrong. It isn't that tolerance only works for beliefs that are unimportant to the believer. It is that the alternatives to tolerance, to tolerating views that one might not like, is often much much worse: in a society where the various disagreeing groups are of about equal size, intolerance leads to civil war. In a society where the the various disagreeing groups are not of about equal size, where one group is much larger / much more powerful, intolerance leads to pogroms, to genocide. You don't even have to think all that hard for examples of either situation.
Tolerance is desireable, not because you love everyone else. Tolerance is desireable because the alternatives are so much worse.
"A person of race X is not likely to tolerate beliefs by persons of race Y that race Y is superior, particularly when those beliefs are taught to Y's children, or even taught in schools in Y communities. Just as a person of gender A is not likely to tolerate beliefs by B's that B is superior, and vice versa. "
No. Or rather when race X does not tolerate race Y, etc, the result is inevitable violence. When race X tolerates race Y etc, even if not terribly happily, they function together in society. They might not love each other, but they do not go around killing each other either.
"The differences will lead to different choices that will cause inevitable conflict. "
What causes inevitable conflict, is the belief that your choice is not only superior, but that you get to impose that choice on someone else at all costs, ie, the desire for some universal belief.
"The plutocrat may believe that a desirable outcome is a society composed of a small percentage of the extremely wealthy and a large percentage of the very poor. Hell, I'll bet that some plutocrats want to bring back slavery (it could even be voluntary slavery, where adults sell themselves to avoid living on the street). Many of the non-plutocrats will have different values that will lead them to decide not to tolerate the plutocrat, leading to likely violence (given that the plutocrat, from all we've seen, is not likely to give up without that sort of fight)."
But this is the point. The plutocrat might not like everyone else, equally everyone else might not like the plutocrat. BUT. There is tolerance. Everyone who lives in a society makes some compromises, otherwise the society will break down. The plutocrat doesn't get everything his way, everyone else does not get everything their way (how much the plutocrat gets, and how much everyone gets depends on various different societies obviously). You might argue that this allows the existence of the plutocrat. Sure. That is inevitable in any human society. If you want universal values, you will have to wipe out, eliminate, kill, anyone who doesn't agree with you. Good luck getting everyone to do so, even if you have no qualms about killing off vast numbers of people.
"For years, the plutocrats have been telling us to be tolerant of others' religions and ways of life, including their personal lives and sexual behavior, but they have never told us to be tolerant of leftist political beliefs."
WTF are you talking about? Who are these plutocrats telling "us" to be tolerant of others' religions and ways of life etc?
And who is "us"?
"The plutocrat from the Christian country tolerates non-Christian beliefs because the plutocrat does not really give a flying fig about Christianity. "
So what?
"But the plutocrat does not so easily tolerate beliefs in communism or egalitarianism, as those are perceived as threats to what the plutocrat holds dear. "
Yes. So what?
"There are inevitably going to be conflicts as people come together and form larger and larger groups, with more and more shared interests and yet fewer resources that could spur competition"
Well yes. That's my point. Conflicts are inevitable. No amount of wanting some universal belief will eliminate that.
"In order to avoid cataclysmic conflict, they need to develop a common philosophy, including common beliefs and values, as they merge together into one people. "
And how do you propose to do this? Wipe out those who do not agree with you?
"There will be bumps in the road on that path, a"
Bumps such as wiping out people who do not agree with you?
"I do not think that believing in the tolerance fairy is going to avoid those bumps, though it may make some feel better, as a sort of opiate, as they wish away the problem."
Equally, I do not think that believing in the my beliefs are correct, always correct fairy is going to avoid those bumps, though it may make some feel better, as a sort of opiate, as they pretend that their solution does not lead to wiping out people who do not agree with them.
Isn't the degree to which people have tolerated plutocracy and plutocrats part of the problem, though?
Well sure. But that is an argument about the degree of tolerance, not against the very concept itself. Or rather, if you are arguing for complete intolerance, then, let's not beat around the bush: you are arguing for the wiping out that someone you do not tolerate. But surely that is desireable, the wiping out of plutocrats, you say? Sure. And what if someone else says that anyone who is more wealthy than that someone should be wiped out?
