The Nehor Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said: which means you are doing your home teaching, sharing the Book of Mormon with your friends, helping others, reading your scriptures, magnifying your calling, and helping your Elders Quorum right? that is why you love religion correct? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. That is why I love my religion? Of course not. Duties are not why I love my faith. They are usually one of my least favorite parts. 1
Calm Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) "everybody knows" Like I said, sloppy statistics. Are you claiming Japan has a non authoritarian culture? China as a democracy....please define. Edited February 10, 2017 by Calm
Calm Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 MVG, where are your stats on authoritarian levels of countries.
MormonVideoGame Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Calm said: "everybody knows" Like I said, sloppy statistics. Are you claiming Japan has a non authoritarian culture? China as a democracy....please define. I am sure you are smart, there is no need for me to share references for this Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12811197 “Society Without God” (New York University Press, 2008).https://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797237 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html Examples of states considered to be authoritarian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#Examples_of_states_considered_to_be_authoritarian
MormonVideoGame Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 Quote Examples of states considered to be authoritarian There is no precise definition of authoritarianism, but several annual measurements are attempted, including Freedom House’s annual Freedom in the World report The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of states which are currently (or frequently) characterized as authoritarian: Russia under Vladimir Putin (1999-) (see Putinism for more) – described as "really a mixture of authoritarianism and managed democracy." People's Republic of China under the Communist Party of China (1949-). “Some scholars have deemed the Chinese system a 'fragmented authoritarianism' (Lieberthal), a 'negotiated state' or a 'consultative authoritarian regime.'” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#Authoritarianism_and_democracy
Calm Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said: I am sure you are smart, there is no need for me to share references for this Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12811197 “Society Without God” (New York University Press, 2008).https://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797237 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html Examples of states considered to be authoritarian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#Examples_of_states_considered_to_be_authoritarian Which does nothing for your claim since these are all vague measures with multiple variables that may or may not be significantly correlated to corruption. Eyeballing data should not result in conclusions, but rather questions to be studied. You may be right, you just don't have the evidence to back up your conclusions yet. You don't need just labels slapped on various countries, you need structured, consistent measurements based on a variety of behaviors (culture is never just one simple, limited quality; authoritarianism manifests itself in varied dimensions and behaviors and some forms might be conducive to corruption while others decrease it. The same thing with religious behavior which encompasses a huge range of behaviors. There are religions that put high value on honesty, some elevate charity, some community, etc. etc. Most religions elevate a number of corruption decreasing behaviors. Cultures then take religions and put their own stamp on it, the culture being affected by the faith, the faith by the culture. Viewing the various expressions of Christianity, Buddhism, and other global faiths should make the complex interaction of culture and faith obvious. The history of religion among slaves in the Americas and the several roles Christianity played in those cultures where at times it was used to justify slavery and seen as a control mechanism and others it encouraged movement towards more equal association shows that even in a limited time and place, even one religion can have multiple roles to play and thus has varied influence. (For a short summary, see http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/religion/history.html ) Making global, simplified statements based on incomplete and poorly defined measurements does not add to our awareness of how religion impacts behavior, imo, but only is useful in sustaining biases, whether for faith or against it.
