Derail from "Slaughter in Paris."

[Carrikature]

Except that the one country in the prosperous, developed world where Christianity is still taken seriously is the USA and the US ranks as one of the most violent, inequitable societies in the west with the highest rate of incarceration.

I think Andius answered this in far more detail than I would have bothered to do. The perception you express is here is fairly common but ignores a real view of the current state of the world. The US isn't that bad overall, and very little of the violence can truly be associated with religiosity. It's not the Christians that are killing each other here, it's the criminals.

I mostly agree. I think that when the standard of living and quality of life in a country goes up, religion goes down. That means that by making the world a better place, we can make it less religious and kill two birds with one stone.

I've never been convinced by atheist claims that the non-existence of religion gives rise to a better world. There's a lot of stupid things that could be corrected without eradicating religion.

Well that.... And outright weak State institutions and corruption. When the folks in charge are more concerned with filling their pockets above all else, they will care less who gets killed in the process.

Right. I'll not pretend to have covered all the factors that go into it. I hate the term 'perfect storm', but that's effectively what you see in the more violent areas. Rampant corruption, high sectarianism (whether racist or religious in nature), low quality of life (making it easier to trade your life for something else) are just a few.

[shunyadragon]

Lived in the US most of my life, never had any run in with the law, but what do I know? Some fundy atheist, who has never lived in the US, reads worthless UN reports that whisper sweet nothings into his ears and tell him stuff he wants to hear and flat out ignores anything that proves him wrong (IE the US is more likely to punish those engaging in unlawful behaviors with jail time vs other western countries, so that would account for the higher prisoner rates, but we don't need those nasty 'fact' things because there is an agenda to press and facts be damned).

Don't worry, I know you're 'ignoring me' after I embarrassed you, on this very subject all those years ago, but others can read this and see for themselves that you're just an idiot that nobody should take seriously.

. . . and Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo!

[Carrikature]

Never mind that fact that it is largely due to this Christian nation that the Danes, Swedes, Australians, and most of the Western world are not today under some form of totalitarian rule - whether Nazism, Communism, or Japanese imperialism.

I would love to see you support this.

[Carrikature]

Lived in the US most of my life, never had any run in with the law, but what do I know?

I wonder if it's possible to make a less relevant claim and still remain on topic. Your personal history of crime doesn't have anything to do with incarceration rates. Even at a 95% incarceration rate, there would still be ~16 million Americans that had never seen jail time.

[seer]

I would love to see you support this.

Really? You don't believe that the US played the major role in defeating Nazism, Communism, and Japanese imperialism?

[Tassman]

I think Andius answered this in far more detail than I would have bothered to do. The perception you express is here is fairly common but ignores a real view of the current state of the world. The US isn't that bad overall,

It is in comparison with the other developed western powers. Obviously the US is way ahead of the underdeveloped nations of the world.

and very little of the violence can truly be associated with religiosity. It's not the Christians that are killing each other here, it's the criminals.

I've never been convinced by atheist claims that the non-existence of religion gives rise to a better world. There's a lot of stupid things that could be corrected without eradicating religion.

[Andius]

Aye, all part of the package in a regime of Empire.

I specifically referred to violence in and, nothing personal, Guatemala is not generally ranked thus, whereas the USA is.

Fair enough, non-taken, and noted.

And yet the developed nations that actually still have strong Christian participation, and even the ones where the Church have a say in matters of State are hardly falling behind the more secularized nations. When you have you have a two face snake like Rick Scott and the Christian citizens that voted for him, professing faith in Jesus, whilst robbing the state of Florida with fraudulent contracts, he just makes it too easy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y-adjusted_HDI

Nevertheless the UK ranks relatively high in the Inequality adjusted Human development Index (16th) and Spain ranks above the USA at 22nd.

And yet your nation is effectively topped by a government that for all of it's praxis in secularity at State and social level, it still retains an ecclesiastical body as part of State administration. And not just topped, blown out of the water by a .031 points, an awful big difference by IHDI's standards, especially when you consider that (According to Zuckerman's measurements), Norway's secularity amongst the populace is only topped by Sweden, Denmark, and Estonia, and yet they are all below Norway.

Yeah, USA is #28, and yet highly religious nations such as Italy#23, Slovenia#12, or Ireland#10 aren't that close with the land of uncle Sam (Italy being the closest though), whilst secular hubs such as the Spain#22, France#18 (considered a paragon of secularity), and UK#16 aren't too close with Sweden (funnily enough, Estonia#24, approaching awfully close to the USA, and we are talking about a 54% declared non-religious population here, highly contrary to your claim that secular nations ought to blow religious nations out of the water in matters of inequality).

