This lake in India is straight out of a horror movie

[musiclady]

Is that the norm in Hinduism or something done by a handful of nut jobs in a country of 1.3 billion? Are all Christians responsible for it every time some lunatic that claims to follow Christ does something insane?

Complete absurd comparison.  It was/is a practice in Hinduism to get rid of baby girls, and it is a practice of Hinduism to let people starve to death because of Karma.

There's no such parallel in Christianity, and YOU KNOW IT.

Stop being obstreperous and admit there are things you just plain don't know.   And will NEVER know because your mind is sealed shut.

[musiclady]

You don't believe religion has a role in the kind of government you have, the kind of culture you have? I'm sure you do.   You just have some sort of obsession with religion I think.   Think of it as a culture's philosophy if it bothers you so much that it is a religion.

Nailed it here.

Only it's not religion in general (you can see he has no problem with Hindu atrocities), rather it's Christianity that he despises.

[Dexter]

Complete absurd comparison.  It was/is a practice in Hinduism to get rid of baby girls

Can you provide a source that shows that this is a widely accepted way of doing things in Hinduism/India?

There's no such parallel in Christianity, and YOU KNOW IT.

Stop being obstreperous and admit there are things you just plain don't know.   And will NEVER know because your mind is sealed shut.

Yeah, you're right. Christianity has never participated in comparable insanity. 

[Dexter]

Nailed it here.

Only it's not religion in general (you can see he has no problem with Hindu atrocities), rather it's Christianity that he despises.

I assure you Christianity has no special significance to me. I simply disagree that India's majority religion is the driving force behind all of their problems.

[musiclady]

I assure you Christianity has no special significance to me. I simply disagree that India's majority religion is the driving force behind all of their problems.

In the first place, I never said that Hinduism was the driving force behind "all of India's problems."  That's a deliberate mischaracterization (of course).

In the second place, the reason you disagree with me is that you are ignorant about what Hinduism is.  I recommend the writings of Ravi Zacharias (though they are deep and require actual thought rather than mere emotion).  He was raised in India and understands Hinduism far better than you or I.

As to your lack of focus on Christianity......... I say poppycock.  You go way out of your way to make Christianity a villain and defend religions that have no regard for human life at all....... unless you're  in the high class.

I'm actually surprised that you in your liberalism don't have a problem with Hinduism's complete disregard for the poor.

Or maybe I'm not all that surprised..........

[massadvj]

Do you think the people that do those things have access to showers and toilets? Do you think they have access to cremation or a proper burial for their dead? Do you think they would still do those things if they did? Religion isn't the reason why they live the way they do. Extreme poverty and overpopulation are why they live like that. I guarantee financially comfortable Indians are not bathing in and drinking from the Ganges. You blame their religion for the poverty, but the truth of it is if India had a realistic way of providing a comfortable life to most or all of its people it would. It doesn't because it can't. Blaming it on their religion is silly.

Religion aside, you don't think India being a communist/socialist state for several generations had anything to do with the extreme poverty there?  Isn't their system of governance something they had control over?

[EC]

Correlation does not imply causation. Correct.

Now finish the couplet:

Correlation also does not preclude causation.

[bkepley]

I assure you Christianity has no special significance to me. I simply disagree that India's majority religion is the driving force behind all of their problems.

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future or the past you would argue the opposite and you are really just trapped and you know it.  I just can't see how you don't believe 1) Religion effects culture and 2) Culture effects economic performance.  Religion is not the sole influence but it must be, when you look at history, the major influence on every society as far as I know. 

[Dexter]

In the first place, I never said that Hinduism was the driving force behind "all of India's problems."  That's a deliberate mischaracterization (of course).

Perhaps I exaggerated, but only slightly.

Hinduism is a filthy, nasty religion and creates the kind of garbage happening there.

This post implies that their nasty religion creates their nasty problems. If that's true then it must also be true that without their nasty religion they wouldn't have those nasty problems, right?

In the second place, the reason you disagree with me is that you are ignorant about what Hinduism is.  I recommend the writings of Ravi Zacharias (though they are deep and require actual thought rather than mere emotion).  He was raised in India and understands Hinduism far better than you or I.

I admit that I don't know a lot about Hinduism, though I'm pretty sure throwing babies into the Ganges is not something a majority of its followers would be okay with.

As to your lack of focus on Christianity......... I say poppycock.  You go way out of your way to make Christianity a villain and defend religions that have no regard for human life at all....... unless you're  in the high class.

I go out of my way to argue against the idea that Christianity is a special religion that transcends all others. I disagree with the idea that a Christian society is necessary for morality and prosperity to flourish.

I'm actually surprised that you in your liberalism don't have a problem with Hinduism's complete disregard for the poor.