Calm Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 From your first link: "However, Dr Wiener told the conference that the team was working to update the model with a "network structure" more representative of the one at work in the world. "Obviously we don't really believe this is the network structure of a modern society, where each person is influenced equally by all the other people in society," he said. However, he told BBC News that he thought it was "a suggestive result". "It's interesting that a fairly simple model captures the data, and if those simple ideas are correct, it suggests where this might be going. "Obviously much more complicated things are going on with any one individual, but maybe a lot of that averages out."" In other words, it is not the time yet to draw conclusions, but rather construct better measures to see if 'suggestions' are supported by better data or not. 1
Calm Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) I know someone who lives in Sweden. According to her as well as others I know who have lived there for a number of years for work, Sweden's culture in many ways is quite rigid. Questioning of certain authorities is simply dismissed. In one case, the family wished to homeschool the children, but were not allowed to do so. They were not even permitted to argue their case before a judge. So while in some ways and by some people a country may be viewed as a nonauthoritarian society, depending on the measure it may be viewed as quite authoritarian in other ways. On debate in Sweden: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/opinion/sunday/syrian-refugees-nordic-dilemma.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1 "In Sweden, a closely patrolled pro-immigration “consensus” has sustained extraordinarily liberal policies while placing a virtual taboo on questions about the social and economic costs. In Norway, a strong tradition of free speech and efficient administration has produced a hard-nosed approach about which refugees, and how many, to take in." One needs precise definitions that analyze a variety of authoritarian behaviors, a variety of religious behaviors that also measure depth of religious identity (studies show that deeply held religious identity has a different impact on behaviour than vague 'my family has always been ______, so I am too though I haven't been inside a church/synagogue/mosque/shrine/temple/etc. for years' sense of identity, but they may show up the same way on a census). Japan is considered a rather rigidly structured (female roles for example) and authoritarian culture in my understanding and may be headed to tightening up rather than loosening from what I have read: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-02-20/japan-s-constitutional-change-is-move-toward-autocracy "The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDP), which is one of the most misnamed political parties in existence, has governed Japan for most of its postwar history, with only the occasional brief interruption. A substantial chunk of the party is philosophically, organizationally and often genetically descended from the political class of Japan’s militarist period. As one might expect, it didn't completely internalize the liberal values that the U.S. imposed on the country during the American occupation. That faction, once a minority, now appears to be dominant within the party. The LDP is now campaigning to scrap the U.S.-written constitution, and replace it with a draft constitution. In a booklet explaining the draft, the LDP states that "Several of the current constitutional provisions are based on the Western-European theory of natural human rights; such provisions therefore [need] to be changed." In accordance with this idea, the draft constitution allows the state to restrict speech or expression that is "interfering [with] public interest and public order.” The draft constitution also repeals the clause that prohibits the state from granting “political authority” to religious groups -- in other words, abandoning the separation of church and state. Even worse, the draft constitution adds six new “obligations” that it commands the citizenry to follow. Some of these, such as the obligation to “uphold the Constitution” and help family members, are vague and benign. A third, which requires people to “respect the national anthem and flag,” is similar to constitutional amendments advocated by conservatives in the U.S. But the other three “obligations” are an obvious move toward illiberalism and autocracy. These state: “The people must be conscious of the fact that there are responsibilities and obligations in compensation for freedom and rights.” “The people must comply with the public interest and public order.” “The people must obey commands from the State or the subordinate offices thereof in a state of emergency.” These ideas wouldn't be out of place in China or Russia. The provision for a “state of emergency” echoes the justification for crackdowns used by many Middle Eastern dictators." In what way are you defining Sweden and Japan as nonauthoritarian states? Edited February 10, 2017 by Calm
MormonVideoGame Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 24 minutes ago, Calm said: Eyeballing data should not result in conclusions, but rather questions to be studied. You may be right, you just don't have the evidence to back up your conclusions yet. You don't need just labels slapped on various countries, you need structured, consistent measurements based on a variety of behaviors (culture is never just one simple, limited quality; authoritarianism manifests itself in varied dimensions and behaviors and some forms might be conducive to corruption while others decrease it. The same thing with religious behavior which encompasses a huge range of behaviors. I do like your skepticism, please take that as a compliment. So, why do you believe in religion? You also analyze religious experiences with the same standard? I never said religions and authoritarianism cause "behaviors and some forms might be conducive to corruption while others decrease it", all I am saying is that less religious and non-authoritarian countries are more peaceful. Why? I don't know why, there are many factors, I know the world is not just black and white. So no, I don't need "you need structured, consistent measurements based on a variety of behaviors" for conclusions I haven't made. However, it is clear that religion didn't significantly contribute to the peace of the 10 most peaceful countries in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index#Global_Peace_Index_rankings 37 minutes ago, Calm said: The history of religion among slaves in the Americas and the several roles Christianity played in those cultures where at times it was used to justify slavery and seen as a control mechanism and others it encouraged movement towards more equal association shows that even in a limited time and place, even one religion can have multiple roles to play and thus has varied influence. . Please follow your own advice of not making"simplified statements". There were not that many agnostics/atheists/seculars in the 19th century, so it had to be religion that "encouraged movement towards more equal association". There was probably no American Atheist association in the 19th century. To this day atheists/agnostics/unaffiliated remain a minority. So of course most of the good comes from religion. There is overwhelming evidence that Sweden, Netherlands, Canada, Japan, Ireland, Denmark, Austria, Australia are less religious than America, South America, and Africa. Do you disagree with that? All of them (Sweden, Netherlands, Canada, Japan, Ireland, Denmark, Austria, Australia) have been in the top ten of the global peace index. Why? Like I said, I don't know, there are many factors, but it is clear that religion had nothing to do with it. Highly religious country is never in the top 10.
