Hello,

How do you like to see the future for your children & grandchildren?

Religious give higher birth rates - that's a fact.
Most religious people born religious - continue to be one.
There is a gap between extreme religious to moderate in birth rate numbers.

How do you think demography, politics & religion will effect your vision of the future should look like?

Here is a lecture on the issue by political thinker Eric Kaufmann (NEW book "Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century") & some counter responses;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7vCDeKPRSo&feature=player_embedded

Your opinion on this issue?
Do think it's a problem?
Do you offer solutions?

GG

Alright....Yes, most religious have higher birth rates, however, most religious people are less educated and have a lesser awareness of their surroundings. Now, before you all backlash me on this one: it's a fact that people with lesser education and lesser economical status have far greater fertility rate than you typical college graduate assistant manager, for example. And religion is especially strong in rural areas where the traditional way of life is present, than the modern metropolitan areas and big cities.

So if we draw parallels between the two, it's obvious why the religious people have a higher birth rate. Yes, there is also a religious reason too...most religions on Earth advocate procreation for the sake of giving birth, and extended family.

So, I'm not saying that all religious people are poor and uneducated, no, but if we would compare them with atheists and agnostics, the latter would have a higher percentage in education and economical status.

Now, about the second one, yes, religious people tend to raise religious people. Why? Because they don't really have the choice most of the time, it's just their way of life, their custom. And especially so in the Muslim communities. So, they are simply raising their kids the way they were raised themselves. Exceptions exist, of course.

What do I think of an issue? Some are predicting that Europe will be an Islamic continent by the end of 2050. due to the increased rate of their immigration, and the fact that each Muslim has about 7-8 children, while your typical highly-educated, corporation CEO white European has two at the best, a syndrome that strikes most highly-developed regions in the world.

I don't offer any solutions, other than letting people know that religious extremism isn't a way to go.

I sure hope that the religious won't inherit the Earth. There was once a time when religion ruled the world. That time was known as the Dark Ages.

Written by Guest on 15.05.2010 at 20:05

I sure hope that the religious won't inherit the Earth. There was once a time when religion ruled the world. That time was known as the Dark Ages.

Please define "TEH DAARK AYGES!"...

from which date to which date, where, with whom and how?

Then we'll gladly speak on...

***
Speaking of the DAARK AYGES... who says we ain't living one now?

Written by Ernis on 15.05.2010 at 20:31

Written by Guest on 15.05.2010 at 20:05

I sure hope that the religious won't inherit the Earth. There was once a time when religion ruled the world. That time was known as the Dark Ages.

Please define "TEH DAARK AYGES!"...

from which date to which date, where, with whom and how?

Then we'll gladly speak on...

***
Speaking of the DAARK AYGES... who says we ain't living one now?

You didn't have to ask so rudely, but the definition is from this:

Quote:
During the 17th and 18th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment, many critical thinkers saw religion as antithetical to reason. For them the Middle Ages, or "Age of Faith", was therefore the polar opposite of the Age of Reason. Kant and Voltaire, among others, were vocal in attacking the religiously dominated Middle Ages as a period of social regress, while Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire expressed contempt for the "rubbish of the Dark Ages". Yet just as Petrarch, seeing himself on the threshold of a "new age", was criticizing the centuries until his own time, so too were the Enlightenment writers criticizing the centuries until their own. These extended well after Petrarch's time, since religious domination and conflict were still common into the 17th century and beyond, albeit diminished in scope.

Written by Guest on 15.05.2010 at 20:46

Quote:
During the 17th and 18th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment, many critical thinkers saw religion as antithetical to reason. For them the Middle Ages, or "Age of Faith", was therefore the polar opposite of the Age of Reason. Kant and Voltaire, among others, were vocal in attacking the religiously dominated Middle Ages as a period of social regress, while Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire expressed contempt for the "rubbish of the Dark Ages". Yet just as Petrarch, seeing himself on the threshold of a "new age", was criticizing the centuries until his own time, so too were the Enlightenment writers criticizing the centuries until their own. These extended well after Petrarch's time, since religious domination and conflict were still common into the 17th century and beyond, albeit diminished in scope.

