The only possible route to religious peace.

[George S]

The only way to find peace in the world is for all religions getting together and saying they are all one religion. Except for recognition of this Truth -- that there can be at most One truly Supreme Being and that all religion must, perforce, be paying homage to that singular Being, there being, in reality, no other possibility. All worship of the Ultimate Supreme Being must be worship of the One. When worshiped as the One with recognition of that One's singular reality, ritual does not matter, cannot matter -- the same God is being worshiped. In short, abandon specific religions' claims to being better than another.

[Confused]

I am not saying human nature is bad per se. But we do have a tendency to create conflict.

No argument there.

As for your statistics, I won't say they are biased because I dont know. I will say that history repeats itself.

But the human conflict index (the percentage of the world's population currently involved in armed conflict) is at an ALL TIME low. As in, it has never been lower, even by conservative calculations. If history was indeed repeating itself, wouldn't this low point in violence had to have occurred some time previously? As far as we know, it hasn't.

We have noted that in the past, human follies do seem to repeat from generation to generation. But by what form of logic can any of us claim that this tendency is destined to continue ad infinitum? The very premise of biological evolution is one major indicator that it won't. As species progress, they improve, as natural selection dictates. Why should human society be any different?

Besides the decrease in violence, recent centuries have also seen a consistent decrease in ignorance. Education is on the rise worldwide. With signifigantly more informed generations on their way, I would say human society will become increasingly equipted to learn from it's mistakes, rather than repeat them.

You can predict doomsday all you want. The fact of the matter is, violence has been gradually decreasing for centuries, and the trend has dropped even more dramatically in the past three to four decades. If you can manage to make something negative out of that, then my counter-arguments are probably a lost cause regardless.

Do I think we are on the route to religious peace? You are joking right? Have you already forgotten 9/11? Do you not see the heinous crimes being committed in the middle east all in the name of Religion? Do we not still see the suicide bombings? Did terrorists not just get caught trying to get liquid explosive on an airline? If this is the road to religious peace, we are all going to die getting there.

Where are you getting this information from? The news media, I assume?

Well, I have a revolutionary proposition for you. What if the media sources from which you have gleaned these grisly reports are in reality focused primarily on increasing the profits of their shareholders by grabbing the public's ears with sensational apocalyptic garbage, unrepresentative of the way the world really is?

Sure, the media has no problem reporting stories of terrorists walking onto airplanes with homemade Gatorade bombs, killing dozens of innocent bystanders. But where are their prime-time news stories of religious cooperation, recent elections in newly democratic nations, massive charity drives in third world communities? Why haven't we heard any of my reports of increasing world peace on the eight o'clock news yet?

Because the media wants to scare us. That's what keeps the money comming in. Good news just doesen't sell as well as bad news.



You primarily mention issues relating to the Muslim heartland in your tyrade against religious peace. What you may not have considered, however, is that the Middle East has always been screwed up (In the past perhaps even more so than now)

But let us consider what is happening in the rest of the world, shall we?

In 19/20th century Africa, one could say that there was anywhere from 20-50 major religous conflicts, depending on your point of view. Today, in the 21st century, there are three tops (with the situation in Uganda at the brink of a resolution).

In Asia, the animosity between Hindu, Muslim, and Christian groups has signifigantly declined, and more peaceful/liberal religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism are growing in popularity, transferring many of their philosophies to ulterior religions.

In Europe, the current religious state of affairs is a far cry from the past horrors of the Catholic rule and various protestant theocracies.



I have all ready given my take on the matter. As ideas spread, cultures are increasingly infused with one another, and religious views diversify, competition between sects will naturally diminish. State doctrines of religous freedom are increasingly more common around the world. As people are gradually exposed to more and more beliefs and traditions, cult mentality will lose it's influence, and tolerance will slowly (but surely) ensue.

Show me where I am wrong.

