Get News & Views Updates
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 AllI find that many good people exist DESPITE the fact that they are Christian or otherwise. Moral [or ethical] direction seems to be innate or universal in a way that nullifies the doctrine of religions. The most perverse thing about religious teaching is that it BRANDS morality and posits that it is accessible only through one's faith. I think this has been a very cynical tactic on the part of the clergy, and easily discounted. The fact that 'outsiders' who are considered base or wicked are usually more consistent in their ethical behavior is all the proof I need that Christians are terribly deluded about their moral superiority.
Thomas Frank wrote a great piece about the 'new' infidels in this month's Harper's: I recommend it.
The Prince of Peace would never endorce the slash and burn policies of a government which hands over all to the richest-- take that David Cameron.
For zeofredo:
As you say: "Moral [or ethical] direction seems to be innate or universal in a way that nullifies the doctrine of religions."
Have you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins? That book clearly explains how and why our biology is geared to develop "morals" during the process of natural selection.
religion favors oppression...
That's what I said. :)
Happy solstice season.
you too, brother Buck...
what a year this has been...
but, as they say in Japan: that's half-life!
Another equally false equation: Jesus equals Christianity. I think Jesus would be utterly horrified and embarrassed to learn what's been done in his name by religions throughout history.
How can one offend something that's never existed?
David Cameron's rhetoric on this is silly, but Angela Merkel is just as bad. She says roughly the same about Germany and that she won't tolerate multi culturalism. Her actuall policies are worse than Cameron's. She and her French poodle are squeezing the life blood out of the working people of the EU states of Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland by so completely giving free reign to the European Central Bank to be such a despot over all in the EU. I'd rather have bad rhetoric than worse policies. Cameron at least is opposing this even if perhaps for the wrong reasons. Somebody has to say no the ECB and all the rest of the appointed EU bureaucrats to hold them accountable. That's the only way the EU will have any chance of democracy surviving.
Cameron said something stupid, but it doens't help when people who say they're progresssives say equally stupid and wrong things such as they can prove a negative.
They can't. We don't know if other solar systems are in the universe.
Also let me say that the article does a good job.
As an aside, I'd have to say we're all agnostics. What on Earth does that prove? The dictionary definition of same is that this is person who can't prove God exists-- and.
Theists except for fanatics simply accept on faith the existence of God, and atheists accept on faith that this is false-- fine with all. How about we leave it there.
This balderdash about pitting atheists against theists is a good game for the con servatives to play but for progressives, we should know better. In the USA especially, if our side is to prevail, if must stay clear of atheist oriented psuedo intellectually superiority and dogmatism. People in the USA and even in other states don't want this grand crusade for atheism any more than they want a grand crusade for any particular brand of theism-- let's not do the con servatives dirty work for them in their divide and rule scheme.
The ECB does not have free reign over all in the EU.
It is GERMANY that has free reign. The ECB does what Germany tells it to do (and gets all the blame, such as from people like you).
We need to look to the Earth not the heavens for solutions. god sucks.
I do not suck. Whenever an atheist appears before me at my judgment throne, I always admit him or her to heaven if they acted with kindness toward others (including animals; I hate meat-eaters). I throw into hell the true believers who were kind to others only because they feared hell if they weren't.
I am omniscient so of course I read CD to stay that way.
God
Judging by what comes down the Columbia Gorge, you must blow like hell...
Nice of Cameron to put his foot in his mouth and for Dyer to stuff it further so it comes out his arse. I recall a Papal Bull declaring most of humanity to be non-human so their lands could be stolen and their lives extinguished with neither act counting as a Sin for proper Christians.
If the Abrahamic Religions would die, the world might become peaceful.
If you're a morally bankrupt scumbag, one way to deal with it is to call yourself Christian because you actually get points for your depravity by talking about being saved from your sins, and then can say that your further depravities are what God told you to do (e.g., George W). Or you can just give speeches to the fundamentalists in which you regurgitate everything they want to hear, and you don’t even have to bring your abominations up at all (e.g., Newt). Or you can explain that talking about your crimes to a guy behind a screen is a totally purifying experience (untold Catholic buggering priests).
Of course Christianity works well on the poor by explaining that their oppression is their cross to bear, making being screwed seem like a glorious re-enactment of the anointed one’s crucifixion, which was a really good thing. This way to use Christianity is encapsulated in the disgusting question I’ve heard countless times from fundamentalist Christians in and out of my family: “Have you been saved by the blood of Jesus?” Sometimes I ask if they have any of that Christ blood in a vial they could poor over my eyes, cause I just can’t see it.