Yes, in the USSR we also studied that the middle ages were "dark ages" and that since the 17th century people finally started to make some progress and, for sure, we in the USSR were about to reach the absolute golden age of mankind... jaaa jaa...

Let's all just forget about the rich art history we have from the period between 5th and 17th centuries... let's forget bout all the literature works, all the music composed, all the science achievements (sic!) and other surprisingly not so dark things...

It's very common to say that "The previous period sucked. The one that was before it was better, let's repeat this one." They say things like that all the time, if we try to be objective then we'd know that middle ages were not darker than any other period...

Written by Ernis on 15.05.2010 at 21:11

Written by Guest on 15.05.2010 at 20:46

Quote:
During the 17th and 18th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment, many critical thinkers saw religion as antithetical to reason. For them the Middle Ages, or "Age of Faith", was therefore the polar opposite of the Age of Reason. Kant and Voltaire, among others, were vocal in attacking the religiously dominated Middle Ages as a period of social regress, while Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire expressed contempt for the "rubbish of the Dark Ages". Yet just as Petrarch, seeing himself on the threshold of a "new age", was criticizing the centuries until his own time, so too were the Enlightenment writers criticizing the centuries until their own. These extended well after Petrarch's time, since religious domination and conflict were still common into the 17th century and beyond, albeit diminished in scope.

Yes, in the USSR we also studied that the middle ages were "dark ages" and that since the 17th century people finally started to make some progress and, for sure, we in the USSR were about to reach the absolute golden age of mankind... jaaa jaa...

Let's all just forget about the rich art history we have from the period between 5th and 17th centuries... let's forget bout all the literature works, all the music composed, all the science achievements (sic!) and other surprisingly not so dark things...

It's very common to say that "The previous period sucked. The one that was before it was better, let's repeat this one." They say things like that all the time, if we try to be objective then we'd know that middle ages were not darker than any other period...

I understand you are a fan of the Church, I understand it when I see blindness.
The dark ages refers to the 5-15 century intellectually.
Actually modern science started at the 16 century and the church did not like it.
Before that it was Aristotelian science & in the period scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotelian science which started at the 4th century BC!

And actually beautiful literature and art of the classic period and the enlightenment are incomparable to the middle ages (expect the Renaissance tradition which the Church, of course, did not like at all).

Religion actually holds back culture enrichment, Anthony Gottlieb depicts this beautifully in his book "The Dream of Reason: A History of Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance".
Other then that, the enlightenment was a returning to Greece to pluralism and unbiased and restricted philosophy.
Rational explanations instead of theological fantasies (how many angles can dance on a head of a pin?)

No, no one should be interested in a majority of the religious, since we love our freedom and humanist tradition
and would like to keep them.
Other then that expect restrictions on freedom of speech, money going to churches & a people who think that "the word of god" justifies
actions (like the genius G.W Bush).

Religious inheriting the earth? Isnt most people in the world nowadays religious anyways?
Who cares who inherits the earth, as far as I am concerned in a hundred years there will be no earth left to inherit anyways. My point is, there are many many issues about the future that are more relevant than who believes in what, or who will believe in what and if they are going to inherit the earth.

