Is Religion, Per Se, "good" Or "bad For Societies?

[Son]

Religion has provided a reminder of Spiritual history. It has provided the knowledge of God and other deity to each generation that has been on earth.

That said, the history of spirituality has been hurt by religion (organized), due to forced compliance in the early and mid milleniums and a twisted version in the modern eras.

The benefit of religious organizations is that it keeps the fence sitters focused on something and limits the iniquity of man. A religious peer pressure of sorts.

THe detriment is that it has taken the fullness of the truth and watered it down to the point that few if any can reach their full potential due to it not being taught or believed in the majority of religious organizations.

If you separate religious belief from religious organizations then it has been a great benefit to those that were taught to believe all things, and seek God not an organizations interpretation of what belief is.

son

[wenglund]

Since Modern Christianity has been declawed and neutered by humanism, most of what is left are sensible, common sense values (don't steal, don't murder, don't lie, etc) combined with a social infrastructure useful for providing aid to the less fortunate. No more stoning adulterers; no more burning witches. Christian values have aligned almost directly with secular values, with several notable but relatively minor exceptions (homosexuality and abortion, for instance). So, with most of the bad purged from modern Christianity, and the positive social/welfare aspects intact, Christianity could probably be said to be an overall positive in a utilitarian analysis.

While I think your assumptions about the influence between Christianity and humanism being unilateral (i.e the former conforming to the latter) is highly debatable, I am pleased that you agree that, on balance, Christianity is good for society.

I don't agree with that at all. The mindless consumerism and abject materialism that are great for economies are not so great for the soul. Nor is the sense of dog-eat-dog competition inherent in capitalism. Polls consistently show levels of self identified "happiness" are greater in countries that temper capitalism with aspects of socialism. You might be richer in America, but you'd be happier in France or the Netherlands. (Both of which also happen to be less religious than America.)

Can you give me an example or two of polls that show what you claim, and explain what is used to measure "happiness"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I think one way to judge the way modern Christianity effects society is to look inside and reflect how your own Christian walk has affected you and those around you. Has it helped you to be more patient with your family and fellows? Does it influence you to be more charitable, honest, forgiving? Has it influenced you to feel a greater since of peace, or personal fulfillment? Are you healthier as a result of your religious beliefs and practice? If the answer is afirmative to the above questions. then religion in your case has been benificial to society.

Objectivity may be more challenging to accomplish the closer one is to the subject one is judging, and it's harder to get closer than this, but I still think the above sheds light on the subject.

I find this kind of Christian instrospection to be quite valuable for personal improvement. However, I am not sure it works well for a comparative issue (such as the one I proposed) since it only assesses one side of the equition, and does so in a highly subsective way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Facsimile 3]

Mighty Curelom, are you not going to respond to my long response to your original response to me?

[wenglund]

Religion has provided a reminder of Spiritual history. It has provided the knowledge of God and other deity to each generation that has been on earth.

That said, the history of spirituality has been hurt by religion (organized), due to forced compliance in the early and mid milleniums and a twisted version in the modern eras.

The benefit of religious organizations is that it keeps the fence sitters focused on something and limits the iniquity of man. A religious peer pressure of sorts.

THe detriment is that it has taken the fullness of the truth and watered it down to the point that few if any can reach their full potential due to it not being taught or believed in the majority of religious organizations.

If you separate religious belief from religious organizations then it has been a great benefit to those that were taught to believe all things, and seek God not an organizations interpretation of what belief is.

son

While I can respect that you think this way, I am not sure how it relates directly to the question of the thread. Could you please point out the direct connection--if any.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Douglas Hunter]

. . . in an informal discussion such as this, I think it sufficient to make inductive observations, and on balance, if not appeal to formal studies that control for the issues you raise. Don't you?

Maybe, I admit that I've been doing a lot of thinking about a similar issue lately but can't really find a framework that is satisfying for me, so my dissatisfaction carries over. That issue being the relationship between religion and ethics, which obviously can be considered part of the larger issues you raise of religion and society. I suspect that any general statements about religion and ethics or religion and society will be unable to accurately describe what strike me as multi-dimensional relationships.

