Possible correlation between religion and violence

[John21]

Here's the raw data I'm looking at:

Christians worldwide: 2.1 billion
Muslims worldwide: 1.3 billion
Christian Bible in print: 5 billion
Quran in print: 200 million

Ratios of Holy Book/persons:
Christians: 2.4:1
Muslims: 0.15:1

I'm not sure of the correlation between literacy and access to the Holy Books, but I'm wondering if it would be safe to reach the following conclusions:

In literate societies where most religious practitioner's have access to, and can read the Book, religious violence is close to non-existent.

In illiterate societies where most religious practitioner's either do not have access or cannot read the Book, religious attributed violence is significantly higher than the previous culture.

As an example: in Medieval times the overwhelming majority of Christendom was illiterate and didn't have access to the Bible. However as the culture became literate and the Latin Bible was translated to English and mass-produced; religious attributable violence declined dramatically, almost to the point of non-existence. And in a like manner, Muslims in the U.S. are literate and have a copy of the Quran, and little if any religious violence ensues.

So I'm being led to the conclusion that not being able to read the Holy Books, whether through illiteracy or access, is the fundamental cause of religious violence, and not the Book itself or the religion it supports.

[luckyme]

Well, there is the issue of a lot of suicide bomber types being educated people, way out of their percentage in the population.

Even taking that into account, perhaps the correlation you're looking for is better education leads to less violence? And/or a broader education. Or ....

luckyme

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure of the correlation between literacy and access to the Holy Books, but I'm wondering if it would be safe to reach the following conclusions:

In literate societies where most religious practitioner's have access to, and can read the Book, religious violence is close to non-existent.

In illiterate societies where most religious practitioner's either do not have access or cannot read the Book, religious attributed violence is significantly higher than the previous culture.

[/ QUOTE ]

In non-literate societies, one has to realize religions have more cultural influence over a people, as their daily life will revolve around the community and less so in other cultural influences.

A lot of violence in the Western world is largely cultural too, but a lot of violent influences come through other streams of media, i.e. television, video games, Hollywood.

A very insular culture is more capable of being dictated to and influenced by its leaders, generally religious ones. So in such an analysis, you'd have to weigh how other causes of violence affect a population.

It'd be an incorrect assumption to say that there is more overall violence in a illiterate society. The dominant influences are simply different. They may be less violent as a whole, yet have fewer clearly defined major causes.

[ QUOTE ]
And in a like manner, Muslims in the U.S. are literate and have a copy of the Quran, and little if any religious violence ensues.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may have a pragmatic reason which has less to do with literacy than one might assume. Consider how the legal system and social pressures in the US for a Muslim can influence his or her willingness to speak out on issues.

So if you came to a defined conclusion based on your assessment of the situation, you also have to consider how these elements affect the overall equation.

Such a statistic may merely be an effect of how strong an influence religions have on insular societies. Religion has a huge influence on Christians too, but when they commit violent crime, it's rarely said that it was their upbringing in a Christian family or Christian church that is to blame. One could say that this simply is not done in the West.

[Hopey]

Praise the Lord! (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070207/NEWS06/702070447)

[ QUOTE ]
"Josef Smith, 8, died in 2003 on the day he was whipped with foot-long glue sticks, locked in a closet and told to pray to a picture of Jesus. Ex-members of the church say the punishments were in line with the discipline advice they heard while attending Remnant Fellowship Church."

[/ QUOTE ]

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, there is the issue of a lot of suicide bomber types being educated people, way out of their percentage in the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

But then there's the Kamikaze's who did it primarily to bring honor to their family, and these guys:

<font color="brown">The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a politico-military organization …
The LTTE has frequently used suicide bombers as a tactic. They pioneered the use of concealed suicide bomb vests, which are now used by many other organisations worldwide. The tactic of deploying suicide bombers was used to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi, who was killed in 1991 using a prototype suicide vest, and Ranasinghe Premadasa, assassinated in 1993.

LTTE had carried out more suicide bombings than any other organization on the face of the earth. According to the experts at janes securities, between 1980 to 2000, LTTE had carried out a total number of 168 suicide attacks on civilians and military targets. The number of suicide attacks easily exceeded the combine total of Hizbullah and Hamas suicide attacks carried out during the same period.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a politico-military organization that has been waging a secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan government since the 1970s in order to secure a separate state for the Tamil majority regions in the north and east of Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon). The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries

The LTTE is also an organization that does not cite any material from religion or religious texts in any of its ideological documents and propaganda but are driven only by the idea of Tamil nationalism and considers it as the only single-minded approach and inspiration towards the attainment of an independent Tamil Eelam.</font>

[Duke]

A buddy of mine sent me a link to an interview with some Arab dude who mentioned that a lot of the middle east is illiterate. I did not know this, but had a comment anyhow.

My response: "Well, no [censored]. It's hard enough to learn how to read forward."

Perhaps relative literacy rates have something to do with more bibles in print. Also, don't underestimate the fact that religion is a big business here in the US, and I doubt it's as lucrative to be selling Qurans.