I was in a debate in my religion class today. and it was basically about that.

the point was that at the peak of islam, Baghdad was the prolly the second most advance city of its time after shanghai, China. the level of education was at its peak. and since middle east was right in the middle during the middle ages, they were the center of everything you can imagine. they knew everything about africa, europe, asia, india, china etc... so in a strange way, it was the center of the world at that time. the prof said that if it kept going the way it was, then right now, all the prestigious universities like Oxford, Yale, Harvard etc were all to be located in Baghdad, and we all would flock there for our education. yet that didn't happen. why?

for one thing, islam became a bit too big and was being attached by all sides, and thus, it had to remove its attention from education and put it towards defending it. second, this also made islam turn inwards on its self. the idea was that if people would lose their religion if they are constantly attacked by the world. the only way to keep it is by going inward.

doesn't make sense? think of it this way....a person who is religious, and going by the book, and only seeing things as 'black and white', and following the religion to the T, then he/she would not create weapons of mass destruction. they wont go to war. they wont harm other people.

taking it from a different perspective, religion was holding europe back. gallalio came out saying earth isn't the center of the universe, earth isn't flat, etc etc...and he was put under house arrest because of it. europe in a way had to reject the church in order to take over the world in forms of colonization.

so no, religion cant really take over the world. if a religion is to take over the world, then it would be a very secular religion. people would be called muslim, or chirstian or whatever, but they wont actually be following it.

The only way for the society to prosper as a whole is complete eradication of religion. But since that's hardly possible, secularization of states is the next best thing. Why do people criticize Islam so much? Because Christianity no longer holds any power in states where it's dominate religion, unlike Islam where it's dogmas and doctrines are responsible for a great number of injustice.

Once the government of countries in middle east get completely separated from the church, the Islam itself won't be so vile.

Basically it all comes down to: Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Written by Kennoth on 17.11.2010 at 14:23

The only way for the society to prosper as a whole is complete eradication of religion. But since that's hardly possible, secularization of states is the next best thing. Why do people criticize Islam so much? Because Christianity no longer holds any power in states where it's dominate religion, unlike Islam where it's dogmas and doctrines are responsible for a great number of injustice.

Once the government of countries in middle east get completely separated from the church, the Islam itself won't be so vile.

Basically it all comes down to: Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I think what you say is very dangerous, most people in the world are religious, and as far as i know, (and i know a lot of people) most people in the world are good people. To me religion is a cultural aspect of many ethnicities and countries, and the fact that you are saying that it should be better to eradicate it completely is like.... what are you going to do with people who wont stop being religious? kill them?
Second, Islam is not responsible for injustice, if you read the Q'uran it doesn't say anything about women being the possession of men, or about killing anyone who is not muslim. Those are just examples of religions used as a tool for injustice, but ANYTHING can be used as a tool for injustice. If you go out and preach about the evil people who practices the jihad, or remind people about the inquisition or whatever, there will be some people who are stupid and radical enough to go seeking for religious people and beat them up, or burn churches or stuff like that, it has happened, and how are those "seculars" different from the religious fundamentalist?

Also, yes power can corrupt, but saying is as a general thing is not understanding the nature of power, everyone has some kind of power some time in their lives, that does not mean they are corrupted in that moment. People who have power, can also have will and discipline to control it and use it for good (there are countless historical examples, many of which are religious people) so to me it is not about religion or about having power or not, if you have morals and values and respect the others, it doesnt matter if you are a muslim, an atheist, an emperor or a servant, you wont be corrupt.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 01:47

I think what you say is very dangerous, most people in the world are religious, and as far as i know, (and i know a lot of people) most people in the world are good people. To me religion is a cultural aspect of many ethnicities and countries, and the fact that you are saying that it should be better to eradicate it completely is like.... what are you going to do with people who wont stop being religious? kill them?

This is a process that's not done over night. I was referring to the gradual evolution of society in the next 50, 100 or 200 years. Slowly but steadily eradicating religion by granting even the poorest classes higher education and the sense of awareness. Don't worry, I wasn't planning on any mass genocide towards religious people.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 01:47

Second, Islam is not responsible for injustice, if you read the Q'uran it doesn't say anything about women being the possession of men, or about killing anyone who is not muslim. Those are just examples of religions used as a tool for injustice, but ANYTHING can be used as a tool for injustice. If you go out and preach about the evil people who practices the jihad, or remind people about the inquisition or whatever, there will be some people who are stupid and radical enough to go seeking for religious people and beat them up, or burn churches or stuff like that, it has happened, and how are those "seculars" different from the religious fundamentalist?