Once again, I won't argue your statistics, because as I alread said, I can't. In reference to the media: I think they report what will sell papers, yes. I agree with you on that. But it doesn't negate 9/11, nor does it negate the fact that I can no longer bring a bottle of pepsi on a plane with me because of the latest terrorist attempt. These are facts. As to why we haven't heard anything about increasing world peace, well if it exists, then I would assume it would be for the same reason most didn't hear about Mother Theresas death until weeks after the Princess Di death. I won't dispute the slanted version of the media. But lets see, let us take into account Iran, N. Korea, and Israel. Yes, the middle east has always been screwed up. Yes, the wars in Africa have diminished: yet disease and famine have increased despite WHO efforts. N. Korea is now tesing nuclear weapons, Suicide bombing occur daily in Israel, hate crimes still occur daily in the US. I don't see religious peace anywhere in this equation.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

But lets see, let us take into account Iran, N. Korea, and Israel. Yes, the middle east has always been screwed up. Yes, the wars in Africa have diminished: yet disease and famine have increased despite WHO efforts. N. Korea is now tesing nuclear weapons, Suicide bombing occur daily in Israel, hate crimes still occur daily in the US. I don't see religious peace anywhere in this equation.

You obviously are not looking very hard.

http://www.humansecurityreport.info/HSR ... /index.htm (recommended reading)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00732.html

http://www.stwr.net/content/view/574/37/

Every report on this subject makes the same exact conclusion; violence is decreasing. Since a signifigant percentage of all conflicts are religiously motivated, I'd say that this is evidence enough of my claims.

The Human Security Center's report on global violence is the most thourough that I have come across (http://www.humansecurityreport.info/content/view/28/63/).

The official statistics:

-The number of armed conflicts around the world has declined by more than 40% since the early 1990s
-Between 1991 (the high point for the postWorld War II period) and 2004, 28 armed struggles for self-determi-nation started or restarted, while 43 were contained or ended.
-There were just 25 armed secessionist conflicts under way in 2004, the lowest number since 1976
-The number of genocides and politi-cides plummeted by 80% between the 1988 high point and 2001
-International crises, often harbingers of war, declined by more than 70% between 1981 and 2001
-The dollar value of major international arms trans-fers fell by 33% between 1990 and 2004
-The number of refugees dropped by some 45% be-tween 1992 and 2003
-Five out of six regions in the developing world saw a net decrease in core human rights abuses between 1994 and 2003



The trends are showing no signs of letting up. Assuming that they stay relatively consistent, we could be looking at religious peace in under a century. Is that really such a crazy notion? Do the facts not explicitly affirm this?

[Confused]

But lets see, let us take into account Iran, N. Korea, and Israel. Yes, the middle east has always been screwed up. Yes, the wars in Africa have diminished: yet disease and famine have increased despite WHO efforts. N. Korea is now tesing nuclear weapons, Suicide bombing occur daily in Israel, hate crimes still occur daily in the US. I don't see religious peace anywhere in this equation.

You obviously are not looking very hard.

http://www.humansecurityreport.info/HSR ... /index.htm (recommended reading)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00732.html

http://www.stwr.net/content/view/574/37/

Every report on this subject makes the same exact conclusion; violence is decreasing. Since a signifigant percentage of all conflicts are religiously motivated, I'd say that this is evidence enough of my claims.

The Human Security Center's report on global violence is the most thourough that I have come across (http://www.humansecurityreport.info/content/view/28/63/).

The official statistics:

-The number of armed conflicts around the world has declined by more than 40% since the early 1990s
-Between 1991 (the high point for the postWorld War II period) and 2004, 28 armed struggles for self-determi-nation started or restarted, while 43 were contained or ended.
-There were just 25 armed secessionist conflicts under way in 2004, the lowest number since 1976
-The number of genocides and politi-cides plummeted by 80% between the 1988 high point and 2001
-International crises, often harbingers of war, declined by more than 70% between 1981 and 2001
-The dollar value of major international arms trans-fers fell by 33% between 1990 and 2004
-The number of refugees dropped by some 45% be-tween 1992 and 2003
-Five out of six regions in the developing world saw a net decrease in core human rights abuses between 1994 and 2003



The trends are showing no signs of letting up. Assuming that they stay relatively consistent, we could be looking at religious peace in under a century. Is that really such a crazy notion? Do the facts not explicitly affirm this?