[Severian]

However, economist would suggest that ultimately we are driven by a desire to be happy. Educators all over the world would suggest that most people have an innate motive to grow in knowledge and abilities--i.e. we are inclined towards maturation. Medical practitioners would suggest that, for the most part, we desire to be healthy. And, the very social nature of societies would suggest that, by and large, we desire to have fulfilling interpersonal relationships, or in other words we desire to love and be loved.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Depends somewhat on where people are at in life. When you have health and wealth you can look toward being self-actualized. When you are struggling at the bottom rungs in a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", your efforts just go into surviving.

To borrow from Karl Marx's idea, "that Religion is the Opiate of the Masses", we could observe that even for those struggling, religion can bring happiness and acceptance to their lives. It can have this positive feeling for those in more fortunate circumstances as well.

[Son]

While I can respect that you think this way, I am not sure how it relates directly to the question of the thread. Could you please point out the direct connection--if any.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Society is influenced by group think, if organized religion has a pattern of thinking that promotes religious attributes, (which I find to be helpful to society), then it is good, as long as the thoughts translate into deeds.

If the deeds do not match the message of organized religion, then it would be bad for society IMO, because the attributes of religion are not being lived. The effects are not being felt, and the individual is living in vain.

son

[Mighty Curelom]

While I think your assumptions about the influence between Christianity and humanism being unilateral (i.e the former conforming to the latter) is highly debatable, I am pleased that you agree that, on balance, Christianity is good for society.

Highly debatable? It's a fact that Christianity has abandoned many of what we would now consider barbaric social norms. According to the Bible, God commands adulterers be stoned to death. Likewise with blasphemers, witches, homosexuals, and apostates. Where else could a religion find justification to reject those practices than outside the religion? If the Bible says "execute homosexuals" and we as a society explicitly reject that commandment, then obviously that rejection didn't come from the Bible. With so many examples of Christianity abandoning Biblical commandments, it seems clear to me which ideology is conforming to which.

Can you give me an example or two of polls that show what you claim, and explain what is used to measure "happiness"?

ScienceDaily

According to this survey, I was mistaken about France being in at the top. The top five are Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, and the Bahamas. The USA is 23rd.

Yes we can all find happiness in the mundane, but that does not sustain one through their entire life.

Interesting. What is it then, do you think will change in the afterlife? Will not life still consist of the mundane, day to day processes of whatever you imagine yourself doing for eternity?

I get depressed thinking about what people have settled for all around me. It saddens me to see the rock star culture our world embraces. By rock star culture I mean looking up to people who are selected by the greater encompassing popular culture for emulation and adulation.

The rock star culture is only one facet of the broader phenomenon of consumerist culture, which is the real root of the problem. I haven't really considered the deleterious effect of merely observing the soullessness of modern marketing without actually participating (as if one can ever fully opt out), but I suppose that could be a factor in certain cases. In other words, I don't disagree with you.

[johndoe]

Ultimately I think this question is best answered through scientific studies that do their best to provide empirical data. MC brings up the happiness map, but there are more specific studies regarding the correlation between religious tendencies and happiness.

WebMD

From the link above:

Those scoring high in religious beliefs -- who went to church regularly, had a strong religious faith, and prayed often -- also scored high in happiness and purpose in life.

Perhaps a more balanced approach:

http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/happy.htm

What do they find? In a nutshell, they find that people who are involved in religion also report greater levels of happiness than do those who are not religious. For example, one study involved over 160,000 people in Europe. Among weekly churchgoers, 85% reported being "very satisfied" with life, but this number reduced to 77% among those who never went to church (Inglehart, 1990). This kind of pattern is typical -- religious involvement is associated with modest increases in happiness.

These are three common ways of accounting for the link between religion and happiness. Unfortunately, most research in this area is correlational, meaning that we cannot claim that religion causes happiness. It could just as easily be the case that happy people also tend to be more religious,, or some other factor may account for changes in both religiousness and happiness.