That is partially true, though I've never read Q'uran so I can't claim things for sure, but if other sources are to be trusted (some very educated and literate men), they say that some archaic rules are indeed there that would be highly unjust and controversial today. Anything can be corrupted and used as a tool for injustice, true, though all those folks whipping women, stoning people, blowing things up, they all claim they do this in the name of their faith and the holy war, and they all believe that after blowing up 100 people, they will be met in heaven by 70 virgins, so it's not like the religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 01:47

Also, yes power can corrupt, but saying is as a general thing is not understanding the nature of power, everyone has some kind of power some time in their lives, that does not mean they are corrupted in that moment. People who have power, can also have will and discipline to control it and use it for good (there are countless historical examples, many of which are religious people) so to me it is not about religion or about having power or not, if you have morals and values and respect the others, it doesnt matter if you are a muslim, an atheist, an emperor or a servant, you wont be corrupt.

Kinda naive of you. I think you misunderstand the term power. Power is not the ability to tell your dog to sit, or your son to get you a milk from the grocery. Besides, I'm not saying that ALL men in power are corrupt, but most of them pretty much are. You don't get to be very powerful without making a questionable moral choice or two. I mean, lets face it, today's politicians, CEO's of the multinational corporations, heads of various influential organizations, they all have power to influence a broad specter of events. And when you get a hold of that kind of ability, it makes you wonder just what you can do with it to make your life as best as possible. It's a matter of opinion of whether are people in basis evil or good, but it's been proven countless times before that power indeed corrupts. Just take a look at the Catholic church today. It's pretty harmless, hence other than some pedophilia scandal every now and there, we don't get to see inquisition, and other vile acts.

Written by Kennoth on 18.11.2010 at 02:07

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 01:47

I think what you say is very dangerous, most people in the world are religious, and as far as i know, (and i know a lot of people) most people in the world are good people. To me religion is a cultural aspect of many ethnicities and countries, and the fact that you are saying that it should be better to eradicate it completely is like.... what are you going to do with people who wont stop being religious? kill them?

This is a process that's not done over night. I was referring to the gradual evolution of society in the next 50, 100 or 200 years. Slowly but steadily eradicating religion by granting even the poorest classes higher education and the sense of awareness. Don't worry, I wasn't planning on any mass genocide towards religious people.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 01:47

Second, Islam is not responsible for injustice, if you read the Q'uran it doesn't say anything about women being the possession of men, or about killing anyone who is not muslim. Those are just examples of religions used as a tool for injustice, but ANYTHING can be used as a tool for injustice. If you go out and preach about the evil people who practices the jihad, or remind people about the inquisition or whatever, there will be some people who are stupid and radical enough to go seeking for religious people and beat them up, or burn churches or stuff like that, it has happened, and how are those "seculars" different from the religious fundamentalist?

That is partially true, though I've never read Q'uran so I can't claim things for sure, but if other sources are to be trusted (some very educated and literate men), they say that some archaic rules are indeed there that would be highly unjust and controversial today. Anything can be corrupted and used as a tool for injustice, true, though all those folks whipping women, stoning people, blowing things up, they all claim they do this in the name of their faith and the holy war, and they all believe that after blowing up 100 people, they will be met in heaven by 70 virgins, so it's not like the religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 01:47

Also, yes power can corrupt, but saying is as a general thing is not understanding the nature of power, everyone has some kind of power some time in their lives, that does not mean they are corrupted in that moment. People who have power, can also have will and discipline to control it and use it for good (there are countless historical examples, many of which are religious people) so to me it is not about religion or about having power or not, if you have morals and values and respect the others, it doesnt matter if you are a muslim, an atheist, an emperor or a servant, you wont be corrupt.

