Can religion solve the world's problems?

I do not dispute that Americans rarely look beyond their own shores. But the reasons are many and complex. The actions of few other nations have any proximate and immediate effect on the American polity. Those which affect our economy are more tangible and likely to draw our attention, but even those are mild effects as compared to the impact American economic policy can have on other nations. Americans sit in the middle of a large continent, the total population of which is equal to that of Europe. Hispanics are sufficiently familiar to Americans, and Canadians are sufficiently similar to Americans, that people are as prone to pay attention (which is to say, not very) to events in Mexico and Canada as in a state far away. It is only very recently in our history that Americans have been obliged to look beyond our shores to comprehend what events will be significant in their lives. When one considers that communication media are controlled by corporate entities whose goals are profit driven and not information driven, it is easy to understand why the news most people absorb will not be the news that a well-informed global intelligensia considers significant, but rather "programming" which will attract a sufficient audience to justify profitable advertising rates.

Furthermore, i would submit to you that there are billions of people on the earth outside of the United States who pay little heed to events outside an area to which they can walk in a day. A projection of American military might into the world is something which is uncommon when viewed from the perspective of the entirety of our history. Most Americans are not accustomed to thinking in terms of how our actions impinge on others, because our isolationist heritage, safe behind two wide oceanic moats, has so often made the rest of the world irrelevant to American citizens, except to the extent that a particular citizen is very well informed. For most of America's history, our economic health has been based upon agriculture, both internally and in foreign trade. For more than a century, the farming population of the nation has been a small, and by now reaching the level of an insignificant, minority. Even in those days when the farm population was a large proportion of the population, access to foreign markets did not directly concern that population, and the farming sector was so sufficiently productive as to preclude serious import competition. It was simply not historically necessary for Americans to understand the rest of the world.

Finally, it is in the interest of those who would be elite in the United States that Americans continue to little understand the rest of the world, and to trust the individuals of a would-be elite to make decisions about the significance of foreign events for the general population. In the category of would-be elites i would place politicians, decision makers of large corporations and political ideologues who lack power but possess influence.

Someone who lives in Aransass Pass, Texas, who becomes concerned about what is happening more than two hundred miles to the north in Austin, has not looked beyond the borders of his or her state, let alone nation. Someone who lives in Stettin who looks with concern at events more than two hundred miles to the north is poking their nose into Swedish business.

I agree entirely, especially the media focus.

I think the other cause is schooling. Our history classes would include 90% world, 10% local. I understand that the US would be close to opposite numbers.

(Of course, our history is shorter and less interresting, but still....)

So to put this to bed, I apologize again for my distinctly un-american taste in humour, I meant no insult by it and was surprised by your defensive reaction. I assumed educated americans were aware of the problem and would find it just as amusing. I think it's the first time (hopefully the last) anyone has called me a bigot! Arrogant maybe ... but never a bigot.

You live, you learn...

Well, as we've trampled all over Neo's thread, and have nevertheless gained some understanding of one another, i think no harm is done. I also rather suspect that Neo is sufficiently good natured not to resent this. That has been, at least, my experience of him so far.

Yes, sorry Neo.

And as for Farmerman, not usually know for his non-sequitur....

Can religion solve the world's problems?

"In all our way's acknowledge him {God} and he shall direct your paths."

Proverbs 3:6

Or, a modernized version, "Change the thing's you can, accept the thing's you can't, and ask for the wisdom to know the difference." The last line bring's one back to the first quote.

I too have been a victim of Transfattysubstantiation. Also, I would never discount the many fine works done by people of faith. What I meant to take issue with here is the abominable works of the clergy.

When you refer to the abominable acts of the clery, i am certain you cannot include among their wicked legions our good LionTamer, who only seeks the best for us all in life, and offers good bar-b-qued pork in the bargain . . .

Religion CAUSES most of the worlds problems.

Eorl.Non-sequitur indeed. The aforementioned reference that I quoted was a sophisticated product of neological art and I was merely holding it up for praise and recognition from the judges. Wished I woulda thoughtof it.
It was a quite humorous reference to a doctrinal concept that has provided much fuel for the division of Christianity since the Reformation. Transfattysubstantiation, non-sequitur my ass. It, by the clever insertion into the entire fabric of this thread calls our attention to the fact that most religions are busy with defining their own legitimacy than in actually doing anything. This comes from one who has had enough "Transubstantiation" for one life.

Ah, but transfattysubstantiation only requires that one injest tasty pork to the point of satiety, without regard for theological validation.

and it is the pork of our lard.... oy

Religion IS the worlds problem. And has been since time immemorial. Open your eye to reality. What has religion ever wrought other than division, war, massacre, genocide and hate.
It is do unto others before they do unto you.

au1929 wrote:

"Religion IS the worlds problem."

Do you think it's possible that people who misconstrue religous doctrines are the one's at fault for causing mayhem?

turtlette wrote

No. Because religion teaches divisiveness and intolerance.

"My religion is the true religion"
" If you don't follow my path you are going to hell"
and all the other doctrine that leads to hatred, war and etc.

Religion is not benign but rather the the spark that sets the world on fire.

Religion may not solve all problems but it's focus on a nation is tremendous.The Chinese have been focus for centuries and have an ideology of suffer for survival as the first child of the sun ? This slow and powerful focus has come to great it's own wonderfull day of discovery.

Religion may not solve all problems but it's focus on a nation is tremendous.The Chinese have been focused for centuries and have an ideology of suffering for survival , as the first children of the sun ? This slow and powerful focus has come to

Greet it's own wonderfull day of discovery.

My goodness, Algis. You seem to have either a multiplicity of identical opinions or a broken 'submit' button. May I submit this: from Micah Clarke

Actually I think religion can solve the worlds problems....but I think it's extremely unlikely.

Is this an example of religious tolerance, understanding and compassion and forgiveness?
.

Let me genuflect at the altar of wisdom, kneel at the statue of tolerance, and subtly point towards the picnic table out back.

<We will now return to our scheduled broadcast.>