Or you can dwarf a populace’s minds into barbarity, by means of a vapid culture all children are exposed to just about 24/7 for at least 16 years, and then tell them that we’re in a holy war and need all their money to kill lots of people and take their stuff. It works great!
Or you can underscore the little-known places in the Bible which talk about empowering the oppressed, as Oscar Romero of el Salvador and other liberation theologists have done. You'll probably be martyred, but you may create an uprising.
Christianity is indeed a double edged sword—a mortal tool that cuts both ways.
This article is a good one and meant to stimulate intelligent discussion to advance the progressive agenda, and I for one back that all the way-- less atheist dogma as well as theirst dogma would be nice. We can't prove this or that.
I don't know what religion Gerry Adams is but he's a great man and defender of all the EU's people from the big banking crowd. He would make a great British prime minister and had a seat in the British House of Commons.
Of course, the Dublin media attacked him so heavily that it hurt him and his party in that last election. The London media treated him better with the BBC allowing that he might really be "another Nelson Mandela." That didn't come through in Dublin though. The Irish media virtually blamed Adams for the Anglo Irish war-- something so false it should have easily been rebutted. John Major the Tory UK prime minister following Maggie Thatcher had back channel talks with Adams to bring the fighting to an end. He and Adams got the ball moving with diplomacy. The BBC has confirmed this ages ago.
The social gospel and liberation theology have substantially transformed the actuall application of Christian religion among many. Martin Luther King Jr, Arch Bishop Tutu, as well others are proof of same. Obviously though theism doens't equal moral. Sometimes atheists are the most moral people around e g Jean Paul Sartre, Karl Marx,
and right on through.
In some ways Marx was a real Christian in what he taught-- "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need."
Right-- the ECB is German based but they're stilll the big banking crowd. It would be correct to say that some German power elites have as you seem to be pointing out have decided as one Englishman and fine journalist said in the 1990s if "we can't rule you with tanks, we'll rule you banks." Now they're doing it to the everlasting sorrow of such EU states as Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Greece. Though in the states opted of the euro such as Denmark, Sweden, and Britain such is not yet the case. Those Scandinavians must have seen this coming.
AD "We can't prove this or that." You don't need a belief system to look out the window, or in the mirror. In the words of the staff sergeant who slapped us on the butt as we exited the C130: god sucks.
Bush, et al: "Since Christ died for my sins, I can sin all I want and still enter heaven."
I also I don't recall W being any expert on God. He might have had a white man's God complex, but I wouldn't count that.
I had a newly minted ex-con tell me that. He started a fistfight with his mentally ill son in the waiting room of a Family Court. He saw nothing wrong with that behavior. He was, and still is, an idiot. So is Bush.
Good to continue to read your posts, Elizabeth H, posts that are invariably intelligent and insightful, posts that I would love to re-run in my magazine if only because they are too good to be posted only once. Well, maybe one day, somehow, it could be done.
Great article, Gwynne. Religion and politics should be kept separate, just as religion and science should be.
No one has the right to kill someone because their invisible friends supposedly see things slightly different. The ignorance, insanity and death that religion has spread far out weighs any morality and love it has purportedly given mankind.
It sure would be nice if the only "God" we all saw was the one in each of us and everything in creation. What a different world.
What British morality ?
Imperial Britain has engaged in crimes against humanity for centuries.
We just followed their lead.
I'm posting before reading the comments. Three things sprung to mind after reading this excellent article, although I don't think it goes far enough.
First, that the pretext of establishing the U.K as a Christian nation reinforces the idea of a holy war against Muslims. It also takes up from the Old Testament to suggest that war is holy unto 'god.' In other words, it's a very convenient cover for recent (and continuing) war crimes against nations in the Middle East.
Second, there is no greater moral fig leaf used to justify illegal wars then the idea that "God told me/made me (to) do this." Bush used it, Blair reinforced it, and the various and sundry Christian leaders have gone along.
Third, Riane Eisler explains how the Dominator Society model came to replace the social orders formerly based on peace. The Old Testament codified these martial behaviors into established law; and since the Old Testament has functioned as at least half the foundation of Western law (and ethics), the rationale for killing other has a very long and sordid history.