Kinda naive of you. I think you misunderstand the term power. Power is not the ability to tell your dog to sit, or your son to get you a milk from the grocery. Besides, I'm not saying that ALL men in power are corrupt, but most of them pretty much are. You don't get to be very powerful without making a questionable moral choice or two. I mean, lets face it, today's politicians, CEO's of the multinational corporations, heads of various influential organizations, they all have power to influence a broad specter of events. And when you get a hold of that kind of ability, it makes you wonder just what you can do with it to make your life as best as possible. It's a matter of opinion of whether are people in basis evil or good, but it's been proven countless times before that power indeed corrupts. Just take a look at the Catholic church today. It's pretty harmless, hence other than some pedophilia scandal every now and there, we don't get to see inquisition, and other vile acts.

Sorry not to be impressed by your comments but they show only generalizations and partial truths. First of all not all religious people are poor and uneducated, a huge huge percentage of people are educated and religious and they understand two things like science and religion can coexists, such people are more useful to peace than people that say both terms are not compatible. Second, in educating children, I would rather tell them believe or dont believe, its your choice, than just start indoctrinating them in saying religion is harmful because then those children will become potential threats to those still religious. By doing that we will be making the same mistake as the fundamentalist who indoctrinate. Would you not rather teach tolerance among different points of view than start a 200 years campaign that will inevitably turn into violence?
Third, most muslims are peaceful people and against terrorist, many I know are intellectuals and have done more to society than you or me and respect women, other religions and peace. That pretty much tells me that your knowledge of Islam is limited to what you see on TV. And that your points of view are based on the media and on what seems to be a popular trend to attack religions. Fourth yeas there are pedophiles in the church, but in real statistics the highest percent of pedophiles and sexual abusers are among people who are not clerics of any kind. Of course its always more interesting and dramatic to make a scandal when the man in question is a cleric, sexual abuse is a humans right violation period, but its ignorant to say that religion is the cause for it, thats not my opinion, those are statistics.
Fifth I still think you have a very short narrow view of power, you would rather go for the spiciest meaning, yet power is the ability of any person to make another person do something this second person normally would not have the initiative to do this can be for good or for bad (I study political sciences so im not just saying this without nothing to back me up). Power does not corrupt if you dont let it, and is not about being a perfect human being when you have power, im not saying that. Im saying if you have strong moral values and a strong will, power will not make you corrupt, if a lot of people who have power are weak, and get corrupt thats a matter of how much morals they have, NOT of how much power. If you still disagree then I guess you just dont believe in the capability of men and women to chance society for good, because well, you need power for that and no idea of eradication of religion or reforms here and changes there that you will have can actually be useful since all men who have the power to change will get corrupt anyways.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 19:25

Sorry not to be impressed by your comments but they show only generalizations and partial truths. First of all not all religious people are poor and uneducated, a huge huge percentage of people are educated and religious and they understand two things like science and religion can coexists, such people are more useful to peace than people that say both terms are not compatible. Second, in educating children, I would rather tell them believe or dont believe, its your choice, than just start indoctrinating them in saying religion is harmful because then those children will become potential threats to those still religious. By doing that we will be making the same mistake as the fundamentalist who indoctrinate. Would you not rather teach tolerance among different points of view than start a 200 years campaign that will inevitably turn into violence?

I was not meaning to impress anyone. I was not implying that all religious people are uneducated and poor (though I see it could be perceived that way). Quite the contrary, yes, there are many highly educated and wealthy people that believe in some kind of deity. HOWEVER, statistics don't lie. The fact remains (I study sociology, and I've studied politics and economics before so I'm not shooting blanks either) that the majority of poor and people with low to none education are believers in one religion of another, and that the people that are highly educated, college or above, with job in high positions are mostly atheists. There was a survey long ago among professors in Universities in UK, including prestige places such as Cambridge and Oxford, where vast majority of professors have declared themselves as atheists. How do you explain that? Or better yet, can you? Because I can.

