01-14-2010, 04:06 PM
I'm not quite sure what to distill from this. On one hand, you seem to be arguing for a kind of social majoritarianism, with religious agreement at its base, but on the other, you are acknowledging the importance of liberty, protecting individuals from exactly that "social cohesion." Just because a solution to a social problem could be found by just legislating peoples' religious prejudices, doesn't mean it should be. Indeed, the most admirable part of the US Constitution, to my mind, is in rejecting exactly that method.
I can't say I find it even slightly true that Christianity makes for coherent, peaceful societies. The evidence just doesn't stack up. Religious countries are not less violent than non-religious ones. Non-religious people are not less generous - there are atheists in soup kitchens just the same as everyone else. Wars between Christian nations, even ones that share a denomination, are legion throughout history. Bitter civil conflicts over religious interpretation have torn whole societies apart. To give just one example, Ireland has had its share of treating each other like "brothers" - when the whole society descended into decades of fratricide.
Meanwhile, the collapse of religious belief has not led to any particularly negative consequences - those societies who believe least are among the most equal, prosperous, peaceful and coherent societies in the world. If religion is the best solution, then why aren't Japan, Sweden, or Uruguay descending into a morass of amorality? Why are super-religious Nigeria or Brazil very violent countries, when they should be able to lean on religion to help out? I know my answer - it doesn't work. Social coherence comes from elsewhere.
Any religion composed of two billion people is going to be complicated, and you're right, it's not fair to simply look at the negative side of it, when there are also positives. But you equally can't throw the negatives overboard by simply defining them out of the argument. If Christians (as a whole, not necessarily individually) fail to live up to their supposed obligations, time and time again, then how reasonable is it to make the argument that Christianity is this wonderful creed that causes peace, goodwill and social cohesion? That's just an idealized fantasy, from where I sit.
-Jester
I can't say I find it even slightly true that Christianity makes for coherent, peaceful societies. The evidence just doesn't stack up. Religious countries are not less violent than non-religious ones. Non-religious people are not less generous - there are atheists in soup kitchens just the same as everyone else. Wars between Christian nations, even ones that share a denomination, are legion throughout history. Bitter civil conflicts over religious interpretation have torn whole societies apart. To give just one example, Ireland has had its share of treating each other like "brothers" - when the whole society descended into decades of fratricide.
Meanwhile, the collapse of religious belief has not led to any particularly negative consequences - those societies who believe least are among the most equal, prosperous, peaceful and coherent societies in the world. If religion is the best solution, then why aren't Japan, Sweden, or Uruguay descending into a morass of amorality? Why are super-religious Nigeria or Brazil very violent countries, when they should be able to lean on religion to help out? I know my answer - it doesn't work. Social coherence comes from elsewhere.
Any religion composed of two billion people is going to be complicated, and you're right, it's not fair to simply look at the negative side of it, when there are also positives. But you equally can't throw the negatives overboard by simply defining them out of the argument. If Christians (as a whole, not necessarily individually) fail to live up to their supposed obligations, time and time again, then how reasonable is it to make the argument that Christianity is this wonderful creed that causes peace, goodwill and social cohesion? That's just an idealized fantasy, from where I sit.
-Jester