Behaviors get rooted deep in the human psyche on both individual and collective levels. The very fact that the statistics show higher rates of violence when religion factors more strongly into the location says it all... especially when the religion shapes the Deity into a Mars (god of war), Saturn (punitive father) hybrid. This is why I speak out so much about these archetypes... they are PROFOUND influences upon both the collective consciousness and collective Unconscious.
As my first post to CD, I would have to say that I agree with the remarks of Mr. Cameron, as quoted in this piece: “The Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today, values and morals we should actively stand up and defend.”
I find the negative comments puzzling. Exactly which Christian values and morals should progressives object to? Is it the part of about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek? How about the part about also offering your cloak if someone asks for your tunic? Maybe it's the part about not putting the love of money above the love of God? Or the part about loving your neighbor as yourself, and treating him as you would have him treat you? These are values and morals that are radically opposite to those which are practised in most of the world, including self-proclaimed Christian countries. What has happened in the past, and continues to happen is that what passes for Christian morality gets distorted and comandeered as a rallying cry for hostile, aggressive and self-serving actions that are quite contrary to its original intent. Of course, Christianity holds no monopoly on true ethical behavior; other religions and many atheists promote similar values. But there is no doubt that Britain and the US have strong Christian historical roots, whose basic message of good will to your fellow man and woman ought to inspire the progressive community.
You're missing the point of the article. He's talking specifically about religion, i.e. Christianity as espoused by organized religion. He's not talking about Jesus. Everything you mentioned would more properly be called the morality of Jesus, since the Christian church has been such a force for evil in the world that any mention of "christian" and "morality" in the same sentence is almost laughable. However, that doesn't mean Jesus, the person, just like MLK, Gandhi, my kindly neighbor, etc. didn't have wonderful things to say and live by. But that fact does NOT mean that the US and Britian have some kind of special historical roots that promoted MLK, Gandhi, etc.
Well-said, K.J. Not seeing the paradox, between the stated ideals of Jesus and the way the organized religious elites carry it out, suggests its own form of blindness.
The saying "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" applies double to religiosity, whether they call themselves Christian, Jewish, Moslem, etc.
True Christian morality is, by definition, the morality of Jesus Christ. They are one and the same, since it was he who originated it. They are there for anyone to read about. It is up to each person to choose the source of his/her morality and then live by it, and I see nothing dishonorable in the teachings of Christ. Do you agree? The problem lies in letting other people with ulterior motives interpret and filter these teachings to suite their own ends. Too many people follow the herd instinct and blindly following whatever their priest or pastor says.
I take issue with the general dissing of Christianity in this thread. No doubt it has fostered wars and other evil during the course of its history, but it also has inspired many others to do good. Mother Theresa and the countless soup kitchens to feed to homeless come to mind. I don't see any reason why a new brand of Christianity, which adhers to its original selfless spirit, couldn't be a rallying cry for a new progressive movement.
People have been doing good works, charitable and compassionate, for many thousands of years. Christianity did not invent morality. Organized religions co opted morality, using it for power and profit. Many Christians reject evolution and accept transubstantiation without blinking an eye. There is more evidence for Santa Claus than Jesus. Old testament gibberish is right up there with coal fired generators and disposable plastics in its influence on our lovely planet. Planet Earth.
Welcome to our motley CommonDreams crew, tx_progressive! Well, there are a lot of people who despise Christianity here, given the history of seemingly endless genocides, invasions, expulsions, burnings, slayings, bombings, etc. in Jesus's name, let along the fundamentalist pigs who invoke his name today. I can't say I have a problem with that.
Yet I'm surely not going to diss Mother Theresa, for gosh's sake, or soup kitchens. That's all good, but I find a better way to use Christianity in the liberation theologies of the Latin countries, in MLK, in Nelson Mandela, etc. We can ladle thin soup into bowls for the poor, but that will never hold them over past the next meal. It is possible to use Christianity to empower people to fight against their oppression rather than to just make their next 12 hours more tolerable or possible.
You've listed excellent examples of people and movements that used the teachings of Christ as a rallying point for good. The sermons of MLK are as inspiring and poignant today as when he gave them. It's too bad there are so few, if any, priests or pastors in the US that are willing to speak up for positive change in public policies, the way Dr. King did. This is why I find most modern churches to be uninspiring and spiritually dead. It's not hard to understand the animosity so many progressives have towards Christianity. However, there is no need for progressives and Christians to be enemies!