Don't worry, I would not force my child to believe/not to believe, so I share your opinion on that one. My child would have absolute freedom in it's choice of belief, though my stance here is perfectly clear. Yes, tolerance is the golden word here, and I'm tolerant against other religions. At least I think so.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 19:25

Third, most muslims are peaceful people and against terrorist, many I know are intellectuals and have done more to society than you or me and respect women, other religions and peace. That pretty much tells me that your knowledge of Islam is limited to what you see on TV. And that your points of view are based on the media and on what seems to be a popular trend to attack religions.

Most people? I can't say I know a great deal about Muslim society, so I guess that I agree with you. But I do read, and I do watch. I refuse to believe in a world-wide conspiracy against religion, or better yet, Islam in general. There is over-exaggeration surely, but if the media are correct in only 50% of cases, that's already a great deal of damage. I read stories about women refusing to marry the man her family arranged for her, so they cast her out of the family. I read stories about a woman being raped, and instead of keeping silent, she went forward for it, and instead of compassion and justice, she got punished for being intimate before marriage! Are you saying that all of these are just lies? I can understand that about 60% of Muslims are exactly as you described them. Especially in the city districts. But what about the rest of them? Saying that religion plays no role her is very ignorant. Whether we like it or not, Islam is deeply rooted within laws of Middle Eastern and other Muslim states.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 19:25

Fourth yeas there are pedophiles in the church, but in real statistics the highest percent of pedophiles and sexual abusers are among people who are not clerics of any kind. Of course its always more interesting and dramatic to make a scandal when the man in question is a cleric, sexual abuse is a humans right violation period, but its ignorant to say that religion is the cause for it, thats not my opinion, those are statistics.

Well duh. How many clerics do you think there is in the world? What kind of reasoning is this? If there is say 1% of clerics in US, and 3% taxists, 3% managers, 5% bankers etc, how would there NOT be a small percentage of clerics among pedophiles? Or to simply clarify: most people aren't clerics, period. Now, if we are to compare the percentage of pedophiles within each branch or profession, that would be far more adequate statistic.
You say it's much more dramatic when the pedophile is a cleric? Well damn right it should be! Any public and moral outrage in this matter is more than welcome for me. These are the men that are seen as a stable of leadership and moral in a lot of communities. These are the men we trust, and act as a 'messenger of faith'. Its NOT the same (even though the child suffers the same) if a pedophile is some ordinary person, worker, or a cleric/teacher in the kids school. And I never ever said that religion is to blame for pedophilia.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 19:25

Fifth I still think you have a very short narrow view of power, you would rather go for the spiciest meaning, yet power is the ability of any person to make another person do something this second person normally would not have the initiative to do this can be for good or for bad (I study political sciences so im not just saying this without nothing to back me up). Power does not corrupt if you dont let it, and is not about being a perfect human being when you have power, im not saying that. Im saying if you have strong moral values and a strong will, power will not make you corrupt, if a lot of people who have power are weak, and get corrupt thats a matter of how much morals they have, NOT of how much power. If you still disagree then I guess you just dont believe in the capability of men and women to chance society for good, because well, you need power for that and no idea of eradication of religion or reforms here and changes there that you will have can actually be useful since all men who have the power to change will get corrupt anyways.

I guess our understanding of power differs. I think something you're referring to can be called as influence, or persuasion rather than power. We can all shoot blanks here, but the fact remains that both you and me lack any power to actually understand it. While I'm a skeptical and cynical person, I can agree that there are some men and women out there that don't abuse their power. But saying that majority of them don't is rather naive to me. I must say that I got a bit confused by your last sentence. Let's put it this way. Change is already happening. It's happening right now, as we speak. Just compare religion now with the religion from 200 years ago. With the globalization going on, rapid rise of technology and easy access to information for everyone, religion is not nearly as important or influential as it once was. I would say it's nearly a matter of time.