The value of Tolerance, is NOT an illusion, of this age or any other, as it is a synonym for Respect. Granted, "this age" has lost the ability to even respect itself; an age of lies and illusions from TV/MSM, Government, 9/11, Wars on ghosts....all brought to you by INTOLERANCE; the only thing which must NEVER be tolerated.
I see kivals point because if often seems as if intolerance (of leftist political thought, of movements towards equality, of differences between people) is the only thing that really is tolerated.
The degree to which leftists-and only leftists-have embraced 'turn the other cheek' based upon religious morality is one of the factors that has essentially hobbled leftism.
So what you are saying is that leftists are incapable of tolerance. How very intolerant of you.
Actually, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I somewhat suspect that you're deliberately misinterpreting me, but I'll see if that's true or not from your next response.
What I'm saying instead is that leftists (or to be more specific, a particular variant of leftism which has been dominant in the United States for quite some time) are tolerant-but the tolerance that they espouse really only works as a strategy for meaningful change if the other side possesses a commitment to tolerance as well-which it doesn't. In this way the tolerance supported by this variety of leftism has become a liability.
"I see kivals point because if often seems as if intolerance (of leftist political thought, of movements towards equality, of differences between people) is the only thing that really is tolerated."
So what?
"The degree to which leftists-and only leftists-have embraced 'turn the other cheek' based upon religious morality is one of the factors that has essentially hobbled leftism."
No, it has got nothing to do with "turn the other cheek". It is being realistic to realise that a society that completely discards tolerance breaks down, into violence and war. Tolerance, at least to a certain degree, is desireable, because the alternative is much worse.
""I see kivals point because if often seems as if intolerance (of leftist political thought, of movements towards equality, of differences between people) is the only thing that really is tolerated."
So what?"
So maybe it's time (or long overdue) to stop tolerating this kind of intolerance.
""The degree to which leftists-and only leftists-have embraced 'turn the other cheek' based upon religious morality is one of the factors that has essentially hobbled leftism."
No, it has got nothing to do with "turn the other cheek". It is being realistic to realise that a society that completely discards tolerance breaks down, into violence and war. Tolerance, at least to a certain degree, is desireable, because the alternative is much worse.""
As compared to the wonderfully peaceful society the United States has been?
I'm being quite facetious.
"The problem with your anaylsis isn't Christianity, the problem is your belief that somehow some universal system of beliefs and values is possible. "
Or desirable. Should we all be uniform robots?
I agree with your conclusion, Kivals, and respect you fairness and intelligence. However, you have never really taken the patriarchal configuration of society and its roots into consideration. I wonder if you ever read Hedges' book, "American Fascists," as I once recommended. Now I'd ask that you at least consider reading, "The Chalice and the Blade." So much that passes for history has left out significant passages about social orders that predated the invasions by warring tribes. They drew up an image of God in their own likeness. Last night I was reading a chapter in this book that explained how the Old Testament (in several passages) validated rape. This material, dressed up as "The word of God," is about as Divine as the reasons powerful men make for going to war today.
I sense that you are open to knowledge. So if you venture out of your "comfort zone" to take in the data revealed by this book, I believe it would alter your views... profoundly.
I will check Half-Price books for "The Chalice and the Blade" the next time I am there, but I can't guarantee that I will find it or read it. I know you are a very knowledgable and thoughtful person, and so I will take a look.
Generally, I try not to get caught up in what divides us all because we so desperately need to find common ground and solidarity. I see our society spinning apart and the most powerful and predatory devouring the pieces.
Thank you, Kivals. The truth about the direction the modern world has taken in its embrace (these days led by the U.S.) of endlessly dangerous armaments is ROOTED in theology. These beliefs form the foundation of Western society; so it's important for thinking men to understand that something fundamental to a balanced society (and social order) has gone missing. This gap goes WAY beyond divisive "identity" politics. And in any case, you have a fine mind and honed deductive powers; so I'd be quite interested in your views regarding the radical insights revealed in Eisler's book. I can look for a copy for you? It's been my experience that when I really wanted (or needed) to read a specific book, it appeared to me.