"True Christian morality is, by definition, the morality of Jesus Christ. They are one and the same, since it was he who originated it."
Allegedly. In reality, what people claim to know about Christ is filtered through multiple translations of books that don't even seem to have appeared until decades after he is supposed to have died in the first place.
"They are there for anyone to read about. It is up to each person to choose the source of his/her morality and then live by it, and I see nothing dishonorable in the teachings of Christ. Do you agree?"
No, I don't.
Do you believe in hell?
Do you believe that there will be an apocalypse?
Do you believe in the old testament as either a historical or ethical guide?
You already said that you don't believe in the exclusivity of jesus as a pathway to morality, so I won't even bother asking that. At the same time, a lot of christians do believe in that kind of exclusivity-which is part of the problem when you combine that with the issues of faith when it is considered a viable form of knowledge.
"The problem lies in letting other people with ulterior motives interpret and filter these teachings to suite their own ends. Too many people follow the herd instinct and blindly following whatever their priest or pastor says."
So if the teachings were that great in the first place, why have they been so efficiently filtered? I also think that your statements omit one very important factor. Throughout most of Christianity's history issues of faith weren't considered settled through argument as much as they were through force. The secular state that doesn't punish heretics or nonbelievers is a relatively recent innovation.
"I take issue with the general dissing of Christianity in this thread. No doubt it has fostered wars and other evil during the course of its history, but it also has inspired many others to do good. Mother Theresa and the countless soup kitchens to feed to homeless come to mind. I don't see any reason why a new brand of Christianity, which adhers to its original selfless spirit, couldn't be a rallying cry for a new progressive movement."
I have the utmost confidence that this will work out better than the previous several hundred new brands of Christianity created over the last two thousand years.
Before I answer your questions, let me say that my personal views are quite unrepresentative of orthodox Christian doctrine.
"Do you believe in hell?" Although I don't believe in a literal heaven/hell, I can understand how many people (myself included) can use these concepts as motivation to do the right thing when faced with questions of a moral/ethical nature.
"Do you believe that there will be an apocalypse?" Now that mankind is empowered to destroy civilization and most life on this planet, this part of Christian dogma has become dangerous and should be suppressed/minimized as much as possible. There is a real danger of it becoming self-fulfilling if the wrong people come to power.
"Do you believe in the old testament as either a historical or ethical guide?" Most of the historical information in the O.T. is accurate. Some of the content is allegorical. The jealous, vengeful nature of God as depicted in the O.T. serves to explain why there were so many wars back then.
Like I said, everyone has to decide on his own system of ethics/morality and stick with it, because science and logic make no judgement at all regarding what is "good", what is "bad", what is "right" and "wrong". I believe that the essential teachings of Jesus, regarding compassion and concern for the general welfare, should be labeled 'right,' and the opposing view of selfish self-interest, every-man-for-himself should be labeled 'wrong.' Isn't this the progressive perspective?
Hello tx_progressive and welcome! I would agree with your concept of "right" and "wrong" and agree that these are the concepts Jesus promoted (if he indeed existed) as well as the ideals sought by progressives.
The reason many of the founders rejected Christianity is because they believe the religion had been corrupted. If you read any of rhe Jefferson Bible, it is obvious that Thomas Jefferson understood the message of Christ to have been one of peace and tolerance, but tjat message had been corrupted by tyrants for their own selfish purposes.
Please forgive any typos, etc. as my computer seems to have developed it's own radical mind and seems to do as it wishes. Again, welcome from another Texas progressive!
"Before I answer your questions, let me say that my personal views are quite unrepresentative of orthodox Christian doctrine."
I understand that. That also sort of supports what I'm saying-in that if your perspectives are a lot more reasonable, but still based upon faith, and yet they can't change the larger trends of religious institutions, then what does that say about who and what they serve at this point?
""Do you believe in hell?" Although I don't believe in a literal heaven/hell, I can understand how many people (myself included) can use these concepts as motivation to do the right thing when faced with questions of a moral/ethical nature."
At the same time, the concept of hell is also used as a means of manipulating people. Two of the ways that this takes place are the following:
1) Hell is used to directly scare people into obedience.
2) Hell is used in a twisted utilitarian logic to justify the way that fundamentalists treat people. Since, by definition, hell is the worst thing that can happen to a person, anything that they do to anyone else that converts them to their beliefs, by implication, saves them from hell and is therefore less evil than if they had done nothing.