Written by Kennoth on 18.11.2010 at 22:25

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 19:25

Sorry not to be impressed by your comments but they show only generalizations and partial truths. First of all not all religious people are poor and uneducated, a huge huge percentage of people are educated and religious and they understand two things like science and religion can coexists, such people are more useful to peace than people that say both terms are not compatible. Second, in educating children, I would rather tell them believe or dont believe, its your choice, than just start indoctrinating them in saying religion is harmful because then those children will become potential threats to those still religious. By doing that we will be making the same mistake as the fundamentalist who indoctrinate. Would you not rather teach tolerance among different points of view than start a 200 years campaign that will inevitably turn into violence?

I was not meaning to impress anyone. I was not implying that all religious people are uneducated and poor (though I see it could be perceived that way). Quite the contrary, yes, there are many highly educated and wealthy people that believe in some kind of deity. HOWEVER, statistics don't lie. The fact remains (I study sociology, and I've studied politics and economics before so I'm not shooting blanks either) that the majority of poor and people with low to none education are believers in one religion of another, and that the people that are highly educated, college or above, with job in high positions are mostly atheists. There was a survey long ago among professors in Universities in UK, including prestige places such as Cambridge and Oxford, where vast majority of professors have declared themselves as atheists. How do you explain that? Or better yet, can you? Because I can.

Don't worry, I would not force my child to believe/not to believe, so I share your opinion on that one. My child would have absolute freedom in it's choice of belief, though my stance here is perfectly clear. Yes, tolerance is the golden word here, and I'm tolerant against other religions. At least I think so.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 19:25

Third, most muslims are peaceful people and against terrorist, many I know are intellectuals and have done more to society than you or me and respect women, other religions and peace. That pretty much tells me that your knowledge of Islam is limited to what you see on TV. And that your points of view are based on the media and on what seems to be a popular trend to attack religions.

Most people? I can't say I know a great deal about Muslim society, so I guess that I agree with you. But I do read, and I do watch. I refuse to believe in a world-wide conspiracy against religion, or better yet, Islam in general. There is over-exaggeration surely, but if the media are correct in only 50% of cases, that's already a great deal of damage. I read stories about women refusing to marry the man her family arranged for her, so they cast her out of the family. I read stories about a woman being raped, and instead of keeping silent, she went forward for it, and instead of compassion and justice, she got punished for being intimate before marriage! Are you saying that all of these are just lies? I can understand that about 60% of Muslims are exactly as you described them. Especially in the city districts. But what about the rest of them? Saying that religion plays no role her is very ignorant. Whether we like it or not, Islam is deeply rooted within laws of Middle Eastern and other Muslim states.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 19:25

Fourth yeas there are pedophiles in the church, but in real statistics the highest percent of pedophiles and sexual abusers are among people who are not clerics of any kind. Of course its always more interesting and dramatic to make a scandal when the man in question is a cleric, sexual abuse is a humans right violation period, but its ignorant to say that religion is the cause for it, thats not my opinion, those are statistics.

Well duh. How many clerics do you think there is in the world? What kind of reasoning is this? If there is say 1% of clerics in US, and 3% taxists, 3% managers, 5% bankers etc, how would there NOT be a small percentage of clerics among pedophiles? Or to simply clarify: most people aren't clerics, period. Now, if we are to compare the percentage of pedophiles within each branch or profession, that would be far more adequate statistic.
You say it's much more dramatic when the pedophile is a cleric? Well damn right it should be! Any public and moral outrage in this matter is more than welcome for me. These are the men that are seen as a stable of leadership and moral in a lot of communities. These are the men we trust, and act as a 'messenger of faith'. Its NOT the same (even though the child suffers the same) if a pedophile is some ordinary person, worker, or a cleric/teacher in the kids school. And I never ever said that religion is to blame for pedophilia.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 19:25

Fifth I still think you have a very short narrow view of power, you would rather go for the spiciest meaning, yet power is the ability of any person to make another person do something this second person normally would not have the initiative to do this can be for good or for bad (I study political sciences so im not just saying this without nothing to back me up). Power does not corrupt if you dont let it, and is not about being a perfect human being when you have power, im not saying that. Im saying if you have strong moral values and a strong will, power will not make you corrupt, if a lot of people who have power are weak, and get corrupt thats a matter of how much morals they have, NOT of how much power. If you still disagree then I guess you just dont believe in the capability of men and women to chance society for good, because well, you need power for that and no idea of eradication of religion or reforms here and changes there that you will have can actually be useful since all men who have the power to change will get corrupt anyways.