I would love to believe in what you are saying. But reality just keeps coming back to me. Yesterday I got a 4 year old boy in the ER. He had old cigarette burns all over his body. His x-rays showed multiple past fractures that had healed incorrectly. He died 20 minutes after the ambulance brought him in. His mother, a crack pipe smoker, had placed her son on a chair, put a noose around his neck, then kicked the chair out from under him. The only reasone he even made it to the ER is because she did this in front of a picture window and a man walking his dog saw it, broke into the house, punched the mother, got the boy down, called 911 and started CPR while awaiting the paramedics. I would love to say this was a rare case, but it isn't. All your statistics sound great. But will it last, I remain very skeptical. As we speak, troops from the US are dying in Iraq, afghanistan, etc.... I'm sorry, I see to much to beleive that we are in any sort of path towards peace. Give me one night during which I get no gunshot wounds, rapes, spousal abuse, child abuse, or elder abuse cases coming to the hospital, and maybe then I will believe. But until then, I think crime will rise, conflicts will escalate, and religious factions will continue to spread their hatred of Westerners and revolt against us. I think that to believe we are on a path to peace is way premature and I don't think it is possible without the "one religion world".

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I would love to believe in what you are saying. But reality just keeps coming back to me. Yesterday I got a 4 year old boy in the ER. He had old cigarette burns all over his body. His x-rays showed multiple past fractures that had healed incorrectly. He died 20 minutes after the ambulance brought him in. His mother, a crack pipe smoker, had placed her son on a chair, put a noose around his neck, then kicked the chair out from under him. The only reasone he even made it to the ER is because she did this in front of a picture window and a man walking his dog saw it, broke into the house, punched the mother, got the boy down, called 911 and started CPR while awaiting the paramedics.

Do something for me.

Think of all the people you know. List those who you know would be capable of killing their son in one column, and all those who would do everything within their power to save the dying boy in the other.

Does your list look a little lopsided?

I know mine sure does.

As we speak, troops from the US are dying in Iraq, afghanistan, etc.... I'm sorry, I see to much to beleive that we are in any sort of path towards peace.

A suggestion; tomarrow, try turning off your TV, and throwing your newspaper away (don't even look at the headline).

Does it alter your perspective of reality any? Even just a bit?

Do you remember the survey I mentioned earlier? The one where almost all those polled viewed the world as being in a state of chaos, but that their immediate community does not fit that trend? People have a first hand account of their immediate community, and can see first hand that it is really not all so bad. As for the outside world, however, people must rely on the media to give them an accurate perspective.

The media takes all the bad, horrible stories it can find, compiles them into one, and tries to pass them off as the "Washington Post" or the "Channel Seven Evening News". Imagine if they tried to include all the good stories along with the bad. I bet the Washington Post would be as thick as an encyclopedia.

Granted, someone working at the hospital, such as yourself, might have a harder time seeing good in the world. You are surrounded all day by suffering. But just imagine how many people, in comparison, are perfectly healthy. If you catch my drift, the state of life at a hospital is really not very representative of the state of society. If you wanted to offset all those bad vibes, you might try working for a charity, or something similar.

[Confused]

I would love to believe in what you are saying. But reality just keeps coming back to me. Yesterday I got a 4 year old boy in the ER. He had old cigarette burns all over his body. His x-rays showed multiple past fractures that had healed incorrectly. He died 20 minutes after the ambulance brought him in. His mother, a crack pipe smoker, had placed her son on a chair, put a noose around his neck, then kicked the chair out from under him. The only reasone he even made it to the ER is because she did this in front of a picture window and a man walking his dog saw it, broke into the house, punched the mother, got the boy down, called 911 and started CPR while awaiting the paramedics.

Do something for me.

Think of all the people you know. List those who you know would be capable of killing their son in one column, and all those who would do everything within their power to save the dying boy in the other.

Does your list look a little lopsided?

I know mine sure does.

As we speak, troops from the US are dying in Iraq, afghanistan, etc.... I'm sorry, I see to much to beleive that we are in any sort of path towards peace.

