Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think having the two as one is more corrupting because it further consolidates power to fewer people.
Not only do you break the law where a leader is of both spheres of influence, what you have done is a sin (sucks for speeders). You can't debate or disagree with a political decision, because it's heresy.
Good point. We just need to look at the Holy Inquisition to back your points up.
There are several factors contributing to poverty and religion in specific regions. In South America, there was a heavy Spanish influence. After Columbus returned from the "New World" in 1493, Spain and Portugual had been at each others throats for a long time. Upon announcing his new "discoveries" the pope at the time (Pope Alexander) split the New World between the two nations (both heavy in Catholic religion). As they Spanish and Portugese began expanding into the new world, so did the new religion. When the two nations left the New World, they left half-civilized countries with only faith and power vacuums. Those that were powerful enough to take control of those countries laid the foundation for the corruption that is still rampant in most of them. That left only religion for most of the population to hold on to, especially in current time where they (the countries) have developed militaries.
For Asia, it must also be understood that those that are predominantly Catholic (Philippines - approximately 83%) was also under Spanish control during the 9th and 15th centuries until the Philippine-American War (1899-1902).
It's also no suprise that much of Africa has Catholic populations as the religion spread from Europe south through Morocco, Libya, Egypt and others. It continue to spread even as Islam began to spread from the Middle East westward through Persia (present day Iran), Iraq, and Saudi Arabia west into Africa.
Many of the impovershed countries are impovershed because of corrupt governments, not because of an adoption of religion. The two are mutually exclusive in the fact that they did not breed from each other. In fact, Christianity (specifically the Catholic faith) is based on the spread of religions to those countries from richer first world societies.
Just because you have it out for me, doesn't mean I'm ignorant and you're somehow smarter than I am. How do you explain the Bible Belt? Is it the poorest part of the country because it's religious, or is it relgious because it's poor? Why is it that the more secular (or diverse) a city, the more prosperous (compare Salt Lake City to a city of similar size, SLC is very poor)? Why is it that the richest nations in the world all see declines in church attendence (Ireland) as per-capita income increases?
Anyone who thinks that going to church on sunday and praying for good things to happen is somehow better than volunteering for that 90 minute period is just stupid. If we took the 500,000,000 hours (very light estimate) that Americans spent in church last year and instead spent those hours helping out society, working out, helping their kids with homework, reading more than just one book (the bible is not the only book in the world), learning a foreign language, cleaning the house, really anything at all...this world would be a lot better place.
Just because you have it out for me, doesn't mean I'm ignorant and you're somehow smarter than I am. How do you explain the Bible Belt? Is it the poorest part of the country because it's religious, or is it relgious because it's poor? Why is it that the more secular (or diverse) a city, the more prosperous (compare Salt Lake City to a city of similar size, SLC is very poor)? Why is it that the richest nations in the world all see declines in church attendence (Ireland) as per-capita income increases?
My apologies. I clearly meant your statement was ignorant. I don't direct personal attacks. If you took it that way, it was not my intent. I don't know why you think I have it out for you. I can disagree with you, see your point entirely, and still think it's faulty. I, in no way, think that people with opinions other than mine are ignorant (well... okay ... sometimes I do). I can only form or substantiate my beliefs if people (like you) challenge what I think. If it's wrong, I may or may not see the light. By the same token, people (including you) shouldn't be so set in your ways that you are likewise blinded by your position so much. You are very intelligent and articulate in your arguments. Doesn't make them right. Doesn't make them wrong either.
For this topic, I only meant that people are tying two things together that are (in my opinion) coincidence, not bred or fed off one another. 200 years ago when Catholics where probably the majority of the "civilized" world, they were, in fact, probably the richest nations in existence. Things have changed. There are lots of poor muslims and budhists throughout Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Thailand) and African nations as well. Look at Iran and Iraq (pre-U.S.). They are also poor nations and not very Catholic last I checked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6
Anyone who thinks that going to church on sunday and praying for good things to happen is somehow better than volunteering for that 90 minute period is just stupid. If we took the 500,000,000 hours (very light estimate) that Americans spent in church last year and instead spent those hours helping out society, working out, helping their kids with homework, reading more than just one book (the bible is not the only book in the world), learning a foreign language, cleaning the house, really anything at all...this world would be a lot better place.
You have a point. But now you want them to change your life for your beliefs. It could also be argued that those in society that need help would get more help if they prayed more (not my belief, but an opposing argument nonetheless). In addition, some people may have the mindset to not help people who refuse to help themselves. If I took one hundred million dollars and gave 1 million to 100 families (that you talk about above). How many do you honestly believe would properly spend the money correctly and not end up back in the situation they were in 10 years down the road. There have been studies on this, as well. I'm not against helping people. I volunteer every year, and take my kids along so they understand giving back to the community. But, why can't people pray AND help those who really don't help themselves either. You have to keep in mind that everyone who lives in poverty or low income or a bad situation wants nor will effectively use the help you speak of.
All religious nations are prone to poverty. Look at the US as an example. The more secular an area, the more prosperous it is.
It's probably because religious people sit around and pray for things to happen, secular people actually go out and do them.
It is a bit of chicken-and-egg. The poorer nations (S America, Africa, out-of-the-way areas in S Asia, etc) are heavily targeted for conversions. So it may end up seeming that they are poor because of the religion (may be partly true) but mostly because they make good hunting grounds.
It is more that the era of religious spread came at the time of the imperialist doctrine. The subjugation of a country by an expansionist, imperialist, Western country was the prime factor on why that country is poor now, it just so happened that the imperialist nation also imposed their Christian/Catholic religion.
For example, Vietnam and India were colonized by Western nations (France and UK, repsectively), these nations did not export their religion, but the colonized countries are still poor to this day. On the other hand, China and Japan successfully resisted colonization and despite a history of war, are now prosperous.
The only people getting rich from religions are the churches. When you have preaches wearing 14 caret gold threaded suits and driving rolls royces while defrauding the elderly out of their pension and social security checks it makes you hate them so much. And the bastards are doing all this tax free. Look at how much money the Mormon church poured into fighting prop 8 or how much the catholics spent to hide the sexual adventures of their priests and alter boys. Imagine if this money was spent on charity ??? wow they could have changed some lives for the good. I guess i am one of the few who loves God and hates religion.
Maybe only the Catholic Church is willing to set up churches and minister to people who can't afford to pay a denominational preacher a big salary. I'm not Catholic, but they have earned my respect and admiration time and time again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