A more important underlying philosophical issue is how a being that is supposedly good (much less the source of all goodness) would resort to eternal torture?
""Do you believe that there will be an apocalypse?" Now that mankind is empowered to destroy civilization and most life on this planet, this part of Christian dogma has become dangerous and should be suppressed/minimized as much as possible. There is a real danger of it becoming self-fulfilling if the wrong people come to power."
This I mostly agreed with.
""Do you believe in the old testament as either a historical or ethical guide?" Most of the historical information in the O.T. is accurate."
This I don't think is true. A good book on the subject is Hector Avalos' End of Biblical Studies. While there was a Babylonian captivity and a return to Israel after the Persians defeated the Babylonians, there appears to be little to no evidence for an Exodus, most of the events of the first kingdom, or the defeat of the Canaanites.
"Some of the content is allegorical. The jealous, vengeful nature of God as depicted in the O.T. serves to explain why there were so many wars back then."
Unfortunately, because this idea of god has been defined as good, without asking any of the underlying ethical questions, it has become foundational to act in a manner that is jealous and selectively vengeful.
"Like I said, everyone has to decide on his own system of ethics/morality and stick with it, because science and logic make no judgement at all regarding what is "good", what is "bad", what is "right" and "wrong". I believe that the essential teachings of Jesus, regarding compassion and concern for the general welfare, should be labeled 'right,' and the opposing view of selfish self-interest, every-man-for-himself should be labeled 'wrong.' Isn't this the progressive perspective?"
Yes, that's partially true (I do think that logic can make some statements about ethics and morality because much of what is held up in theological ethics is incoherent). At the same time, the fact that this progressive perspective has become so entwined with issues of faith has meant that a lot of the problems of faith have come to take over progressive perspectives.
"As my first post to CD, I would have to say that I agree with the remarks of Mr. Cameron, as quoted in this piece: “The Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today, values and morals we should actively stand up and defend.”
I guess he's not referring to his nation's status as one of the most surveilled upon nations in the world, with even more social stratification than the United States (which given how bad it is here, says quite a bit), whose leadership signed onto Bush's war with little apparent reservation, and whose political culture basically hacked down social spending for anyone who came after them-and was then shocked to find out that riots were the result.
I suppose that's one of those statements that cuts both ways.
"I find the negative comments puzzling. Exactly which Christian values and morals should progressives object to? Is it the part of about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek? How about the part about also offering your cloak if someone asks for your tunic? Maybe it's the part about not putting the love of money above the love of God? Or the part about loving your neighbor as yourself, and treating him as you would have him treat you?"
With the exception of putting love of money first-pretty much all of them at this point-because at this point it's been more than amply demonstrated by events that the only people that are expected to play according to the rules of Christian morality are its victims instead of its perpetrators.
"These are values and morals that are radically opposite to those which are practised in most of the world, including self-proclaimed Christian countries."
You don't find it somewhat telling that the countries that talk the loudest about Christianity seem to be the farthest from taking those elements that you value seriously?
Excellent analysis.
Christianity is not even interesting.
Christianity is primarily ABOUT Jesus rather than a continuation OF the religion of Jesus. Thus, Christianity is something that exists, but doesn't qualify as a religion, and the religion of Jesus exists only hypothetically. Christianity is simply a series of organizations that have different beliefs ABOUT Jesus, have various rituals, etc. What made Jesus's religion a "religion" was that he held a number of beliefs as to how one should relate to others, lived in accordance with those beliefs, and advised others to do the same. Some of his early followers (of the Way) evidently attempted to continue his religion, but soon got replaced by Christians.
These days CAPITALISM is responsible for more deaths than religion is.
I think you'd find most of those Capitalists, Obama included, attend church on Sunday. ;)
True, but in this country, religion is often used to justify capitalism. Capitalism and Christianity get blended into one another in a unique way in the U.S. It looks like Cameron wants to make the U.K. more like the U.S. in that regard.
Only super dumb societies like the United States and other theocracies make this false equation.
The U.S. likes to portray itself as a Christian country. I think its populated by Christian hypocrites who allow millions of children to live in abject poverty, ignore millions of people who live in their cars, & deny health care to the majority of its citizens. This is Christianity? If so living as a heathen would be preferable.