So sorry, I don't buy your correlation, even within the limits of the "developed" nations, and the rankings themselves do not support to your claim that secularity promotes equality whilst religion trumps it. To paraphrase John Green from Crash Course, it's a lot more complicated, especially when dimensions such as geopolitics, available resources, trade partners, state regimes, cultural institutions, civic traditions, etc. will sometimes trump one another in a crazy mess when trying to explain why a nation succeeds or fails (And don't get me started as to what constitutes "success" for a nation).

Call it what you will, but I don't delve into matters of which I do not claim expertise, so you might as well forget about dragging me into those matters, I don't play that way. At most, I am awares that after blacks, hispanics are the second group that gets incarcerated, my similiars.

http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/zuckerman.htm

Phil Zuckerman may be secular pundit in his free time, but at least at scholarly level, he is careful in advancing the thesis that secular nations are capable of advancement and happiness, and avoids the brute assertion that secularity as the best path to advancement and happiness in his books. His research is still valuable in a great many ways.

Still, I don't see him as a consistent man, One moment he is a dedicated researcher with carefully laid out conclusions, and in another moment he is acting as a secular Bill O'Riley, which would not surprise me considering the fetish he has for secularity (especially his bias in rejecting other factors that contribute to governance within a given nation, as if worldviews were the biggest factor in molding the success of a nation, which damages some of his credibility as a researcher, but not entirely).

[Carrikature]

Really? You don't believe that the US played the major role in defeating Nazism, Communism, and Japanese imperialism?

To make a reference I'm certain you won't get, the US is a kill-stealer. The US played a part. But the major role? Support it. The Russians held an entire front more or less on their own and helped the British in Africa. They lost ~25 million people in the process. The US? ~400,000. The US wasn't even invaded. Do you think the Cold War would have been as close if the Soviet Union hadn't lost that many people? I don't.

And did you somehow miss the part where China is still a communist nation? Or North Korea? Laos? Vietnam? They sure look defeated to me.

[Carrikature]

It is in comparison with the other developed western powers. Obviously the US is way ahead of the underdeveloped nations of the world.

This last bit is the entire point. The factors aren't primarily religious belief.

The question is why, in an overtly Christian society, does such very large criminal underclass exist? Given the sheer numbers and the fact that over 70% of Americans are Christian clearly many of the criminals must be Christians too.

Too bad it doesn't work that way. Criminals frequently convert to some religion in prison. Most of them aren't religious prior to that. You can't just apply averages blindly.


Nice of you to supply your own answer that has nothing to do with religion. I think you've supported my position for me.


It's not my argument, but The Thinker's. I happen to agree with you here.

[Tassman]

And yet the developed nations that actually still have strong Christian participation, and even the ones where the Church have a say in matters of State are hardly falling behind the more secularized nations. When you have you have a two face snake like Rick Scott and the Christian citizens that voted for him, professing faith in Jesus, whilst robbing the state of Florida with fraudulent contracts, he just makes it too easy.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

And yet your nation is effectively topped by a government that for all of it's praxis in secularity at State and social level, it still retains an ecclesiastical body as part of State administration.

And not just topped, blown out of the water by a .031 points, an awful big difference by IHDI's standards, especially when you consider that (According to Zuckerman's measurements), Norway's secularity amongst the populace is only topped by Sweden, Denmark, and Estonia, and yet they are all below Norway.

Yeah, USA is #28, and yet highly religious nations such as Italy#23, Slovenia#12, or Ireland#10 aren't that close with the land of uncle Sam (Italy being the closest though), whilst secular hubs such as the Spain#22, France#18 (considered a paragon of secularity), and UK#16 aren't too close with Sweden (funnily enough, Estonia#24, approaching awfully close to the USA, and we are talking about a 54% declared non-religious population here, highly contrary to your claim that secular nations ought to blow religious nations out of the water in matters of inequality).

So sorry, I don't buy your correlation, even within the limits of the "developed" nations, and the rankings themselves do not support to your claim that secularity promotes equality whilst religion trumps it. To paraphrase John Green from Crash Course, it's a lot more complicated, especially when dimensions such as geopolitics, available resources, trade partners, state regimes, cultural institutions, civic traditions, etc. will sometimes trump one another in a crazy mess when trying to explain why a nation succeeds or fails (And don't get me started as to what constitutes "success" for a nation).