One important exception to this trend, however, is found in one of the most famous studies in the psychology of religion. In the days before research boards reviewed research proposals before the studies were conducted, Pahnke devised an experiment to induce people to have a religious experience. On a Good Friday, when they were to meditate in a chapel for 2.5 hours, twenty theology students were given either psilocybin or a placebo. The students who were given the psilocybin reported intense religious experiences, as you might imagine. Their levels of happiness also were significantly greater than the control group reported. But what is especially interesting is that these effects remained 6 months after the experiment, as the psilocybin group reported more "persistent and positive changes" in their attitudes to life than did the placebo group.

It appears, then, that intense religious experiences may lead to long-lasting increases in a person's happiness. Of course, the experiences in Pahnke's experiment were truly different from the kinds that the typical person encounters in their everyday life. Just how easily we might generalize from one type of experience to the other is a tricky and complex question. The more mundane, everyday experiences people have in their churches, synagogues or mosques are qualitatively different from the intense kinds of experiences that Pahnke's study investigated.

[Facsimile 3]

Interesting. What is it then, do you think will change in the afterlife? Will not life still consist of the mundane, day to day processes of whatever you imagine yourself doing for eternity?

I don't think it will be mundane to serve others, reflect on the beauty, intervene in mortal people's lives, and attend to their sorrows and joys. I don't feel my life is that mundane right now either. I think we grew up in a utopia in heaven and dreamed of a dystopia on earth that we might grow, once we return it will be a utopia, but one with engaging challenge.

The rock star culture is only one facet of the broader phenomenon of consumerist culture, which is the real root of the problem. I haven't really considered the deleterious effect of merely observing the soullessness of modern marketing without actually participating (as if one can ever fully opt out), but I suppose that could be a factor in certain cases. In other words, I don't disagree with you.

So basically you are saying that you agree with me that the biggest determent to our society is not religion, but consumer culture. How were you informed of the evils of a consumer culture? And how do you find meaning in a society without consuming or believing in a higher power or law? Do you find meaning in your love for other human beings? Do you find purpose in feeling above the popular culture? I want to know your take on this from an atheist point of view so that I might be more understanding.

If in fact part of your information on the evils of consumer culture came from once being a Mormon, then wouldn't that mean we are good for society?

[wenglund]

Maybe, I admit that I've been doing a lot of thinking about a similar issue lately but can't really find a framework that is satisfying for me, so my dissatisfaction carries over. That issue being the relationship between religion and ethics, which obviously can be considered part of the larger issues you raise of religion and society. I suspect that any general statements about religion and ethics or religion and society will be unable to accurately describe what strike me as multi-dimensional relationships.

Part of the problem I see in such enterprises (as I intimated to MC), is in looking back over the past and trying to sort out what has been influencing what, and to what degree., and which came first. It is evident that secular humanist have ethics and morals, but it may not be clear from whence those morals and ethics came and whether they have been influenced by religion or not and to what degree. The same question applies in reverse.

To me, though, while such questions may be interesting to contemplate or to some degree pursue (to the extent that is even possible beyond conjecture), I find it better to focus on what is or may be nowable about the here-and-now, with the intent of determining how best to improve the human condition. In other words, if modern Christianity is "good" for society, then it is in everyone's interest to promote it or at least enable it to thrive; whereas if Christianity is not "good" for society, then it would be in everyone's interest to discourage it.

At least that is how I see it (particularly since I am quite confident that Christianity is "good" for society). ;-)

I also believe this same evaluative process should apply to other practices or points of views that have social impact--such as abortion, homosexuality, etc.. (not that I wish to derail this discussion by getting into those specific topics here)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Douglas Hunter]

Part of the problem I see in such enterprises (as I intimated to MC), is in looking back over the past and trying to sort out what has been influencing what, and to what degree., and which came first. It is evident that secular humanist have ethics and morals, but it may not be clear from whence those morals and ethics came and whether they have been influenced by religion or not and to what degree. The same question applies in reverse.