The most recent experience took place earlier this year when I was flying to California in March. I took "Daybreak" along for the plane ride as I hadn't read it since my Key West days (l990's). In any case, Mary Summer Rain (its author) kept referencing her early work, "Phoenix Rising," so I put it in my mind that IF I could find this great used bookstore in San Luis Obispo, I would likely find that book there.
When I got to San Luis, I parked near a Mexican restaurant about a mile from the heart of the town. I began walking, and came to the court house and asked a nicely dressed (from India) Indian man if he knew of a used bookstore. He took out a fancy cell phone and popped in some data and there was the map. I was practically across the street from the place, but didn't recognize the area as I hadn't been there in years. The name of that bookstore happens to be "PHOENIX" and I kid you not, when I walked towards the Esoteric section, the intended book was waiting for me. I bought about 10 books and had to lug them that mile or so back to the rental car.
I have the same experience with a really neat, independently owned used bookstore in a quaint little town called Micanopy. It's 10 miles south of Gainesville and the University of Florida. I like to give copies of Kahlil Gibran's, "The Prophet" as gifts, and whenever I go there, there's always a copy waiting for me.
There's another neat story centered on a used bookstore in Key West, and how my maiden voyage there yielded a retired astrologer's private collection of books. (The astrologer was from the town I grew up on in Long Island, too!)
No such thing as a coincidence, my friend. Happy holidays to you & your family. If you want the book to show up in your path, it will...
Talking about coincidences, we will be taking a vacation in California over the holidays and are planning on driving through San Luis Obispo. I will keep an eye out for that bookstore, though I can't promise I can convince my wife that we should spend a lot of time on that pursuit.
And I really will check the used book stores in Austin (and maybe in S.L. Obispo) for that book. You don't need to locate one, but thanks for the offer.
Happy Holidays to you too!
Don't forget public libraries.
Very sensible, kivals. But there is a problem, a major one, with American secular humanism. Few Americans have been aware of the incredible potential that American secular (and religious) humanism has had to offer to end the horror of blind faith. But the problem is that both Center for Inquiry (secular humanism) and the American Humanist Association have blown the opportunity. Instead of vigorously and consistently promoting the humanist values of compassion and ethical responsibility, they have wasted time and opportunity by squabbling over the definition of humanism and have become hostile or indifferent to each other. Also, both have failed to expose the evil of American militarism because both have tried to be politically correct in order to attract as many members and subscribers to their publications as possible. In other words, both have become corporate entities for which profit are more important than moral responsibility. You are right: "some version of secular humanism" may do the job. But I don't think that either CfI or AHA can do it.
You are probably right about that.
"Religion is the tool of tyrants in both home and presidential palace; its mission is to break people's spirits."
"Religion is the right arm of domestic and national despots, its mission is to domesticate; through the caress or the whip, cage or the noose, it's all employed toward one end: to tame. First the woman, because the woman is the mother and teacher of the child, and the child will be the man."-from Regenaracion by Paraxedis Gilberto Guerrero Hurtado, Mexican journalist and insurgent leader during the 1910 Revolution
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."-from The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine
Wonderfully cogent essay by Mr. Dyer -- who brings illumination to all sorts of political & moral chicanery.
Let us not forget that it was the two allegedly sincere Bible Thumpers -- Bush & Blair -- who teamed up to lie, destroy, and slaughter their way through Iraq --killing at a minimum hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in an attempt to get their blood-stained mitts on the oil pipelines.
The most dangerous rogue is typically the one on a "mission from god" as there appears to be no shutoff valve in their delusional bloodlust.
The most basic and useful ethical principle is -- Treat other people as you would like to be treated. (The Golden Rule)
Medicine has a useful principle going back to the Greeks (rarely practiced), which is summarized: 'Physician, first do no harm.'
We desperately need an ethical maxim such as -- Treat the earth and its living creatures as coequal with humanity.
