[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[plattholden at gmail.com]

We should not overlook atheist North Korea nor the 20th century atheist 
countries of  Russia, China and Cambodia whose citizens were murdered by the 
tens of millions. As for atheist countries like Sweden, a study by the Swedish 
Research Institute of Trade found that if Sweden were a U.S. state, it would be 
the poorest measured by household gross income before taxes. In fact, the study 
showed that Swedes are poorer than African Americans, the most economically 
deprived group in the United States. So as usual, there's another side to the 
story. Finally, I'm with Pirsig who characterized socialist cities as "dull." 
because "there's little Dynamic Quality."  

Platt


On 24 Aug 2010 at 11:40, david buchanan wrote:


Horse said:
I realise that in the strictest sense we aren't looking at the USA as a 
theocracy, but in the broader sense I think this is the case.


dmb says:

There is a sociologist named Phil Zuckerman who looked at the levels of 
religiosity in the various nations and their possible correlations to the basic 
quality of life in those nations. He also looked at the levels of religiosity 
within the United States, from state to state, and compared that to the levels 
of social dysfunction. This would include everything from drunk driving to 
divorce, domestic abuse, poverty, ignorance and crime in general. As it turns 
out, nation by nation or state by state, the more religious the population the 
more social disease there is. Other surveys show a correlation between 
religiosity and low educational and intelligence levels. Most Americans (85%) 
say they believe in God. By contrast, less than 1% of the members of the 
national academy of science say they believe in any kind of personal God. Most 
Americans also believe that you can't be a moral person without religion, but 
the demographic facts say the opposite is true no matter where you look.

Sam Harris said, "Contrary to the views of many conservative pundits and the 
Christian Right, the least religious countries in the world today are not full 
of chaos and immorality, but are actually among the safest, healthiest, most 
well-educated, prosperous, ethical, and successful societies on earth. Based on 
a year´s worth of research conducted while living in Scandinavia, Society 
Without God by Phil Zuckerman explores life in a largely secular culture, 
delving into the unique worldviews of secular men and women who live in a 
largely irreligious society, and explaining the reasons why some nations are 
less religious than others, and why relgious faith doesnTMt seem to be the 
secret to national success that so many claim it to be."

Zuckerman's book, "Society Without God" shows that societies are better off in 
all kinds of way when they are secular rather than religious. As in the case of 
the United States, the nation in question need not officially be a theocracy 
for it to count as a religious nation or a nation with a religious culture. 
Outside of Africa, Afghanistan is the poorest nation on earth and, probably NOT 
coincidentally, the home of the Taliban. Consider Tibet and North Korea. 
Consider the difference between Vermont and Alabama. 

This is NOT a cause and effect relationship, of course. As I see it, 
religiosity and the social problems associated with it are two aspects of the 
same lack of development. The social level morality offered by religion fits 
like a glove in a social situation where a regression to biological values 
poses a real threat. When a mega-church goes into a high-crime neighborhood the 
crime rate drops. The church is a step up when you're in a situation where the 
laws of the jungle rule. This is the social level putting its restraints on the 
instincts for sex and aggression and hedonistic pleasure in general. On the 
other hand, religion has always been quite useful in serving authoritarian 
political interests. And this is really what we see in the USA. The religious 
right is just as right-wing as it is religious, if not more so. And the Taliban-
style authoritarianism or any kind of militant fundamentalism is far more 
political than spiritual. In fact, as I understand the term, there is no 
"spirituality" in that level of religion. If religion is supposed to help you 
grow in your inner life, these social level religions would have a very low 
success rate, so low that they might not even count as religions. Personally, I 
think this part of the problem needs more attention. 

Why should we be faced with a choice between a mean, stupid religion and no 
religion at all? That's gotta be a false dilemma. Like other aspects of the 
culture, these things evolve or they perish. And this brings us back to 
secularism and religious freedom. It doesn't just mean you're free to choose 
from among the available institutional organizations like so many brands of 
breakfast cereal. The idea is to open up a non-coercive space so that each of 
us has the room to cultivate some kind of inner life. The best thing about NOT 
being in a theocracy is that cultural and religious evolution, as well as 
personal development, is far more possible. We don't want the government to 
tell us what's the best way to live because that can only be discovered in the 
process of living, it's too dynamic, too situational to be issued by decree. 










 


 		 	   		  
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html