To me, though, while such questions may be interesting to contemplate or to some degree pursue (to the extent that is even possible beyond conjecture), I find it better to focus on what is or may be nowable about the here-and-now, with the intent of determining how best to improve the human condition. In other words, if modern Christianity is "good" for society, then it is in everyone's interest to promote it or at least enable it to thrive; whereas if Christianity is not "good" for society, then it would be in everyone's interest to discourage it.

I agree with a lot of this but I'm not sure that the here-and-now is any more knowable, or that a definition of Christianity is achievable. Are Gordon B. Hinkley, John Hagge, Fred Phelps, the so-called Christian Patriots, Hank Hanagraf, you, myself etc. All part of the same project? I don't think so, yet we all call ourselves Christians.

[wenglund]

Highly debatable? It's a fact that Christianity has abandoned many of what we would now consider barbaric social norms. According to the Bible, God commands adulterers be stoned to death. Likewise with blasphemers, witches, homosexuals, and apostates. Where else could a religion find justification to reject those practices than outside the religion? If the Bible says "execute homosexuals" and we as a society explicitly reject that commandment, then obviously that rejection didn't come from the Bible. With so many examples of Christianity abandoning Biblical commandments, it seems clear to me which ideology is conforming to which.

As I understand things, it may be a fact that certain religions have altered various practices over time, however the question of what caused those changes to occur--whether due to internal or external factors--is a matter of opinion and thus still open for debate. And, even if one questionaly assumes that such changes could not come from internal impetus (within a religion, itself), I believe reasonable arguments can be made that the impetus for change may have come from other religions--the result of a competative religious market.

For example, in terms of the Jewish practice of stoning adulterors, I believe Jesus, and the subsequent Christian movement, may have been somewhat instrumental in bringing that practice more to an end. The same is true with animal sacrifice.

This is not to suggest that there wasn't any secular influence on religious beliefs and practices. I believe there has been--both positive and negative in nature. The ancient belief in a geo-centric universe was clearly influenced by secular science, though at the hands of a religionist. There numerous other examples as well.

I believe reasonable arguments can also be made that religion has influenced secular aspects of society. An indepth study of family law throughout much of the western world would reveal a heavy influence of religion--and this is just one of many cases that could be cited.

So, yes, I believe it is highly debatable.

ScienceDaily

According to this survey, I was mistaken about France being in at the top. The top five are Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, and the Bahamas. The USA is 23rd.

Interesting. What is it then, do you think will change in the afterlife? Will not life still consist of the mundane, day to day processes of whatever you imagine yourself doing for eternity?

The rock star culture is only one facet of the broader phenomenon of consumerist culture, which is the real root of the problem. I haven't really considered the deleterious effect of merely observing the soullessness of modern marketing without actually participating (as if one can ever fully opt out), but I suppose that could be a factor in certain cases. In other words, I don't disagree with you.

I appreciate you providing me with that study. In some ways it reinforces what I said about looking not just at "happiness", but inter-dependantly with other variables as well (wealth, education, and health). And, though the study countered the misperception that "capitalism leads to unhappiness" (by explaining that "countries with good healthcare, a higher GDP per captia, and access to education were much more likely to report being happy"), it weighed healthcare higher than the other variables, which I believe may explain why certain socialist democracies ranked higher than some of the other democracies like the U.S. and Japan, etc.

This study makes me wonder, though, if there are 22 nations that rank higher than the U.S. in terms of happiness, why those contries don't have as much if not more immigration as the U.S.

I would like to look a little deeper into the study to see how it measures "happiness", in part because other studies I came across via a Google search ranked the countries differently, and it may prove beneficial to determine why.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[charity's child]

I think Katherine and Brant make a good point about the diversity of religious beliefs. So, if you don't mind, let me rephrease the question to: Is Modern Christianity "good" or "bad" for individuals and societies?

Also, what do you think about the standard and means I posited from determining whether Christianity is "good" or "bad" for society?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I question using an economics standard to measure happiness, personally. I would sooner go with Maslow's hierarchy, in which we must have our needs provided for (thus the economic standard) before we can reach for higher things. But the higher things we reach for are not driven by economics.

