|
|
|
|
|
|
This website is being renovated throughout 2008.
Pages and the content of pages will continue to change until the end of the year and
there may be some inconsistencies and missing links. Please
do not quote from or link to specific pages (apart from the home page)
without contacting the webmaster first.
Column 40
Why can't we all be Japanese?
Religion fosters bad behavior
By © Martin Foreman
Word Count: 795 words
Publication date: November 13, 2005
Several weeks ago, a ground-breaking study on religious belief and social well-being was
published in the
Journal of Religion & Society.
Comparing eighteen prosperous democracies from the US to New Zealand,
author Gregory S Paul quietly demolished the myth that faith strengthens
society.
Drawing on a wide range of studies to cross-match
faith – measured by belief in God and acceptance of evolution – with
homicide and sexual behavior, Paul found that secular societies have
lower rates of violence and teenage pregnancy than societies where many
people profess belief in God.
Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior,
come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than
ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a
hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries
in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any
developed nation.
(Teenage pregnancy has less tragic consequences
than violence but it is usually unwanted, and it is frequently
associated with deprivation among both mothers and children. In general,
it is a Bad Thing.)
Next in line are the Norwegians, British, Germans
and Dutch. At least sixty percent accept evolution as a fact and fewer
than one in three are convinced that there is a deity. There is little
teenage pregnancy , although the Brits, with over 40 pregnancies
per 1,000 girls a year, do twice as badly as the others. Homicide rates
are also low - around 1-2 victims per 100,000 people a year.
At the other end of the scale comes America. Over
fifty percent of Americans believe in God, and only 40 percent accept
some form of evolution (many believe it had a helping hand from the
Deity). The US has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide
rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times
higher than in Japan.
All this information points to a strong correlation
between faith and antisocial behavior – a correlation so strong that
there is good reason to suppose that religious belief does more harm
than good.
At first glance that is a preposterous suggestion,
given that religions preach non-violence and sexual restraint. However,
close inspection reveals a different story. Faith tends to weaken rather
than strengthen people’s ability to participate in society. That makes
it less likely they will respect social customs and laws.
All believers learn that God holds them responsible
for their actions. So far so good, but for many, belief absolves them of
all other responsibilities. Consciously or subconsciously, those who are
“born again” or “chosen” have diminished respect for others who do not
share their sect or their faith. Convinced that only the Bible offers
“truth”, they lose their intellectual curiosity and their ability to
reason. Their priority becomes not the world they live in but
themselves.
The more people prioritize themselves rather than
those around them, the weaker society becomes and the greater the
likelihood of antisocial behavior. Hence gun laws which encourage
Americans to see each other not as fellow human beings who deserve
protection, but as potential aggressors who deserve to die. And hence a
health care system which looks after the wealthy rather than the ill.
As for sex… Faith encourages ignorance rather than
responsible behavior. In other countries, sex education includes
contraception, reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancies. Such an
approach recognizes that young people have the right to make their own
choices and helps them make decisions that benefit society as a whole.
In America faith-driven abstinence programs deny them that right – “As
a Christian I will only help you if you do what I say”. The result is
soaring rates of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
Abstinence programs rest on the same weak
intellectual foundation as creationism and intelligent design. Faith
discourages unprejudiced analysis. Reasoning is subverted to
rationalization that supports rather than questions assumptions. The
result is a self-contained system that maintains an internal logic, no
matter how absurd to outside observers.
The constitutional wall that theoretically
separates church and state is irrelevant. Religion has overwhelmed the
nation to permeate all public discussion. Look no further than Gary
Bauer, a man who in any other western nation would be dismissed as a
fanatic and who in America is interviewed deferentially on prime time
television.
Despite all its fine words, religion has brought in
its wake little more than violence, prejudice and sexual disease. True
morality is found elsewhere. As UK Guardian columnist George
Monbiot concluded in his
review of Gregory Paul’s study,
“if you want people to behave as Christians advocate, you should tell them that God
does not exist.”
I might express that another way. The flip side of
Monbiot’s argument is that God would be an atheist…
|
Comments
This column was reprinted November 30, 2005 in
Humanist Network News. In
August 2006 that reprint was picked up in two blogs with the following results:
16,000 views and 423 comments on Fark.com http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2239905
1139 "diggs" at digg.com plus several commnents http://www.digg.com/offbeat_news/God_would_be_an_atheist
Blogs that link to the article published in HNN: http://technorati.com/search/humaniststudies.org%2Fenews
In addition to those blogs, the following comments were sent directly to me.