Or we will soon be scrounging like vermin on a blasted, blighted slag heap of a planet.
The corporations (soulless psychopathic machines fixated on maximum profits) and the churches (with their beady eyes trained on an imaginary 'sky father' & afterlife) are turning the world into a wasteland.
Conservatives are desperately and falsely trying to restore the social order they themselves destroyed by forsaking social responsibility. They don't have much to offer except the heavy hand of faith. Using religion as your only recourse to holding society together is a recipe for theocratic disaster.
"ceti"
The accumulation and restriction of Money is their religion. It is their idea of real grace.
CETI: Very well said!
Western society IS a religion whose one true god is Mammon and whose professed morality, whether nominally "Christian" or otherwise, is a purely hypocritical facade. In fact, it's a heavily armed, evangelical religion that tolerates no other faith anywhere. Heresy, whether within its own church or outside it, is punishable by indefinite detention, torture and death.
Everybody expects the American Inquisition -- or should. No comfy pillow treatments for you. It's strictly "enhanced interrogation" with waterboarding and electrical shocks straight to the gonads. Very "Christian" indeed! Torquemada was a weak-kneed wimp.
RV,
You are correct. Religion is alive and well.
Thomas Gilbert-
I don't know whether I remember my Gibbon correctly but it went something like this: "To the people of Rome all religions were equally true; to the philosopher equally false; to the magistrate equally useful.
Excellent reference.
This "belief" that religious persuasions are a precursor of morality has always troubled me deeply, as I have learned that morality is something that must come from within, and I suspect that many like to have it imposed and maintained from an external source so that they don't have to have true morals of their own. It's much easier to go along with the crowd than to have a true personal standard to live up to, and to have some mythical entity to blame when you fall short on those externally imposed standards.
The religious believers have always argued (falsely), that religion is necessarily for morality, dating back to the Greeks at least. And that false claim has been repeatedly debunked and refuted. Cameron is just spouting (dog whistle) crap (ie fearmongering about Muslims / atheists), since as he himself admits, he is hardly devout. If religiosity equals morality, if Christianity equals morality, then, Cameron has just admitted that he is not moral.
Good insight, In a Natural Light. What's worse is when religiion DISABLES the mechanism of a healthy conscience by inciting its advocates to think that some especially vile acts actually represent "god's" will! The misuse of religion to advocate FOR violence is my concept of The Anti-Christ, and I'd say that Erik Prince qualifies as its Poster Child.
It grows tiresome to hear these Politicians speaking of returning to values of some past that did not really exist.
Let us take the United Kingdom as an example.
Through the Middle Ages and all the way up through the turn of the 20th century the Homicide rate was much higher then it is today. Indeed through the 1500's and 1600's it was around 100 TIMES higher.
This was during a period with a State all too willing to inflict Capital punishment on its Citizens.
What caused that drop in the rate of Homicides and such a precipitous one? Less people were going to Church and less profess themselves as Christians so it can not be that. England is more diverse as a population with more visible minorities so it can not be that other boogey man of "Them Dark people". Some attribute the rise in crime to ever more crowding in the cities yet the Cities are much more crowded today in England then they were 400 years ago.
Stephen Pinker in "Angles of our better nature" suggests it was the democratization of society wherein the people abrogated their "Right to Commit Violence" to the State and in return the State guaranteed that the people, from the very poorest to its wealthiest would have the full and equal protection of the law.
Part of this was an assurance that if one was poor one would still have the PROTECTION of the Police and the ability to have the State intercede on ones behalf in all matters pertaining to the law.
It is his claim that one reason the poor have higher rates of crime then the wealthy is that they do not have that equal access and so take the law into their own hands with their concepts of street justice.
While I am still digesting this it makes a lot of sense and helps to explain why the rates of Homicide in the USA so much higher then in Europe. In the USA the people never agreed to surrender this "Right to Violence" as evidenced by their "Right to bear arms" and their vigilante apporach to justice. (All of those lynchings).