[kurto]

The number of Bibles may be irrelevent if they aren't being read!

Also- Every hotel room in the US and possibly all through Europe have Bibles. Some churches provide Bibles in the pews. There's a hella lot of Bibles that are possibly never being read.

That may skew your results.

[MaxWeiss]

It's not access to the book, it's access to thinking for yourself.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Praise the Lord! (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070207/NEWS06/702070447)

[ QUOTE ]
"Josef Smith, 8, died in 2003 on the day he was whipped with foot-long glue sticks, locked in a closet and told to pray to a picture of Jesus. Ex-members of the church say the punishments were in line with the discipline advice they heard while attending Remnant Fellowship Church."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a big glue stick...where can I get those?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

In literate societies where most religious practitioner's have access to, and can read the Book, religious violence is close to non-existent.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good point. I've always maintained that the violence in church history such as the Crusades and the Inquisition can't be supported from a reasonable reading of Scripture. The New Testament gives absolutely no mandate for violence, but the exact opposite. It never occurred to me that the problem in earlier times was literacy, though now that you mention it, it seems obvious. If the Bible is accessible and the people are literate the lies of leaders regarding religion can easily be exposed. Gutenberg is surely in the top 10 of people who have influenced history.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not access to the book, it's access to thinking for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite true. Sometimes I think we can remove the negative elements of religion and keep the positive, but I don't know. What I do know is that religion provides a worldview, however accurate or not, to the majority of humanity, and it's not going anywhere unless a compatible worldview comes along to replace it/them.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Such a statistic may merely be an effect of how strong an influence religions have on insular societies.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably what it's all about. Or certain religions or sects have the ability to isolate the flock. But what I'm trying to figure out is why Eastern religions don't seem prone to it.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Such a statistic may merely be an effect of how strong an influence religions have on insular societies.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably what it's all about. Or certain religions or sects have the ability to isolate the flock. But what I'm trying to figure out is why Eastern religions don't seem prone to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Millennia of civilization, China. Culturally religion came after the power bases and the civilization's development were well entrenched and well into their maturity levels as a culture. There's a particular lack of a Yahweh figure, angry dominant father in those cultures. The dominant religions in these two Asian countries have a more passive doctrine.

Warlords didn't need dogma. Swords and control over the food supply made stronger points.

Japan? Similar trend paths, but the quirky part is they are more amenable to Western influences and have created their own mishmash. Note the example of the Aum Shinrikyo cult.

There's more to it, of course, but those might well make good starting markers to compare the influences a religion can have on an individual.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a particular lack of a Yahweh figure, angry dominant father in those cultures.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's kind of what I'm thinking. There's this personalization that occurs in Abrahamic religions. I don't know much about Buddhism, but even though there's a person figure, the actual religion seems to be more centered around the principles and teachings than the individual God or Godhead. Like I said, I don't know too much about the Eastern religions, but it doesn't seem like there's a huge concern about the literal interpretation of Buddha's birth, etc…

I'm wondering how much different Christianity would be; how much differently it would be interpreted; and how differently it would be perceived if the Council of Nicaea had voted against Jesus' divinity. But what I really wonder about is how Jesus would have voted. There's a passage in the Gnostic Gospels where when asked if he was divine, Jesus replied, "I am compassionate." Maybe to Him they were one and the same, but I guess that's why they had to keep that book out.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

There's a passage in the Gnostic Gospels where when asked if he was divine, Jesus replied, "I am compassionate." I guess that's why they had to keep that book out.


[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon. You've never read the sermon on the mount?

[roblin]

[ QUOTE ]
The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:

Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
---------------------------- --------
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)

[/ QUOTE ]


Atheist are 8-16% of the population. So a clear correlation between religion and violence. Theist are ~40-80 times more violent than atheists....

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Atheist are 8-16% of the population. So a clear correlation between religion and violence. Theist are ~40-80 times more violent than atheists....


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever heard of parole?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There's a passage in the Gnostic Gospels where when asked if he was divine, Jesus replied, "I am compassionate." I guess that's why they had to keep that book out.


[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon. You've never read the sermon on the mount?

[/ QUOTE ]

Frequently.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In literate societies where most religious practitioner's have access to, and can read the Book, religious violence is close to non-existent.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good point. I've always maintained that the violence in church history such as the Crusades and the Inquisition can't be supported from a reasonable reading of Scripture. The New Testament gives absolutely no mandate for violence, but the exact opposite. It never occurred to me that the problem in earlier times was literacy, though now that you mention it, it seems obvious. If the Bible is accessible and the people are literate the lies of leaders regarding religion can easily be exposed. Gutenberg is surely in the top 10 of people who have influenced history.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Inquisition was the actions of the Church authorities... these were the literate Church leaders. And they certainly used scripture to support their actions.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There's a passage in the Gnostic Gospels where when asked if he was divine, Jesus replied, "I am compassionate." I guess that's why they had to keep that book out.


[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon. You've never read the sermon on the mount?