Carolyn Kay of http://makethemaccountable.com/
The problem
is not with religion per se, or even belief in God. The problem is with people
who trust their own behavior so little that they latch on obsessively to
something they think will keep them from behaving in ways they don't want to.
They are the ones who are afraid of criticism and doubt. They are the ones who
think the rest of us are awful and sinful because we don't subscribe to their
obsession.
And of course the problem is those
religious leaders who are only too willing to increase their own power by taking
advantage of these people.”
Ed Prestwood
I read and enjoyed your article. I think that a
very high degree of genetic homogeneity also contributes to the lower rate of
violence in Japan. (As Richard Dawkins would point out, the more likely you are
related to someone, the less likely you are to do harm to that
person.)
But I noticed you didn't mention
the fact that atheists have a lower divorce rate than their "morally superior"
brethren.
Religion
% have been divorced
Jews
30%
Born-again Christians
27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists,
Agnostics 21%
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Ironically,
this report was originally commissioned to prove that those of faith walked on a
higher moral plane than do the godless.
I've been surprised that more has
not been made of this not-so-trivial bit of trivia. :-)
Exchange with Peter Tar
PT:
Hi there! These two paragraphs were in your "God Would be an Atheist"
article confused the hell out of me. Let me first assure you that I am
neither a fanatic nor an Atheist: I don't know, but I promise to tell
you if I find out.
Below are included the two paragraphs. You had me nodding through the
first one, and then the second one hits me and I go "WTF does a
society's gun laws have to do with religion?" It was like watching Wile E. Coyote chasing
the Road Runner, everything's cool... but without the Road Runner even
pulling the "puff of smoke" trick, Wile E. Coyote goes running over a cliff.
All believers learn that God holds them responsible for their actions.
So far so good, but for many, belief absolves them of all other
responsibilities. Consciously or subconsciously, those who are "born
again"
or "chosen" have diminished respect for others who do not share their
sect
or their faith. Convinced that only the Bible offers "truth", they lose
their intellectual curiosity and their ability to reason. Their priority
becomes not the world they live in but themselves.
The more people prioritize themselves rather than those around them,
the weaker society becomes and the greater the likelihood of antisocial
behavior. Hence gun laws which encourage Americans to see each other
not as fellow human beings who deserve protection, but as potential
aggressors who deserve to die. And hence a health care system which looks after the
wealthy rather than the ill."
You go from "believers" to "people". Now we're talking apples,
oranges, and fruit. You say, "Apples" and jump right into lumping all
forms of fruit
into the same bowl you designed for apples. So now "fruit" are
responsible for antisocial behavior that "apples" generated, and we see
other fruits as
candidates for Gallagher. Tell me: why does what an Apple believes
define
what gets into Omni-Fruit law?
Now, if you look closely at Japan, most people (even cops) don't have
access to guns. Without guns, it's a bit harder to murder each other:
you'll need
knowledge of poisons, or human anatomy to most effectively kill with a
knife
or other sharp object. But the urge to kill exists regardless of
whether or
not you believe in God. The problem is that belief in God can cause you
to
overlook your natural negative reactions to ending the life of another
human
being. If the others are labeled as "enemy" or "infidel" or otherwise
undesireable, it becomes that much easier to stick a spear through one.
Now, let's go to another "faith" that people use to prioritize each
other and establish identity: we call it "Nationality" and we reinforce
it each
time we watch the Olympics, if not at other times. Forced to choose
between
Americans and anyone else (including our allies), I, as an American,
would
gladly bomb all non-Americans off the face of the planet if that's what
it
took to ensure the survival of me and mine. Most people in other
countries,
faced with the same choice, would happily obliterate me and mine to save
them and theirs. Basic Rule of Monkey Politics: our tribe is more
important than yours, so don't make us shoot you.
The machinery of faith's the same even if the trappings ain't. One has
a flag and the other a cross (or crescent or what have you): all are
symbols
representative of power. Both religious and nationalist social strata
encourage people to submit themselves utterly to higher authority.
Sometimes these authorities issue commands to kill (call it a "Fatwah"
or an
"Executive Order" and people still bleed the same color). Both nations
and
religions lie and manipulate to gain more power. Righteous indignation
is
nothing more than greed for real estate. Governments are just as evil
as
religions: they've just got better PR apparatchiks.
You sell yourselves short. God would also be an Anarchist.