I would propose a different standard. First, if one's needs are met more or less by a religion-influenced society, and second, what the apparent desires, once one's needs are met.

I have one concern, however. There are many people who profess a religion but do not live by it. Do we set the standard of societies that live by the standards of their faith? For instance, the Spanish Inquisition was run by priests who had no forgiveness in them, completely contrary to the gospel as taught by Christ. Do we include them as evidence that religion is not healthy for society or do we understand that Christianity teaches people to be kinder and better to each other and people do not always live by what they are taught?

[johndoe]

This study makes me wonder, though, if there are 22 nations that rank higher than the U.S. in terms of happiness, why those contries don't have as much if not more immigration as the U.S.

I don't think immigrants (especially undocumented immigrants) have as their goal the pursuit of happiness, but rather are drawn by the promise of available work with higher wages.

Bit off topic, I suppose.

[wenglund]

I don't think immigrants (especially undocumented immigrants) have as their goal the pursuit of happiness, but rather are drawn by the promise of available work with higher wages.

Bit off topic, I suppose.

I am not sure immigration can adequately be explained by simply pointing to the availability of higher paying jobs (given the enormous strain that immigration has put on the health and education systems in the U.S. I think it fair to say that there are other factor contributing to immigration besides jobs).

But, even still, and to bring this back on topic, economist and others (myself included) would suggest that pursuit of higher paying jobs may rightly be viewed a means to the ultimate end of "happiness".

The question, then, is modern Christianity in general, and on balance, and Mormonism in particular, significant contributors to overall "happiness", and thus, in that way, "good" for society.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I question using an economics standard to measure happiness, personally. I would sooner go with Maslow's hierarchy, in which we must have our needs provided for (thus the economic standard) before we can reach for higher things. But the higher things we reach for are not driven by economics.

I would propose a different standard. First, if one's needs are met more or less by a religion-influenced society, and second, what the apparent desires, once one's needs are met.

I have one concern, however. There are many people who profess a religion but do not live by it. Do we set the standard of societies that live by the standards of their faith? For instance, the Spanish Inquisition was run by priests who had no forgiveness in them, completely contrary to the gospel as taught by Christ. Do we include them as evidence that religion is not healthy for society or do we understand that Christianity teaches people to be kinder and better to each other and people do not always live by what they are taught?

If you can devise a way to somewhat objectively measure fulfillment of needs according to Maslow's Hierarchy, then I would be fine with that. I think it would be an excellent way to determine whether modern Christianity, or Mormonism in particular, are "good" or "bad" for society.

My reason for picking economics as one of several interdependant standards, is because of its fundamental notion of maximizing happiness and the universal measurements it already has in place.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[solomarineris]

In the "Death of Religion?" thread, claims were made that religion is a "social ill" and is to considered like a "parasite".

Ignoring the somewhat inflammatory nature of these claims, I would like to have a rational discussion whether or not religion in general, or the LDS faith in particular, may be good for people and societies or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The only rationality religion imposes on individual is telling her/him who is the boss. By nature humans do not like having alots of voices in their heads telling them what to do.

Most of my professional life I've had bosses, telling me what to do, (most of these people could barely put one language together, had less than half of my education and their arrogance could rival to OT God), religion was no different.

Some point of my life I decided I am the best there's for myself.

And never regretted it. I can tolerate an equal partner/wife who is by no means superior to me, neither am I to her.

I don't see a need for guidance, if I go to middle of no-where I take a GPS, If I need communication I call someone. There's remedies for every reasonable human need, without feeling inferior or inadequate.

If you care to abserve the world history, The God is not pulling same stints - separating the seas, resurrecting dead, mass killings of disobedient people. Nowadays all we see is random cataclysms like Tsunamis, volcanoes, Islamic Jihad etc. All these occurances do not discriminate who is good who is bad.

-

[wenglund]

How about if we look at it this way:

1. Can we agree that the more happy, healthy, developed (educationally), and loving (charitable and relationshipwise) people are, the more better or "good" for society?