A suggestion; tomarrow, try turning off your TV, and throwing your newspaper away (don't even look at the headline).

Does it alter your perspective of reality any? Even just a bit?

Do you remember the survey I mentioned earlier? The one where almost all those polled viewed the world as being in a state of chaos, but that their immediate community does not fit that trend? People have a first hand account of their immediate community, and can see first hand that it is really not all so bad. As for the outside world, however, people must rely on the media to give them an accurate perspective.

The media takes all the bad, horrible stories it can find, compiles them into one, and tries to pass them off as the "Washington Post" or the "Channel Seven Evening News". Imagine if they tried to include all the good stories along with the bad. I bet the Washington Post would be as thick as an encyclopedia.

Granted, someone working at the hospital, such as yourself, might have a harder time seeing good in the world. You are surrounded all day by suffering. But just imagine how many people, in comparison, are perfectly healthy. If you catch my drift, the state of life at a hospital is really not very representative of the state of society. If you wanted to offset all those bad vibes, you might try working for a charity, or something similar.

Here is where your theory clashes with mine. I have Chronic Mylegenous Leukemia (out of remission 8 times) , my 7 year old son has hgih functioning autism/aspersgers/amongs many other things. I see the havoc in his life, I feel the torture in my life. I don't just get it a t work, I get it at home. I spend every day wondering if my son will be the next Pullitzer prize winner, or if he will be the next Ted Bundy or the next Charles Manson. So no. I don't see world peace, either in the media, at the hospital, or at home. I don't see any religious influence assising this, either for the positive or the negative. To say that you statitics are related at all to religion is quite a stretch, but how many times must we remind ourselves that for every side statistics show, there is a side they cover as well. In other words, statistics can be skewed, For example, here in Florida, when the papers gloated about how the high school graduation rate has increased and drop out rates have decreased, their criterial skewed it to make the statistics look favorable. Children who changed to home school weren't included as drop outs, children who took their GED weren't considered drop outs, etc..... Statistics are two sided. For as many cases as one can show that smoking causes cancer, their are cases in which a person who never smoked get a usually "smoking' related cancer. For as many claims as smoking decreases birth weight or can complicate pregnancies, there are likely just as many births in which this isn't the case. For example I smoked during my first two pregnancies, no coplications and both had to be delivered by C-section becasue they were to big. Quit for my second two and my youngest son has every personality disorder you can imagine, was born underweight (though still C-section b/c I have too small hips) and multiple devleopmental problems. I had quit 3 years before his pregnancy.. Just an example how statistics are two sided. So I place little faith in them.

As for world peace, only time will tell. But I think while it may be at a trending downward, history will repeat itself. Crime will increase, wars will begin again, new diseases will occur, etc....... I think it is way too early to consider we are on any path to religious peace.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Here is where your theory clashes with mine. I have Chronic Mylegenous Leukemia (out of remission 8 times) , my 7 year old son has hgih functioning autism/aspersgers/amongs many other things. I see the havoc in his life, I feel the torture in my life. I don't just get it a t work, I get it at home. I spend every day wondering if my son will be the next Pullitzer prize winner, or if he will be the next Ted Bundy or the next Charles Manson. So no. I don't see world peace

All of this is very unfortunate, for sure (my best wishes to both you and your son), but I don't see how any of it relates to violence and evil in the world. It's not like a religiously motivated terrorist broke into your house one night and mercilessly injected you with leukemia. All the violence and hatred in the world could come to a stand-still, but that still would not abate the suffering brought about by unpreventable diseases and mental conditions.

You sound rather bitter at the world (perhaps for good reason). But these problems are no fault of anyone, and I don't see how you can use them as evidence of a more violent world.