I guess our understanding of power differs. I think something you're referring to can be called as influence, or persuasion rather than power. We can all shoot blanks here, but the fact remains that both you and me lack any power to actually understand it. While I'm a skeptical and cynical person, I can agree that there are some men and women out there that don't abuse their power. But saying that majority of them don't is rather naive to me. I must say that I got a bit confused by your last sentence. Let's put it this way. Change is already happening. It's happening right now, as we speak. Just compare religion now with the religion from 200 years ago. With the globalization going on, rapid rise of technology and easy access to information for everyone, religion is not nearly as important or influential as it once was. I would say it's nearly a matter of time.

This again is to partial to me, professors of universities in Cambridge of Oxford? first of all you are talking about countries with a higher percentage of atheist to begin with, there is still no connection between the fact that they are atheist and the fact that they are professors, you say it as if it was part of their resume or something. UK is a country with a high percentage of atheists this is how I explain this. I have been there times before and yes professors are atheists, but also bums, skinheads and the drunk people you find in bars. Making a connection with atheism and intellect is just plain ridicule, also to portray religion as a cause of poverty is ignorant, if you study economy you should know that there are so many factors related to poverty none of which is related with religion.

About what we were talking about, in pedophilia and Catholicism, I only said what I said because you are the millionth person I read who relates them as soon as you hear the word. Of course its an issue that has to be treated, no doubt. My point is, if all men are equal, then every single case of sexual abuse has to be an scandal, not only the ones that serve the political agenda of certain people.

Now, yes there are Muslim countries which apply the Sharia law, which its a law that makes Islamic law, the state law, and yes many atrocities are made there to women as a result of the abuse of this laws. But these governments are radical and people who make this actions are radical as well, and radicalism isnt solely in Islam, or in religion. I lived in Hungary for two years, its a neighbor country of yours so you might know there are many gipsies there. During the time I lived there I saw so many atrocities done to gipsy women and families by skinheads (this people lack religion, and are uneducated) from a simple beating up in the streets, to the burning of houses with people in them, including rape and murder. SO many of this things were unpunished, and are extremely common in western society as well, so you cant really blame it on Islam or any other religion, people who have morals will respect other, people who dont, wont, period.

Also, power IS as defined by many political scientist, what I described to you, so this is not my opinion, this opinion is backed by an authority created by the study of it. To limit the meaning of power at what you want it to limit it is to have a narrow view of it. Influence is a part of power, they aren't separated as you, purposely or not, are portraying in your response. I did not say the majority of people in places of power are good or bad, I said power itself does not corrupt if the person has the will to use it in a positive way.

Thats my point. And yes things are changing constantly, religion is not what it used to be 200 years ago, but saying its only a matter of time before it disappears is again incredibly narrow minded, even tough institutions like the catholic church dont have the influence they used to in the past, religious people are everywhere, consider India, the Middle East, Latin America, Africa, Asia. Pretty much the fastest growing populations are religious, yours the European which is not even growing is actually decreasing, and also I mean, Islam is growing in Europe at such a fast rate in France, Belgium, Germany and the UK, so I simply dont know what you mean when you say "its only matter of time". I think religions will evolve into something more suitable for todays society, instead of disappearing, maybe some will transform into other things, maybe some INDEED will disappear as it has happened in the past, but religion as a whole, i dont think so.

Finally I just find it confusing that you talk about eradication then about tolerance.