Or maybe I'm not all that surprised..........

Or maybe you don't have me figured out like you think you do.

[bkepley]

I go out of my way to argue against the idea that Christianity is a special religion that transcends all others. I disagree with the idea that a Christian society is necessary for morality and prosperity to flourish.

That is your problem.  You immediately decided this was a Christian vs. Hinduism thing.

[Relic]

Yep. Lake Erie was dead. Completely. Now it has fish in it, though you'd not want to eat them.

The environmental laws were desperately needed. But, as usual, things are overstated. Lake Erie was never "dead". It was in really bad shape, but it was never dead. Now, people swim in it, fish in it, and many cities get their drinking water from it. I love me some lake Erie perch, pan fried.

Any body of water will catch fire if you throw oil soaked debris in it and light it. Even the cleanest river. The Cuyahoga River runs through my city and in the 70s, it was not clean. As a kid, I lit a small slick on fire, and it went over a dam and went out. We used to routinely find dead fish on the banks of the river. The river is so much cleaner now. You can safely eat fish out of the river, but I wouldn't make it a steady diet. I see Asian immigrants down there fishing all the time, and I'm sure it's not just sport fishing. They're catching dinner. I walk by the river, my dog plays in the river.

In summary, environmentalists seem to think overstating their case is the only way to get a response. I'm grateful for the cleanup of lake Erie and the Cuyahoga, but it wasn't as bad as it was portrayed in the media.

[Dexter]

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future or the past you would argue the opposite and you are really just trapped and you know it.  I just can't see how you don't believe 1) Religion effects culture and 2) Culture effects economic performance.  Religion is not the sole influence but it must be, when you look at history, the major influence on every society as far as I know.

I never said religion doesn't effect culture. We disagree on the extent to which a religion effects the overall prosperity of a country. I think its effect is subtle and you think it is major.

[alicewonders]

Correlation does not imply causation. Also the article you linked admits that even if religion does play a role it is just one of many things that determine the overall success of a country. Oh, and I was kind of hoping you would make your argument in your own words.

I think correlation can imply causation.  If a majority of people in a culture follow a religion - even a religion asserting itself as an ideology - that allows it's followers to have freedom of thought and action, verses an ideology that subjugates it's followers - you are going to find a more inventive and properous culture than you will in a culture where the followers are not allowed to express their freedom of thought and action. 

I think ideologies like progressivism and environmentalism are like religions in that their followers are usually devout and regimental in implementation - usually demanding that everyone comply. 

I do think that religion/ideology plays a large part in the prosperity of a culture. 

 

[Dexter]

I think correlation can imply causation.  If a majority of people in a culture follow a religion - even a religion asserting itself as an idealogy - that allows it's followers to have freedom of thought and action, verses an idealogy that subjugates it's followers - you are going to find a more inventive and properous culture than you will in a culture where the followers are not allowed to express their freedom of thought and action. 

I think ideologies like progressivism and environmentalism are like religions in that their followers are usually devout and regimental in implementation - usually demanding that everyone comply. 

I do think that religion/ideology plays a large part in the prosperity of a culture. 

Do you think pollution, overpopulation and poverty would cease to be huge problems in India if the majority religion was different?

[EC]

Do you think pollution, overpopulation and poverty would cease to be huge problems in India if the majority religion was different?

No. I don't think it would be different. I KNOW it would be different.

Satisfied?

[musiclady]

I think correlation can imply causation.  If a majority of people in a culture follow a religion - even a religion asserting itself as an ideology - that allows it's followers to have freedom of thought and action, verses an ideology that subjugates it's followers - you are going to find a more inventive and properous culture than you will in a culture where the followers are not allowed to express their freedom of thought and action. 

I think ideologies like progressivism and environmentalism are like religions in that their followers are usually devout and regimental in implementation - usually demanding that everyone comply. 

I do think that religion/ideology plays a large part in the prosperity of a culture. 

 

.      One of the things Zacharias emphasizes about Hinduism is its refusal to allow differing thought.  Freedom is one of the things that distinguishes Christian thought.  Thus the difference between America and India.

[alicewonders]

Do you think pollution, overpopulation and poverty would cease to be huge problems in India if the majority religion was different?

I think that poverty definitely could be diminished, depending on what religion it was replaced with.  I think religion played a huge part in the prosperity of our country.  Freedom of religion, freedom of thought and the emphasis on independence and liberty - I'm not versed enough on other religions to compare - but my religion, which is Christianity, teaches me that God allows me the freedom to choose right from wrong and that I will be responsible for the consequences of the choices I make.  It teaches me that we are all equal in God's eyes.  These ideas are what shaped the forefather's thinking when they created this nation.  This equality and freedom of choice is what made us prosper.