For further reference, consult Howard Bloom's "The
Lucifer
Principle". For an understanding of the basic structure of human
consciousness evolution, see Beck and Cowan's "Spiral Dynamics" (based
on the work of Claire Graves). And please don't advocate
government-based solutions to problems of faith. That's a case of
narrow-minded
thinking:
"There is no other pill to take, so swallow the one that makes you
ill".
You want a Humanist solution, you gotta leave violent coercion and
threats out of it (the bread and butter of governments). Your very
stance puts you
at odds with these coercive institutions, and I do not envy you their
ire.
Which means that to make a lasting change in people, y'all have got to
get
either REALLY good at info-war and transmuting people's outward anger
into
inward reflection, or get really good at running. He who fights
monsters
should take care that he does not become one himself. After all, with
faith
in Humanism, those rosy ideals seem important ends, which if you're not
careful, justifies all sorts of nasty means to be applied to those
opposed
to progress.
"The best lack all convictions; while the worst are full of passionate
intensity" - William Blake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blake
MF:
A couple of quick thoughts....
The paragraphs that you write about....
a) I was moving from the selfishness engendered by belief to
selfishness in general. People who prioritize their own needs above
others are making a short-term gain but a long-term loss. Eg gun
control. "Having a gun makes me feel safer" - short-term gain. But
widespread gun ownership leads to high rates of gun-deaths,
specifically among owners and their families - long-term loss. Total
selfishness is great in theory but as a long-term welfare and survival
strategy, it doesn't work.
PT:
True. But we're also talking about low-meme (RED/Blue) rednecks leaving
loaded weapons around their houses for kids to find. Irresponsibility and
power ALWAYS gets people killed on a long enough time line. Take the same
rednecks, add beer and a 1967 Dodge Charger on a windy country road.
Total selfishness & total selflessness = total foolishness. Take care of
yourself or you won't be able to take care of anyone else. "BALANCE, DANIEL
SAN!"
MF: My fault if it wasn't clear - I tend to try to squeeze too much into
each column
PT: No probs. Do the same thing when I'm rushed to keep the thought.
MF:
And that leads to
b) I went through the anarchist / libertarian phase some time ago.
Great in principle, but don't work in practice. (Detail: I'm a social,
but not economic libertarian.)
Coming from a European background I see government in a very different
light from most Americans. I don't see government as "other". I see
myself as part of government and I see government as part of me, in the
same way I am part of my physical family and my physical family is part
of me. I need the structure of government to make my life easier, both
directly and through control of my neighbors' bad impulses.
PT:
Coming from a Taoist Discordian background and equating with cutting edge
quantum physics, I don't see much difference between myself and the chair I
sit in: humans are so alike that it's recockulous to think that what one
does doesn't echo throughout the Great Chain of Stuff, that what you do
doesn't come back to you.
Of course you're social if you're European: you've grown up surrounded by
it. If you weren't, you'd think you were some black-hat renegade (I grew up
surrounded by the libertarian myth of the American Revolution: if I weren't
a rebel, I'd be a black-hat renegade arch-conservative, like my brother).
What you don't realize because you're distanced from it by a few layers is
that the Socialist method and the Capitalist method are basically the same
game: concentrate the ownership into very few hands to gain control
(Capitalists call it "deregulation" and "mergers & acquisitions" and the
Socialists call it "Nationalization": it's the same farkin' thing
basically). What memes make it to the top, rule everyone from then on.
Simple fact: people in groups make stupider decisions than people by
themselves. We care about each other and when we extend that care the
furthest we tend to do the dumbest things. This is because we don't have
good information about everyone else: we only really know ourselves. We
TELL ourselves that "these people are this way so we need to do X to help
them out" but really, it's just your own prejudices you're talking about,
and you should probably leave those people alone unless they're messing up
your section of reality. They know better than you what they need and will
work to achieve it themselves as long as no one is actively blocking them
from doing it. The Founding Fathers over here considered adding "The Right
to be Left Alone" to the Constitution, but they considered that such an
inherent, common-sense right that they didn't need to write it down. We
kicked the shit out of the Brits in 1778 to prove the point that the
Government which governs LEAST governs best (and to tell them to keep their
dirty hands off our money issuance through Colonial Script).
FYI, the government isn't nearly as good at controlling your neighbors as
you might think. We gun owners have a joke over here: when something bad
happens, call the cops. Call for an ambulance. And call for a pizza. See
which one gets there first.
MF:
I see three options:
No government: good for the strong, bad for the weak
Bad government: bad for everybody except those in power
Good government: good for everybody (although not everybody might
realize it)
PT:
We can't go for "no government" because people don't carry the law in their
hearts enough for us not to need one on paper and enforced by a dude with a
badge and a gun. It's the best solution but we'd have to stop being
assholes for it to work.