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand your point. But I'm wondering if we get so focused on the Person, miracles, and supernatural that we lose the message in the process. I'm not saying you can't believe in Jesus' divinity or interpret passages that claim it, but He sure didn't go around bragging about it. So in regard to the Sermon on the Mount, I think Jesus felt the message could stand on it's own without divine authorship. It's pretty hard to argue against the Golden Rule - no matter who said it.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Atheist are 8-16% of the population. So a clear correlation between religion and violence. Theist are ~40-80 times more violent than atheists....


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever heard of parole?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your point? Atheists are 40 times more likely to be paroled? WTF?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
What's your point? Atheists are 40 times more likely to be paroled? WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have to say that the atheists I've encountered are more ethical and moral than the average person. But where I run into problems is their values are relative and not absolute. For example:

The Eugenics Movement in the United States
<font color="brown"> The eugenics movement in the United States arose in the wake of three intersecting developments: a belief in scientific management and rational planning, the pressures of economic instability, and the arrival of the progressive era . Progressives believed that societies could “make progress” toward the attainment of cherished goals , and the science of eugenics promised to attack social ills at their core. Eugenicists argued that the birth of defective persons created too great a social burden and that the state had the prerogative to control procreation among persons likely to bear children who would be dependent on the public purse.

...It should be noted that American clergy and lay members of the Roman Catholic church were often the most important opponents of legislative proposals for eugenic sterilization, especially after Pope Pius XI condemned eugenic sterilization in his 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii...By 1926, 23 states had enacted sterilization laws, which were motivated mainly by eugenic and therapeutic concerns.</font>

Then you have the quote from Charles Darwin that Richard Dawkins wouldn't unequivocally refute:

<font color="brown"> [O]ur medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. . . . Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.
-Charles Darwin</font>

[NotReady]

You:

[ QUOTE ]

these were the literate Church leaders. And they certainly used scripture to support their actions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Me:
[ QUOTE ]

If the Bible is accessible and the people are literate the lies of leaders regarding religion can easily be exposed.


[/ QUOTE ]

I sometmes wonder if anyone reads what I write.

And what Scripture are you referring to?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But I'm wondering if we get so focused on the Person, miracles, and supernatural that we lose the message in the process.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to your point about compassion in the Gnostics - the same message is all over the NT.

Very often liberal heretics emphasize that the point of the NT is to emulate Jesus, that His only real goal was to provide us with an example.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What's your point? Atheists are 40 times more likely to be paroled? WTF?


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try it this way:

Do you think 100% of the politicians believe in God? Can you name one that says he doesn't?

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What's your point? Atheists are 40 times more likely to be paroled? WTF?


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try it this way:

Do you think 100% of the politicians believe in God? Can you name one that says he doesn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Also, there's the "I was basically living like an animal before, got incarcerated and realized how effed up my life was so I turned to God" scenario. In other words, they didn't commit crime because they were religious, they got religious because they committed crime. This would also bias the numbers against the religious in this case.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Also, there's the "I was basically living like an animal before, got incarcerated and realized how effed up my life was so I turned to God" scenario. In other words, they didn't commit crime because they were religious, they got religious because they committed crime. This would also bias the numbers against the religious in this case.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to print this out and frame it. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Also, there's the "I was basically living like an animal before, got incarcerated and realized how effed up my life was so I turned to God" scenario. In other words, they didn't commit crime because they were religious, they got religious because they committed crime. This would also bias the numbers against the religious in this case.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to print this out and frame it. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, because I agreed with you or because I didn't automatically come down against religion in this thread? Then again in this forum they're probably equivalent.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What's your point? Atheists are 40 times more likely to be paroled? WTF?


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try it this way:

Do you think 100% of the politicians believe in God? Can you name one that says he doesn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

saying you are atheist = no reelection or election in the first place currently in the US

its very very likely many representatives/senators are token religious

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]

If the Bible is accessible and the people are literate the lies of leaders regarding religion can easily be exposed.


[/ QUOTE ]


Lies? Why are you assuming the leaders were telling lies? Why are you so certain they weren't acting on what they believed were the truths they read in the Bible?

[ QUOTE ]
And what Scripture are you referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a nice section about this in "The End of Faith." Unfortunately I've lent the book out so I cant' reference it. Though I'm pretty sure you'd be familiar with the fact that, in the Old Testament, God instructed his followers to destroy heretics which was the basis of most of the Inquisition. If you're unfamiliar with the Old Testament, let me know and I can find some passages for you of this type.

[MaxWeiss]

The thing is, many people use religion to view their life. Just like when I first learned poker, I saw every situation as a poker analogy--the poker lens helped me see things in a new way. Religion does this for many people, and usually, they use that "lens" to see good and to make meaning, but that has no bearing on the truth of the tenets of various religions, and it also gives shelter to evil fundamentalism. Your lens of "God is love" is never going to do harm, but other people's lens can and do do harm. That's why I think religion is bad---everything needs to view life from SOME lens, but the religious one, though prevalent, is both erroneous and dangerous. And the "knowledge" gleaned from revelations through that lens are often clouded in mysticism and false hope and flat out craziness.