As far as pollution and overpopulation, these are the pangs of a developing society.  When a society is not weighed down with poverty and is going through growth - these things will be gradually worked out. 

[mountaineer]

The environmental laws were desperately needed. But, as usual, things are overstated. Lake Erie was never "dead". It was in really bad shape, but it was never dead. Now, people swim in it, fish in it, and many cities get their drinking water from it. I love me some lake Erie perch, pan steady diet.

Good point. We visited Kelly's Island a few years ago and noticed that Lake Erie fish appeared on several restaurants' menus.

[Dexter]

I think that poverty definitely could be diminished, depending on what religion it was replaced with.  I think religion played a huge part in the prosperity of our country.  Freedom of religion, freedom of thought and the emphasis on independence and liberty - I'm not versed enough on other religions to compare - but my religion, which is Christianity, teaches me that God allows me the freedom to choose right from wrong and that I will be responsible for the consequences of the choices I make.  It teaches me that we are all equal in God's eyes.  These ideas are what shaped the forefather's thinking when they created this nation.  This equality and freedom of choice is what made us prosper.

As far as pollution and overpopulation, these are the pangs of a developing society.  When a society is not weighed down with poverty and is going through growth - these things will be gradually worked out.

Liberty and freedom of religion/thought didn't come from Christian teachings. Those ideas are separate from Christianity and would have been adopted regardless.

[musiclady]

I think that poverty definitely could be diminished, depending on what religion it was replaced with.  I think religion played a huge part in the prosperity of our country.  Freedom of religion, freedom of thought and the emphasis on independence and liberty - I'm not versed enough on other religions to compare - but my religion, which is Christianity, teaches me that God allows me the freedom to choose right from wrong and that I will be responsible for the consequences of the choices I make.  It teaches me that we are all equal in God's eyes.  These ideas are what shaped the forefather's thinking when they created this nation.  This equality and freedom of choice is what made us prosper.

As far as pollution and overpopulation, these are the pangs of a developing society.  When a society is not weighed down with poverty and is going through growth - these things will be gradually worked out.

Good post, alice.

I would also add, that in addition to the principle of freedom that our Founders got directly from Judeo-Christian principles, we have in our country a work ethic that is distinctly Christian, and that has added to our prosperity.

In India, with its Hindu basis of culture, there is no incentive to work because there is no way to rise above one's karma, one's caste, one's lot in life.  When you add to that the lack of charity that exists in Christianity, and that people without Christian influence, don't take care of each other, you have immense poverty that could be alleviated with a different basis for its culture.

And, as the saying goes...... the proof is in the pudding.  Look at India, then look at America, and the results of the religious ideals of Hinduism and Christianity become quite clear.

Of course, the farther away we get from our roots, and the worse our culture gets with its disregard for human life, the more we will lose our distinction as a compassionate, industrious nation.

That, of course, is where the left wants us to go, and that, unfortunately, is where we are headed at lightning speed under the Obama administration.

[musiclady]

Liberty and freedom of religion/thought didn't come from Christian teachings. Those ideas are separate from Christianity and would have been adopted regardless.

You really do need to read more, and think more, Dex.  You have no clue......... 

[Dexter]

You really do need to read more, and think more, Dex.  You have no clue......... 

Could you refer me to the section of the Bible that mentions individual liberties and freedom of religion/thought?

[alicewonders]

Good post, alice.

I would also add, that in addition to the principle of freedom that our Founders got directly from Judeo-Christian principles, we have in our country a work ethic that is distinctly Christian, and that has added to our prosperity.

In India, with its Hindu basis of culture, there is no incentive to work because there is no way to rise above one's karma, one's caste, one's lot in life.  When you add to that the lack of charity that exists in Christianity, and that people without Christian influence, don't take care of each other, you have immense poverty that could be alleviated with a different basis for its culture.

And, as the saying goes...... the proof is in the pudding.  Look at India, then look at America, and the results of the religious ideals of Hinduism and Christianity become quite clear.

Of course, the farther away we get from our roots, and the worse our culture gets with its disregard for human life, the more we will lose our distinction as a compassionate, industrious nation.

That, of course, is where the left wants us to go, and that, unfortunately, is where we are headed at lightning speed under the Obama administration.

Very true musiclady.

[Sanguine]

That is your problem.  You immediately decided this was a Christian vs. Hinduism thing.

 

[massadvj]

Liberty and freedom of religion/thought didn't come from Christian teachings. Those ideas are separate from Christianity and would have been adopted regardless.

Baloney.  The concept of "inalienability" of rights -- including the rights of life, liberty and property -- comes right out of the British protestant tradition.  Specifically, John Locke held that these rights are "God-given" and therefore outside the bounds of government to compromise.

http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1746&context=sulr