To say that you statitics are related at all to religion is quite a stretch, but how many times must we remind ourselves that for every side statistics show, there is a side they cover as well. In other words, statistics can be skewed, For example, here in Florida, when the papers gloated about how the high school graduation rate has increased and drop out rates have decreased, their criterial skewed it to make the statistics look favorable. Children who changed to home school weren't included as drop outs, children who took their GED weren't considered drop outs, etc..... Statistics are two sided. For as many cases as one can show that smoking causes cancer, their are cases in which a person who never smoked get a usually "smoking' related cancer. For as many claims as smoking decreases birth weight or can complicate pregnancies, there are likely just as many births in which this isn't the case. For example I smoked during my first two pregnancies, no coplications and both had to be delivered by C-section becasue they were to big. Quit for my second two and my youngest son has every personality disorder you can imagine, was born underweight (though still C-section b/c I have too small hips) and multiple devleopmental problems. I had quit 3 years before his pregnancy.. Just an example how statistics are two sided. So I place little faith in them.

Here's what I just don't get.

For a person to be pessimistic is one thing. For them to flat out deny simple objective evidence just to avoid being even a tiny bit optimistic is quite another. It just does not seem healthy.

Here's the thing. To label the reports I cited as statistics is a bit misleading (it implies that the matter is actually in question). To say that violence has been dramatically decreasing over the past quarter-century is in reality, a statement of fact.

You will not find a single credible history/international affairs expert (not even an esspecially pessimistic one) who will deny the statistics I provided. There is no "other side" to these statistics. I dare anyone to find me a credible report that claims otherwise.

[Confused]

Here is where your theory clashes with mine. I have Chronic Mylegenous Leukemia (out of remission 8 times) , my 7 year old son has hgih functioning autism/aspersgers/amongs many other things. I see the havoc in his life, I feel the torture in my life. I don't just get it a t work, I get it at home. I spend every day wondering if my son will be the next Pullitzer prize winner, or if he will be the next Ted Bundy or the next Charles Manson. So no. I don't see world peace

All of this is very unfortunate, for sure (my best wishes to both you and your son), but I don't see how any of it relates to violence and evil in the world. It's not like a religiously motivated terrorist broke into your house one night and mercilessly injected you with leukemia. All the violence and hatred in the world could come to a stand-still, but that still would not abate the suffering brought about by unpreventable diseases and mental conditions.

You sound rather bitter at the world (perhaps for good reason). But these problems are no fault of anyone, and I don't see how you can use them as evidence of a more violent world.

To say that you statitics are related at all to religion is quite a stretch, but how many times must we remind ourselves that for every side statistics show, there is a side they cover as well. In other words, statistics can be skewed, For example, here in Florida, when the papers gloated about how the high school graduation rate has increased and drop out rates have decreased, their criterial skewed it to make the statistics look favorable. Children who changed to home school weren't included as drop outs, children who took their GED weren't considered drop outs, etc..... Statistics are two sided. For as many cases as one can show that smoking causes cancer, their are cases in which a person who never smoked get a usually "smoking' related cancer. For as many claims as smoking decreases birth weight or can complicate pregnancies, there are likely just as many births in which this isn't the case. For example I smoked during my first two pregnancies, no coplications and both had to be delivered by C-section becasue they were to big. Quit for my second two and my youngest son has every personality disorder you can imagine, was born underweight (though still C-section b/c I have too small hips) and multiple devleopmental problems. I had quit 3 years before his pregnancy.. Just an example how statistics are two sided. So I place little faith in them.

Here's what I just don't get.

For a person to be pessimistic is one thing. For them to flat out deny simple objective evidence just to avoid being even a tiny bit optimistic is quite another. It just does not seem healthy.

Here's the thing. To label the reports I cited as statistics is a bit misleading (it implies that the matter is actually in question). To say that violence has been dramatically decreasing over the past quarter-century is in reality, a statement of fact.

You will not find a single credible history/international affairs expert (not even an esspecially pessimistic one) who will deny the statistics I provided. There is no "other side" to these statistics. I dare anyone to find me a credible report that claims otherwise.