MormonVideoGame Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: In what way are you defining Sweden and Japan as nonauthoritarian states? See Democracy Index 2012 pages http://pages.eiu.com/rs/eiu2/images/Democracy-Index-2012.pdf Sweden ranks 2, Japan ranks 23, china ranks 142, Russia ranks 122. Sweden and Japan are clearly nonauthoritarian countries Slightly less than one-half of the world’s population lives in a democracy of some sort, although only 11% reside in full democracies. Some 2.6bn people, more than one-third of the world’s population, still lives under authoritarian rule (with a large share being, of course, in China).
MormonVideoGame Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 Democracy Index 2012 pages 3-8 Forgot to quote, for some reason I can't edit Quote Slightly less than one-half of the world’s population lives in a democracy of some sort, although only 11% reside in full democracies. Some 2.6bn people, more than one-third of the world’s population, still lives under authoritarian rule (with a large share being, of course, in China)
MormonVideoGame Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Also, what does the phrase "separation of church and state" mean to you? According to WIN/ Gallup International scientific poll these are the least religious countries in the world. In that list there is only ONE non-authoritarian country that has a high rate of violence, that country is Israel. + China and Sweden https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/14/map-these-are-the-worlds-least-religious-countries/?utm_term=.bb4ab78410d2 List of Authoritarian regimes http://pages.eiu.com/rs/eiu2/images/Democracy-Index-2012.pdf
Calm Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said: Like I said, I don't know, there are many factors, but it is clear that religion had nothing to do with it. Comments like this lead me to believe further conversation will just be a repeat of assertions without actual statistical analysis beyond a superficial and naive level. As to how I approach my religious beliefs, if I make any claims in anything based on statistics, then I work at ensuring I have the stats to back me up. However, I do not base my faith in population studies or other stats, but in my own personal experience. I do not make claims about the truth of my faith beyond what I experience. That you even suggest I approach my faith in the same way as science demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of both, in my opinion. Edited February 10, 2017 by Calm 2
Maedros Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 Johnson Amendment should be repealed - Trump obviously promised to do that in order to retain support from Evangelicals who'll be empowered by such repeal. In my view that's just fine - there has to be a push-back against the liberal lunatics and celebrity scum who pedal Gadianton-robbery and identity politics. Our situation seems quite awful as Moroni warned - we need Christian strength; it will of course give rise to bigotry but we already have so many bigots on the left disguised as social justice warriors. The God of America is the Lord God of Joseph Smith, the God of Israel; so shouldn't we declare it? Wouldn't the repeal of this amendment embolden Christianity to play a more active role in fighting secularism?