2. Can we agree that if modern Christianity, in general and on balance, and Mormonism in particular, tend to make people more happy, healthy, developed, and loving; or rather those of that faith tend to be more happy, healthy, developed, and loving than non-Christians/non-Mormons; then Christianity and Mormonism may logically be considered "good" for society?

3. If so, then can we agree that comparitive studies, using whatever valid forms of measurement, that directly establish a connection between religion and happiness, health, development, and love, would be preferrable to studies of countries as a whole (becausethey contain an admixture or Christians and non-Christians), without ruling out studies of countries as a whole?

In other words, can we agree to prefer the studies that JohnDoe presented regarding "happiness" over that suggested by MC?

Either way, at least in terms of happiness, would you agree that JonhDoe's studies suggest that modern Christianity and Mormonism lend themselves to people being "happy", and on that basis, Christianity and Mormonism is "good" for society?

What about health and educational development and love (charitableness and strenght of relationships--particularly the family). Are there comparative studies of these things in terms of Christianity/Mormonism, and if so, what do they suggest as well?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[johndoe]

But, even still, and to bring this back on topic, economist and others (myself included) would suggest that pursuit of higher paying jobs may rightly be viewed a means to the ultimate end of "happiness".

One of my many flaws is an inability to let things go.

You are likely correct in considering my explanation for the motivation for immigration too simplistic to be accurate, however I believe the same criticism can apply to your original statement as well (the one that prompted me to go down this rabbit trail in the first place).

Consider:

1. Many immigrants leave their families in their native countries, and send money back home. While this may provide the needed support for the family back home, I do not think it accurate to expect the lone immigrant to necessarily experience an increase in happiness.

2. While other countries may have more overall happiness, immigrants must also take into account real possibilities for them to travel to a country and find a job there when deciding where to go. So they may well decide to go to a less happy country that provides a better opportunity for their specific situation.

3. Many immigrants tend to go to countries where there are already people they know. Having that built-in support system on arrival makes finding a job and functioning in the new culture much easier.

Sorry to nitpick, but I think your reasoning was off base on that particular comment (questioning why immigrants choose to come to the US over countries with more "happiness").

[wenglund]

The only rationality religion imposes on individual is telling her/him who is the boss. By nature humans do not like having alots of voices in their heads telling them what to do.

Most of my professional life I've had bosses, telling me what to do, (most of these people could barely put one language together, had less than half of my education and their arrogance could rival to OT God), religion was no different.

Some point of my life I decided I am the best there's for myself.

And never regretted it. I can tolerate an equal partner/wife who is by no means superior to me, neither am I to her.

I don't see a need for guidance, if I go to middle of no-where I take a GPS, If I need communication I call someone. There's remedies for every reasonable human need, without feeling inferior or inadequate.

If you care to abserve the world history, The God is not pulling same stints - separating the seas, resurrecting dead, mass killings of disobedient people. Nowadays all we see is random cataclysms like Tsunamis, volcanoes, Islamic Jihad etc. All these occurances do not discriminate who is good who is bad.

-

I sense that you may have some difficulties with "authority", though I am not sure how your personal aversion to "authority" relates to the subject of this thread--unless you are suggesting that "authority" is inherently "bad", and modern Christianity/Mormonism is "authoritarian", therefore in this way modern Christianity/Mormonism is inherently "bad". Is that your point? (I am not trying to argue, just trying to understand)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[johndoe]

The only rationality religion imposes on individual is telling her/him who is the boss. By nature humans do not like having alots of voices in their heads telling them what to do.

Most of my professional life I've had bosses, telling me what to do, (most of these people could barely put one language together, had less than half of my education and their arrogance could rival to OT God), religion was no different.

Some point of my life I decided I am the best there's for myself.

And never regretted it. I can tolerate an equal partner/wife who is by no means superior to me, neither am I to her.

I don't see a need for guidance, if I go to middle of no-where I take a GPS, If I need communication I call someone. There's remedies for every reasonable human need, without feeling inferior or inadequate.