I am not saying religion has been the influence in my leukemia or my sons illness. I am saying how I see suffering every day, every where I go. To say this is related to religion is ludicrous. But to say the decreasing crime rate is related to religion could easily be construed as a the fallacy of Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: just becasue two events occur together doesn't link them. Just because crime is decreasing doesn't mean it is related to religion, nor does it say we are closer to religious peace. And to say the next years crime rate won't show an increase is overly optimistic. Once again, I don't doubt your sources, I simply say how statistics can be two sided. That's all. I would love to be optimistic, but didn't Korea just launch a nuclear weapon. How can I remain optimistic without being somewhat realistic?? No, I am not bitter at the world. If I was, I couldn't work in medicine and be very good at it. However, I have seen to much to be blindsighted by false hope. As I said from the beginning, history repeats itself. It is a nasty thought, but true. I live in the real world. And the real world I see doesn't coincide with your facts. Maybe the crime rate here is higher while the crime rate elsewhere is lower so it balances out. I don't know. But I don't think I would attribute it to religion.

That is just my opinion. Take it for it's two cent worth and toss it out the window if you wish. But it won't change my opinion.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

But to say the decreasing crime rate is related to religion could easily be construed as a the fallacy of Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: just becasue two events occur together doesn't link them. Just because crime is decreasing doesn't mean it is related to religion, nor does it say we are closer to religious peace.

But a good amount (perhaps a majority) of violence is religious in nature. When we see the violence rates falling as drastically as they are now, it is only logical to assume that religious intolerance must also be decreasing. At worse, religous violence is remaining at normal levels, as an increasing amount would obviously effect the overall violence figures signifigantly. Although there are no real statistics on the rate of religious violence (that I know of), based on the statistics I have provided, the chances that religious violence is not decreasing are very small.

Let's look at it mathmatically. Say that the violence trend is comprised of two factors; secular and religious violence, both of which contribute to 50% of the overall trend. So S (secular violence) + R (religious violence) = T (the violence trend).

Now let's say that negative numbers are representative of a falling violence trend, and positive numbers represent escalating violence.

If T= -20, then what do S and R likely equal? Looking at the world around us, there does not seem to be much of a disparity between religious and secular violence. Therefore, for T to be negative, we can assume that both S and R are negative. If R was positive, that means that S would have to be an exceptionally low number (which once again, based on our observation of the matter, is highly unlikely). Therefore, it is unlikely that Religious violence is not decreasing. If that makes any sense.




But anyway, there are reasons other than just my statistics to believe that religious violence is decreasing. In our age of mass media, globalization, and the internet, people are becomming subjected to a greater and greater amount of new ideas. Before these idea/culture exchange venues existed, isolated societies knew very little of the various different religious views.

This is signifigant, because naturally, the less we know about something, the more likely we are to fear and hate it. Now that our cultures are more diverse (and people can see first hand that these differing customs are not really not so evil), tolerance is increasing tenfold. Religious violence, consequently, must logically be decreasing as well.

An interesting stat from the pew research center (http://pewforum.org/press/index.php?ReleaseID=13):

"Three-quarters of Americans say that many religions can lead to eternal life, compared with only 18 percent who regard their own religion as the "one true faith."

To me, this is astounding. Here we have America, the most conservative Protestant industrialized nation on Earth, and 75% of our citizens say that there are many different ways to eternal life. Think about what this number would have been, say, before the civil rights movement. 2%? 3%?

People are becomming more tolerant, there is no escaping that. In fact, the only region on Earth that has not become signifigantly more tolerant is the Middle East, where idea exchange and cultural diversity is very limited. It is here that you see the vast majority of religious violence. HOWEVER, even here we can see some progress. Many Mid East Muslim youths have taken up Western clothing and music fads, and female Muslim youth are, for the first time, challenging the wearing of their traditional head garments.



From what I can see, all of these different factors comming together create one possible outcome: a new age of religious tolerance, and eventually, widespread peace. I am so sure of this, in fact, that I am not even considering alternative scenarios anymore.

At the moment, I would bet my very life on the idea that religious peace is on the horizon. Things would have to DRASTICALLY change before I even consider reconsidering.

[Confused]

But to say the decreasing crime rate is related to religion could easily be construed as a the fallacy of Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: just becasue two events occur together doesn't link them. Just because crime is decreasing doesn't mean it is related to religion, nor does it say we are closer to religious peace.

