Religious Radicalism OR Social Pressure

I simply can't believe the problems we face today are based solely on religious precepts!

Go back 500 years, 1,000 and 2,000 years. There have always been wars. Sometimes its religion and sometimes it's not. Wars are part of human nature. They will always be with us.

xingu wrote:

Go back 500 years, 1,000 and 2,000 years. There have always been wars. Sometimes its religion and sometimes it's not. Wars are part of human nature. They will always be with us.

Granted, but go back far enough and religion seems to be the excuse for a whole lot of wars and atrocities. (Note, how I said, "excuse", and not "cause".)

Quote:

I simply can't believe the problems we face today are based solely on religious precepts!

Who exactly is trying to make that argument? All of the worlds problems rooted in religion? Even I, one of religions staunchest opponents, would never forward such a ludicrous proposition.

When cannon fodder is needed, which estate can be relied on to deliver the troops to the front?

Behind the bad news, the rise of "terrorism", the appearance of religious radicalism and the rise of social violence, is there something else at work here?

Is it really just about religion? I think there is something else behind the chaos. Overpopulation.

Family size is directly related to cultural practices. We cannot organize the family structure in the 21st Century based on 15th Century mortality rates. We simply have too many people in densely populated areas suffering from poverty, unemployment, and dwindling natural resources. Their world view is founded in hopelessness; something like a suicide bomber's world view.

I simply can't believe the problems we face today are based solely on religious precepts! It truly believe it is social pressure at its worst.

Is the right outbreeding the left?
By Ellen Goodman, Globe Columnist | September 19, 2004

JUST THINK of all the time we wasted worrying about the culture gap, the religious gap, the class gap, and even the gender gap. Now we are told that the political future will rest in the fertility gap.

This is the latest bulletin from the demography-is-destiny crowd. The fate of red and blue America will come down to who is filling those pink and blue nurseries.

These tidings were brought to us recently by Phillip Longman, who worried in The Washington Post that liberals aren't having enough little liberals: "Conservative, religiously minded Americans are putting far more of their genes into the future than their liberal, secular counterparts."

I never knew there was a conservative gene. If so, can it be tweaked? Is that another reason to support stem cell research?

Longman went on to say, "When secular-minded Americans decide to have few, if any, children, they unwittingly give a strong evolutionary advantage to the other side of the culture divide." Imagine giving an evolutionary advantage to folks who don't believe in evolution.............

Maybe this is just too obvious, but then why do areas with high population density such as large cities in Europe and America enjoy much greater prosperity, longevity, are not breeding grounds for suicide bombers, etc .....

...............while countries that have lesser population density are stuck in social and economic systems and practices that produce far less general prosperity and are known for their terrorist output?

real wrote:

Maybe this is just too obvious, but then why do areas with high population density such as large cities in Europe and America enjoy much greater prosperity, longevity, are not breeding grounds for suicide bombers, etc .....

...............while countries that have lesser population density are stuck in social and economic systems and practices that produce far less general prosperity and are known for their terrorist output?

You care to rephrase that?

Well to me, it's very obvious what he's saying with that picture, if you look at it in the context of your statement, RL.

OK for you.

It's against my religion to read minds.

So which American or European city or cities is he comparing with which country, Wolf?

Maybe this is just too obvious, but then why do areas with high population density such as large cities in Europe and America enjoy much greater prosperity, longevity, are not breeding grounds for suicide bombers, etc.....

...............while countries that have lesser population density are stuck in social and economic systems and practices that produce far less general prosperity and are known for their terrorist output?

xingu wrote:

real wrote:

Maybe this is just too obvious, but then why do areas with high population density such as large cities in Europe and America enjoy much greater prosperity, longevity, are not breeding grounds for suicide bombers, etc .....

...............while countries that have lesser population density are stuck in social and economic systems and practices that produce far less general prosperity and are known for their terrorist output?

Real

Do you have any idea what your talking about here. Your first sentence speaks about the high population density of cities. The second sentence is about countries. My map demonstrates to you that the population density of a country has nothing to do with their prosperity or producing terrorist.

If you look at cities in America and Europe you will find a higher concentration of crimes there than one would find in the country. Ever hear of street gangs, high murder rate, etc? You find that in the cities. Many residents believe street gangs are terrorist.

If a city is prosperous the reason may have to do with the country the city is in. But prosperous cities do not make for crime free cities. There are many cities in Europe and America that have a high crime rate.

Poverty, oppression and invasion/occupation have a lot more to do with making terrorist and insurgents than the population density of a city or country.

real wrote:

Maybe this is just too obvious, but then why do areas with high population density such as large cities in Europe and America enjoy much greater prosperity, longevity, are not breeding grounds for suicide bombers, etc .....

...............while countries that have lesser population density are stuck in social and economic systems and practices that produce far less general prosperity and are known for their terrorist output?

Real

Do you have any idea what your talking about here. Your first sentence speaks about the high population density of cities. The second sentence is about countries. My map demonstrates to you that the population density of a country has nothing to do with their prosperity or producing terrorist.

If you look at cities in America and Europe you will find a higher concentration of crimes there than one would find in the country. Ever hear of street gangs, high murder rate, etc? You find that in the cities. Many residents believe street gangs are terrorist.

If a city is prosperous the reason may have to do with the country the city is in. But prosperous cities do not make for crime free cities. There are many cities in Europe and America that have a high crime rate.

Poverty, oppression and invasion/occupation have a lot more to do with making terrorist and insurgents than the population density of a city or country.