If you care to abserve the world history, The God is not pulling same stints - separating the seas, resurrecting dead, mass killings of disobedient people. Nowadays all we see is random cataclysms like Tsunamis, volcanoes, Islamic Jihad etc. All these occurances do not discriminate who is good who is bad.

-

I find it ironic that when the question this thread raises is posed to some of our secular humanist brethren, responses tend to come back based on... feelings and anecdotal evidence. Rationality indeed.

Again, what about empirical data? Isn't that what non-theists hold up as the gold standard? Why not use it?

I posted this link on another thread some time ago that dealt with a similar issue. I think the evidence presented therein is quite impressive, and doesn't seem to rely on anyone's naked opinion.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/BG1064.cfm

[wenglund]

One of my many flaws is an inability to let things go.

You are likely correct in considering my explanation for the motivation for immigration too simplistic to be accurate, however I believe the same criticism can apply to your original statement as well (the one that prompted me to go down this rabbit trail in the first place).

Consider:

1. Many immigrants leave their families in their native countries, and send money back home. While this may provide the needed support for the family back home, I do not think it accurate to expect the lone immigrant to necessarily experience an increase in happiness.

2. While other countries may have more overall happiness, immigrants must also take into account real possibilities for them to travel to a country and find a job there when deciding where to go. So they may well decide to go to a less happy country that provides a better opportunity for their specific situation.

3. Many immigrants tend to go to countries where there are already people they know. Having that built-in support system on arrival makes finding a job and functioning in the new culture much easier.

Sorry to nitpick, but I think your reasoning was off base on that particular comment (questioning why immigrants choose to come to the US over countries with more "happiness").

I appreciate the clarification, and for the most part I agree with you.

For what it is worth, my reasoning wasn't so much by way of argument as it was a point of curiosity and an impetus for inquiry.

What prompted my curiosity is in looking at the countries differently in terms of which are most "happy" as opposed to which countries may offer the best chance for achieving "happiness". Since I reasonably consider (according to the fundamental principles of economics) better paying jobs to be a means to "happiness" (though certainly not the only means), and also considered other motives for immigration that lend themselves to maximizing "happiness", this suggested to me that the U.S., while perhaps not the "happiest" country (as measured by the one study MC mentioned), the unrivalled flow of immigration to the U.S. may reasonably be viewed, on this basis, as one of the best countries, if not the best country, for achieving "happiness". With that in mind, it made me wonder why the supposed best country for achieving "happiness" isn't the "happiest" country. That's all.

Now, back to the topic--assuming you are ready to let this go. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[solomarineris]

How about if we look at it this way:

1. Can we agree that the more happy, healthy, developed (educationally), and loving (charitable and relationshipwise) people are, the more better or "good" for society?

2. Can we agree that if modern Christianity, in general and on balance, and Mormonism in particular, tend to make people more happy, healthy, developed, and loving; or rather those of that faith tend to be more happy, healthy, developed, and loving than non-Christians/non-Mormons; then Christianity and Mormonism may logically be considered "good" for society?

3. If so, then can we agree that comparitive studies, using whatever valid forms of measurement, that directly establish a connection between religion and happiness, health, development, and love, would be preferrable to studies of countries as a whole (becausethey contain an admixture or Christians and non-Christians), without ruling out studies of countries as a whole?

In other words, can we agree to prefer the studies that JohnDoe presented regarding "happiness" over that suggested by MC?

Either way, at least in terms of happiness, would you agree that JonhDoe's studies suggest that modern Christianity and Mormonism lend themselves to people being "happy", and on that basis, Christianity and Mormonism is "good" for society?

What about health and educational development and love (charitableness and strenght of relationships--particularly the family). Are there comparative studies of these things in terms of Christianity/Mormonism, and if so, what do they suggest as well?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I CAN DO ALL THESE THINGS WITHOUT OATH OF FEALTY TO ANYONE or TO ANY INSTITUTION.

What do I lack? I can do much better, since it is my own resources. I can decide better.

I am not saying they are bad, but I think I am better equipped to decide what is good for me.