But a good amount (perhaps a majority) of violence is religious in nature. When we see the violence rates falling as drastically as they are now, it is only logical to assume that religious intolerance must also be decreasing. At worse, religous violence is remaining at normal levels, as an increasing amount would obviously effect the overall violence figures signifigantly. Although there are no real statistics on the rate of religious violence (that I know of), based on the statistics I have provided, the chances that religious violence is not decreasing are very small.

Let's look at it mathmatically. Say that the violence trend is comprised of two factors; secular and religious violence, both of which contribute to 50% of the overall trend. So S (secular violence) + R (religious violence) = T (the violence trend).

Now let's say that negative numbers are representative of a falling violence trend, and positive numbers represent escalating violence.

If T= -20, then what do S and R likely equal? Looking at the world around us, there does not seem to be much of a disparity between religious and secular violence. Therefore, for T to be negative, we can assume that both S and R are negative. If R was positive, that means that S would have to be an exceptionally low number (which once again, based on our observation of the matter, is highly unlikely). Therefore, it is unlikely that Religious violence is not decreasing. If that makes any sense.




But anyway, there are reasons other than just my statistics to believe that religious violence is decreasing. In our age of mass media, globalization, and the internet, people are becomming subjected to a greater and greater amount of new ideas. Before these idea/culture exchange venues existed, isolated societies knew very little of the various different religious views.

This is signifigant, because naturally, the less we know about something, the more likely we are to fear and hate it. Now that our cultures are more diverse (and people can see first hand that these differing customs are not really not so evil), tolerance is increasing tenfold. Religious violence, consequently, must logically be decreasing as well.

An interesting stat from the pew research center (http://pewforum.org/press/index.php?ReleaseID=13):

"Three-quarters of Americans say that many religions can lead to eternal life, compared with only 18 percent who regard their own religion as the "one true faith."

To me, this is astounding. Here we have America, the most conservative Protestant industrialized nation on Earth, and 75% of our citizens say that there are many different ways to eternal life. Think about what this number would have been, say, before the civil rights movement. 2%? 3%?

People are becomming more tolerant, there is no escaping that. In fact, the only region on Earth that has not become signifigantly more tolerant is the Middle East, where idea exchange and cultural diversity is very limited. It is here that you see the vast majority of religious violence. HOWEVER, even here we can see some progress. Many Mid East Muslim youths have taken up Western clothing and music fads, and female Muslim youth are, for the first time, challenging the wearing of their traditional head garments.



From what I can see, all of these different factors comming together create one possible outcome: a new age of religious tolerance, and eventually, widespread peace. I am so sure of this, in fact, that I am not even considering alternative scenarios anymore.

At the moment, I would bet my very life on the idea that religious peace is on the horizon. Things would have to DRASTICALLY change before I even consider reconsidering.

Careful about staking your life on anything religious. Iran could nuke Israel tommorrow. With all the conflict still occuring itn the middle east, I don't think that I would bet my life on anything. But hey, keep in mind, I am confused, so I see things on a bit of a slanted scale. I remain pessimistically optimistic (talk about an oxymoron). I hope your right. But mans history has never maintained peace long.

And I would have to question where your statement that a good amount of crimes are religiously motivated. Are you speaking in widescale terms such as 9/11 or murder, rapes, burglary, kidnapping, racial crimes, etc. From most of my history classes, we were always taught most widescale crimes were commited more for power than religion. The Holy wars, not for Chirst, but for power of the church, Hitler, not because he denounced Judaism per se, he just hated Jews Period-hate crime. Most of the wars in Africa-for power. So I don't see where you can link crime being religiously motivated?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

And I would have to question where your statement that a good amount of crimes are religiously motivated. Are you speaking in widescale terms such as 9/11 or murder, rapes, burglary, kidnapping, racial crimes, etc. From most of my history classes, we were always taught most widescale crimes were commited more for power than religion. The Holy wars, not for Chirst, but for power of the church, Hitler, not because he denounced Judaism per se, he just hated Jews Period-hate crime. Most of the wars in Africa-for power. So I don't see where you can link crime being religiously motivated?

Because religion is power.

Think about it...