Call it what you will, but I don't delve into matters of which I do not claim expertise, so you might as well forget about dragging me into those matters, I don't play that way. At most, I am awares that after blacks, hispanics are the second group that gets incarcerated, my similiars.

Well, whatever the reason, the USA nevertheless has the highest rates of incarcerations in the world.

Phil Zuckerman may be secular pundit in his free time, but at least at scholarly level, he is careful in advancing the thesis that secular nations are capable of advancement and happiness, and avoids the brute assertion that secularity as the best path to advancement and happiness in his books. His research is still valuable in a great many ways.

Still, I don't see him as a consistent man, One moment he is a dedicated researcher with carefully laid out conclusions, and in another moment he is acting as a secular Bill O'Riley, which would not surprise me considering the fetish he has for secularity (especially his bias in rejecting other factors that contribute to governance within a given nation, as if worldviews were the biggest factor in molding the success of a nation, which damages some of his credibility as a researcher, but not entirely).

[Tassman]

This last bit is the entire point. The factors aren't primarily religious belief.

Too bad it doesn't work that way. Criminals frequently convert to some religion in prison. Most of them aren't religious prior to that. You can't just apply averages blindly.

Well it seemshttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...l/nn2page1.stm

Nice of you to supply your own answer that has nothing to do with religion. I think you've supported my position for me.

http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequa...lth-income-us/

It's not my argument, but The Thinker's. I happen to agree with you here.

[seer]

To make a reference I'm certain you won't get, the US is a kill-stealer. The US played a part. But the major role? Support it. The Russians held an entire front more or less on their own and helped the British in Africa. They lost ~25 million people in the process. The US? ~400,000. The US wasn't even invaded. Do you think the Cold War would have been as close if the Soviet Union hadn't lost that many people? I don't.

First, a good case could be made that the Soviet Union and Briton could not have survived the early part of the war without lend lease, which the Soviets shared a large portion. There was no country on earth that had the manufacturing base to match Germany and Japan. We were called the Arsenal of Democracy for a reason. As far as the Cold war it was largely the US alone standing against Soviet expansion, eventually bankrupting them. They were on the moving world wide, even with their lower population. And NATO kept the rest of Europe free (and we the US was basically NATO), we funded the largest share.

And did you somehow miss the part where China is still a communist nation? Or North Korea? Laos? Vietnam? They sure look defeated to me.

Vietnam and Laos are no threat, North Korea is pretty isolated, China is a problem - but who besides the US could keep them in check?

[rogue06]

Not sure where you got this material, but it is not on the page you cited. Both the material on that page and the material you quote here are in the main uncited quotes. You are citing sloppy polemics, not anything remotely scholarly. Would you accept at face value anti-Baha'i writings like this?

I note, in particular, two especially egregious examples:


Seriously? A range of 38 years for a synod which met for maybe a couple weeks? It's also persecuting Judaizing Christians, not Jews.


There are several saints named Gregory, with voluminous writings. This "citation" is worthless. It is also, assuming it is an accurate quote, most likely polemic delivered to prevent Christians from Judaizing, not to advocate persecution of Jews. Your source is plainly not interested in accuracy, however, but engaging in polemics himself. Would he accept an anti-Jewish writing from an apostate Jew, like he does an anti-Christian writing from an apostate Christian? I highly doubt it.

I noticed that with several of the examples that shuny provides have nothing whatsoever to do with persecution of the Jews but rather that Christians should refrain from interacting with them. For instance, in two of the first three examples

306: The church Synod of Elvira banned marriages, sexual intercourse and community contacts between Christians and Jews. 3,4

325: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: "For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews...our worship follows a...more convenient course...we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded."

To equate these and several others with calls to subjugate and either forcibly convert or exterminate is ridiculous in the extreme.

And while several early church fathers had harsh words for the Jews what is missing is any call to harm them. Those harsh words were used to support injunctions not to interact with them.

[rogue06]

Duck, Bob and Weave at its finest. The citations are valid, picking two you have issues with does not amount to a refutation.

They more than serve to call into question the validity of your list.

[rogue06]

It is not against Christian tenants. Many of the Christian tenants are those of the Baha'i Faith.

It is taking responsibility and being honest about history, which seer seems to want you blame it all on atheists.

Then you should have no trouble citing verses where Christians are told to go out and harm those who disagree with them.