hagoth7 Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So you want yourself and whatever group you lead/contribute to to be free to speak your mind in the political arena... Yep. Completely. 19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: ..but you don't want churches and members thereof to enjoy the same freedom. Is that a correct restatement of your position? Nope. That does not at all reflect what I said. I simply wouldn't launch a 501c3 under current conditions. Studied/thought it out at length months ago, and determined that I would much rather pay tax than have a muzzled organization that wasn't free to agitate/lobby as much as it wished for needed social/legal/political change. 19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Also, what does the phrase "separation of church and state" mean to you? More particularly, does it pertain to the state's position in relationship to churches or churches' position in relationship to the state? Imagery. Book of Revelation. Corrupt/subverted religion at the helm of gov't ain't a good thing. Historically a tragic thing, in fact. Churches should be independent of the state....and its reps. Not politically (or financially) beholden to it. 19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Finally, how will repealing the Johnson Amendment make "religions beholden to the new executive"? Someone has been said to be transactional in all of their relationships...as commented by someone who studied their life well (feel free to research that word to confirm what I've said). Meaning, if you expect a repeal of the Johnson Amendment by executive fiat to be unconditional...methinks you misunderstand. What can be taken by executive fiat can and likely would be selectively welded back into place by the same...if the outcome was not to such a person's liking. Do I sincerely hope/pray such a person experiences a change of heart? Yep. Am I banking on such a change? Nope. Agency is agency....and prior attitudes are generally entrenched and reinforced by a circle of people with clear indications of having a similar mindset as Alma's former co-advisors. Such a situation doesn't make change impossible...it just means it is at least prudent to have a backup plan or three. Thoughts? Impressions? Suggestions? Edited February 10, 2017 by hagoth7
Gray Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, emeliza said: I think you also have to be a not for profit organization. No problem, all net revenue at the end of the year will be reinvested into capital assets instead of distributed to shareholders. Edited February 10, 2017 by Gray
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2017 Author Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So you want yourself and whatever group you lead/contribute to to be free to speak your mind in the political arena -- but you don't want churches and members thereof to enjoy the same freedom. Is that a correct restatement of your position? Also, what does the phrase "separation of church and state" mean to you? More particularly, does it pertain to the state's position in relationship to churches or churches' position in relationship to the state? Finally, how will repealing the Johnson Amendment make "religions beholden to the new executive"? 15 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said: No, I am a libertarian on social issues, I believe everyone has freedom of speech. However, the evidence shows that religion (or organized religion) isn't doing much to improve a country because less religious and non-authoritarian countries are more peaceful and prosperous. Also, having laws based on religious beliefs causes problems, like Idaho's law that you can't have sex before marriage for example. Or extreme anti-abortion laws in other countries. Or anti-gay laws in some states. My question was addressed to hagoth7. But your assertion is an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.Do you know what that is? It is illustrated by the absurdity that the rooster causes the sun to rise because the dawn always follows its crowing. Edited February 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2017 Author Posted February 10, 2017 18 hours ago, emeliza said: If the group has a 501(c)(3) status, they can speak out on political ideals, but not endorse candidates. This is the same for any group or church. I'm aware of the provisions of the law. Quote Members can endorse candidates, but it gets sticky if it is a leader in said organization. Sticky for whom? The organization? Why should it bother me if an organization I don't care about creates problems for itself? Quote I realize you don't agree, but how many times does this opinion need to get states that we like this law. I've said repeatedly I haven't decided what what position to take on the question of repealing the Johnson Amendment. Flat statements of opinion that "we like this law" aren't going to help me much in arriving at a decision. Solid reasoning might, but if it isn't solid, I'm entitled to challenge it.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2017 Author Posted February 10, 2017 On 2/8/2017 at 5:56 PM, MormonVideoGame said: I don't see how what your question has anything to do with what I am saying, I never said a specific religion governs the USA. This was my question: Quote What corruption in the U.S. government has been caused by religion? For that matter what religion is there in the government of the United States? If you're going to state or imply that religion in a nation causes corruption in its government, and if you characterize the United States as a religious nation, you ought to be able to identify what corruption, if any, there is in the United States government that has been caused by religion.