I am going to suggest to Mr Cameron the perceived "Moral Breakdown" of Society has nothing to do with Religion and has everything to do with his Government at its Police Forces and Justice system FAILING its people when it comes to equitable recourse to Justice. I am going to suggest any breakdown in societies mores will have more to do with the distribution of wealth wherein a vast segment of people have no real recourse in the Countries Courts and must rely on taking the law into their own hands.
So one more time Mr Cameron and those that think like him claiming the breakdown of Social order due to a lack of Religion. Why were the Homicide rates in England 100 times higher in 1500 then they are today?
I would also ask this of those Anarchists and people who seem opposed to any notion of Government. There was very little Central Government in Europe during the Middle Ages. There was on the order of 5000 Kingdoms or Political entities and the rates of crime and homicides and violence per capita were around 100 times higher througout all of Europe. Why was that if , as so many seem to suggest, it the prescence of Government that leads to all ills?
Michael Moore drew slightly different conclusions in his "Bowling for Columbine" movie (if I remember rightly). He compared USA and Canada; similar heterogenous societies, fairly strong presence of guns (although moreso in USA), BUT, in Canada it was fairly obvious that the gov't was seen and FELT to be "promoting the general welfare" (as a US citizen might say) of all its' citizens, where the YOYO mentality has taken strong hold upon US society, leading to much friction & illegal ways to deal with poverty and general "hard-heartedness" & cruelties. This,(promote general welfare), BTW, is a good, modern secularised expression of the quitessential christian ethic of "love thy neighbor..." and the golden rule, which should suggest to christians (one would think) the development of the welfare state (wherein we can, methodically, promote the general welfare of all).
Unfortunately the call for morality and religion doesn't seem to include the idea that the criminal mafia banksters be held accountable for their global crime wave. In the meantime, Newt the Psychopath is playing to the theocratic voters. Better hang on to your wallet (or empty your bank account altogether). When hustlers like Gingrich and Cameron start preaching religion, the grift is about to come down.
"stevep"
The accumulation of monetary riches is what most religions use to portray themselves as "morally" superior. That is why they build huge and grossly expensive monuments to express their "spirituality" rather than using their money to achieve a better standard of living for the masses of people.
Two of the best examples are the gaudy papal state and the Queen of England's many castles, cathedrals, and jewels.
It is their perverse idea of god's grace being proven through monetary domination.
To them, the corrupt bankers are true believers who are willing to do anything for money(grace).
Gingrich is toast. He has far too many sides to his mouth.
I sometimes wonder how many true Christians there are in the US. Perhaps 10%? Most professed Christians have a perverted fantasy version. Of course the perversions are taught and witnessed until quite fully ingrained. Many, such as Luther, come along and attempt to remove the perversions. Their successes are limited and later compromised out of existence.
I hope for a true marriage of commonism and privatism leading to a better understanding of "what's good for all is also good for me." As a religion, I suppose, this may not have enough 'bling.'
Historically, Luther only removed one source of what was problematic about Christianity (the existence of a singular, deeply corrupt religious hierarchy)-but left intact a whole host of others and even introduced a few new ones. He was grotesquely anti-Semitic, despised women, maintained the same hatred of knowledge against faith that was implicit in much of Christianity, supported aristocracy and their use of violence against the poor, and opened the door to even more radical strains of Christian fundamentalism such as Calvinism.
Really, the only reason why we're somewhat free from them is because they spent so many centuries killing each other off that after emasculating each other with pointless doctrinal warfare, sane people finally got an inroad to either forcibly get rid of the clergy in France, or to rebuild states in which the palsied and clawed hand of organized Christianity didn't have such a tight grasp on people's throats.
Keep in mind that a beer-lover who viewed humans basically as miserable shit, had plenty of enmity to go around. Luther deserves a special place in the human anus for anyone who enjoys excremental humor.
" Last Friday, in Oxford, Prime Minister, David Cameron, declared that the United Kingdom is a Christian Country ".
" THE NAZI PARTY STANDS FOR THE POSITIVE CHRISTIANITY". ARTICLE 24 NAZI PARTY PLATFORM.
The false equation: religion equals morality. Enough said!