Bad Government is what we have because we're ignorant and let them lie
without us checking up on it and holding them accountable. It's a
consequence of media laziness, both parents in the workplace and growing
hourly schedules, and unchecked politicians.
Good government is the one which does the minimal amount necessary for
everyone to get by on their own and doesn't stomp all over anyone's rights
unless they're interfering with other people's rights. Good government
leaves you alone until you absolutely must stop whatever it is you're doing
because it threatens your neighbor's life, liberty and property. Look to
Switzerland, where I trace my furthest roots: everyone owns guns, the
government is largely libertarian, and people aren't barbarians there.
MF:
If I was one of the strong I might go for good government. But the more
I think about it, the more I realize that a society where the weak are
unprotected is a society where the strong are also threatened.
PT:
Strong? [MF: by strong I meant mentally strong] How strong must you be to lift a .45 and pull the trigger? A
250-pound ape charging you would sit on its ass. Gun control always
benefits those in power: take Washington DC (my hometown) for instance. No
one has guns but the cops and criminals. Yet the mugging and hot burglary
rate there is way higher than in the Maryland suburb I live in. Why?
Because the criminals aren't afraid: they know they have power because the
law lowered the bar and they've got the power. A Brit politico found this
out the hard way in Georgetown (the NICEST neighborhood in DC) a month or so
ago.
The problem with the gun debate is that it makes everything look like the
Wild West. But it's not, at least not on the surface. I've owned guns for
years and have never shot anyone. But always remember these two statements:
"Criminals prefer unarmed victims" and "Politicians prefer unarmed
peasants". The Second Amendment was created to put our politicians on
notice, to let them know that we have our limits. There's a number of
possible watershed events that could get us to go; I personally think that
the deciding straw will be the US internment camps built by Halliburton.
They start rounding up protestors for camp slaves like Hitler did, and we'll
show Europe what Americans do with overt Hitlers. We're willing to tolerate
Bush so long as he doesn't send the troops against us. As soon as he does,
it's civil war. I think we'll get another false-flag operation against a US
city before things come to a head, though: my guess is gassing or tac-nuking
of DC or NYC and blaming it on the Iranians to get our excuse for war.
MF:
American government has been going downhill since the 1960s. But that
does not that government in itself is a bad idea. The solution is not
less government, but better government.
PT:
Since Eisenhower left we've not had a true leader in the presidency; since
1913 we've been just as bought by the money power as every government in
Europe. The scarcity is an artificial thing: approximately one percent of
everybody owns more than 90 percent of everybody. The Europeans were
consolidated by the Rothschild family of bankers and the Brits weren't far
behind: they had the system in place before 1860. Look up "Napoleon",
"Wellington" and "Waterloo" and see if you can find out where that stash of
gold that got smuggled through France to Britan wound up going? Right into
the pockets of Wellington's army: Napoleon was a threat to their banking
might, and that's why the rest of Europe took him on. It's also the reason
that Abraham Lincoln was shot: the whole slavery-South connection was just a
convenient smoke screen.
Better Government = OPEN Government. You restrict the powers of the most
dangerous agencies and make their actions transparent to the ones who hold
the purse strings. This presupposes throwing out the banksta vultures who
currently control the purse strings through the Federal Reserve and related
banks.
MF:
And no, I don't expect you'll agree.... :)
PT:
You'd be surprised. I think the main difference is how we percieve
ourselves. I don't think of myself as "strong", merely prepared. Were the
truck of government to come and try to run me over, I'd have to flee and
hide to survive: I'm not an "Army of One" as our commercials put it. But I
look out for my neighbors in times of crisis: when Hurricane Isabel crashed
through the DC region I was out with my handsaw and clearing fallen
branches: get a few of us going for a while and we'll clear our own streets.
Strength is mere physical power. What's required to make any sort of
social change is determination and cooperation. A hundred pounds of ants
can do much more work per hour than a hundred pound human. The secret is in
their determination and cooperation.
PS: The big secret is that the "experts" are just as baffled as the rest of
us schmoes. They're just better at hiding their bafflement and making us
THINK they know what's going on. The world is a big confidence game: ask
Fidel Castro.
|
|
|
|
|
If God existed, he would...
admire the beauty of a universe that he did not create
recognize that eternity is meaningless
deny both heaven and hell
disown all men and women who speak in his name
denounce the harm caused by religious "morality"
help the human race to thrive without him
If God existed, he would be an atheist.
|
|
|