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2017 Author Posted February 10, 2017 2 hours ago, hagoth7 said: Nope. That does not at all reflect what I said. I simply wouldn't launch a 501c3 under current conditions. Studied/thought it out at length months ago, and determined that I would much rather pay tax than have a muzzled organization that wasn't free to agitate/lobby as much as it wished for needed social/legal/political change. It's your right to make that choice. This doesn't help me understand, however, why the Johnson Amendment should not be repealed. If it were, you could "agitate/lobby" to your heart's content without having your organization muzzled. Quote Imagery. Book of Revelation. Corrupt/subverted religion at the helm of gov't ain't a good thing. Historically a tragic thing, in fact. Churches should be independent of the state....and its reps. Not politically (or financially) beholden to it. This does not answer my question, which is this: Quote Also, what does the phrase "separation of church and state" mean to you? More particularly, does it pertain to the state's position in relationship to churches or churches' position in relationship to the state? It's axiomatic that a specific religion should not be "at the helm of government." What I was wondering is if your definition of "separation of church and state" means that churches should not be free to speak out -- along with the rest of the citizenry -- on matters of government. Back to you: Quote Someone has been said to be transactional in all of their relationships...as commented by someone who studied their life well (feel free to research that word to confirm what I've said). Meaning, if you expect a repeal of the Johnson Amendment by executive fiat to be unconditional...methinks you misunderstand. What can be taken by executive fiat can and likely would be selectively welded back into place by the same...if the outcome was not to such a person's liking. Do I sincerely hope/pray such a person experiences a change of heart? Yep. Am I banking on such a change? Nope. Agency is agency....and prior attitudes are generally entrenched and reinforced by a circle of people with clear indications of having a similar mindset as Alma's former co-advisors. Such a situation doesn't make change impossible...it just means it is at least prudent to have a backup plan or three. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that if someone in government -- say, the president of the United States -- works toward repeal of the Johnson Amendment, religions and other 501 c 3 groups would unavoidably be beholden to him. I still don't see how that must be the case. Your asserting it doesn't make it so.
hagoth7 Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: So if I understand you correctly... If I were to say more, this thread would likely be shut down. More importantly, to protect the innocent, what I've said previously will have to suffice.
MormonVideoGame Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you're going to state or imply that religion in a nation causes corruption in its government No I never said such thing. I did say religion sometimes causes problems in certain areas of the world, but I never said religion in general causes corruption. I am only saying that the most peaceful countries are less religious and non-authoritarian. Not hard to understand that.
MormonVideoGame Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 7 hours ago, Calm said: Comments like this lead me to believe further conversation will just be a repeat of assertions without actual statistical analysis beyond a superficial and naive level. Listen, I made successful predictions. for example the list of the least religious countries (from WIN/ Gallup International) includes Azerbaijan, a country that has a high violence rate. Before investigating I predicted Azerbaijan was an authoritarian country, and it is. All my predictions continue to be correct. I can't find anything that contradicts the hypothesis that non-authoritarian and less religious countries are more peaceful. Every year the global peace index ranks all countries in the world, no highly religious country has ever been in the top 10. If the stats are flawed, every year we would expect random results. The results from the Global Peace index are always consistent. 7 hours ago, Calm said: As to how I approach my religious beliefs, if I make any claims in anything based on statistics, then I work at ensuring I have the stats to back me up. However, I do not base my faith in population studies or other stats, but in my own personal experience. I do not make claims about the truth of my faith beyond what I experience. Dr. John C. Wathey had a profound personal experience that seemed very real to him, but he is an agnostic because he offers compelling explanations for his own without the need of a god. Same for Dr. Jane Aspell, she used to believe in her own near death religious experience. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2016/01/book-review-the-illusion-of-gods-presence/ 7 hours ago, Calm said: That you even suggest I approach my faith in the same way as science demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of both, in my opinion. Science can't disprove personal experiences, but it offers a simpler explanation. Read Occam's Razor.
emeliza Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Sticky for whom? The organization? Why should it bother me if an organization I don't care about creates problems for itself? It goes back to the issue of people blindly following religious leaders. You might not care, but I know too many people who blindly follow. I care very much that religion and politics stay as separate as they can with elected officials. I understand it blurs with some laws and such, but it shouldn't with actual people
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 36 minutes ago, emeliza said: I care very much that religion and politics stay as separate as they can with elected officials. I understand it blurs with some laws and such, but it shouldn't with actual people I want my religion sectarian and my government secular.
Recommended Posts