In discussions between various opinions on the value of religion especially Christianity, the practical value of religion is often over looked in favour of a more intellectual or scientific approach as to veracity, validity and integrity etc.
What seems to be often over looked in these discussions is the practical value of religion with regards to the role religion plays in the every day lives of followers and devotees.
This is where I feel Brazil can be used as an example to promote the contention that regardless of whether one believes in Christianities point of view or not it is undeniable that with out the guidance of religion Brazil for example would be in a state of significant if not total societal dysfunction, chaos and confusion.

It is not the purpose of this thread to enter into arguement [ although this is the likely outcome] about the esoteric reality of religion but more to discuss if possible the very real practical value that religion has to countries that have huge problems with poverty and the tremendous despair that this type of poverty can generate.

I am in the process of visiting Brazil and indeeed am writing this thread from a borrowed computer in a city called Campinna Grande. From my Australian perspective I see incredible poverty, ranging from the infamous Favella [ neighbourhoods constricted of tarps, rubbish and slats of wood or any other material discarded by the less poor to the simple poor where rooms [up to 3]are smaller than what we in the west would consider to be a small bathroom with out cielings or flooring. [ with a large family living within]
It seems that a significant proportion of the population of this sizable city live within this range of poverty and of course the church has a very strong presence.

What occurred to me was that even with the moral guidance of the church the people here live behind razor wire and electric fences, padlocked high front gates and barbed wire and if the church was not present to provide moral guidance and a set of ethical principals for the mainly illiterate to semi-illiterate population, this city and for that matter most of this country Brazil would fall into to anachy and total chaos.

So I ask the question to myself and share the same with you :

What is the practical value of religion? What alternative would you offer to a population where chronic poverty is inescapable for most. How would you inspire ethical and principaled behaviour with out using religion as a vehicle?

Please in your consideration, include the tragedy of a significant proportion of a population that has not the benefit of a high education or language skills nor in the main any capacity to use such devices as computers, ipods or mobile phones.


Care to discuss?

They will need science and especially a science education in order to improve their country. Praying for wealth won't work. Perhaps religion is keeping them poor by preventing scientific curiosity.

It sounds like things could not get much worse, why attribute any benefits to religion at all?

They will need science and especially a science education in order to improve their country. Praying for wealth won't work. Perhaps religion is keeping them poor by preventing scientific curiosity.

It sounds like things could not get much worse, why attribute any benefits to religion at all?

So would you say an active campaign of going in to these areas and Convincing everyone that;
There is no god
no afterlife
no afterdeath reward or punishment for deeds committed.
That it is all about survival of the species
Survival of the fittest
Convincing them that there is no truth to any supanatural theory whatsoever.

Would that make the situation better or worse??



And I guess where this thread will end up, is about morals. i.e. how morals are logically justified without any religion.






Perhaps religion is keeping them poor by preventing scientific curiosity. ?

What has made them poor is 'the west' vs third world politics and economic policy. It is not lack of curosity but lack of resource that limits them.

They will need science and especially a science education in order to improve their country. Praying for wealth won't work. Perhaps religion is keeping them poor by preventing scientific curiosity.

It sounds like things could not get much worse, why attribute any benefits to religion at all?

Actually even materially advanced countries have problems - and its not like science is going to solve them

Its the nature that as soon as one becomes a bit materially powerful or opulent that one becomes puffed up with a false sense of confidence, but the experience of dying, getting old or getting sick is the same for everyone - we may discriminate but death and misfortune (as well as happiness) visits everyone equally outside of classes of material prosperity - its the nature of material existence to never be perfect but one becomes more susceptable to illusion if one has apparently high birth, opulence etc and cannot see this so clearly - as a practical example the WHO does regular surveys to determine who are the "happiest" people, and the top countries always end iup being places in South america, mexico or bangladesh or something
:D

I would say there undoubtably are inherent morals whithin the human - once an evolution of consciousness has taken place where an animal can recognise others as being basically the same as the self (which humans have) then empathy ensues, which forms the basis of morality.

Although it seems to me that this empathistic morality is something that seems to be fairly easy to psychologically swith off. Escpecially in self preservation situations like the slums of Brazil.

It is religion that attempts (although sometimes badly) to keep this innate empathatic morality at the forefront of our consciousness.

I would say there undoubtably are inherent morals whithin the human - once an evolution of consciousness has taken place where an animal can recognise others as being basically the same as the self (which humans have) then empathy ensues, which forms the basis of morality.

Although it seems to me that this empathistic morality is something that seems to be fairly easy to psychologically swith off. Escpecially in self preservation situations like the slums of Brazil.

It is religion that attempts (although sometimes badly) to keep this innate empathatic morality at the forefront of our consciousness.

You would be surprised how much religion has contributed to morality - in many places where religion is relatively new on the block communities are not so far from jungle culture which doesn't necessarily dicate such elementary things that you are alluding to - for instance many would argue that if they can kill you that they are the good guy and that you are the bad guy - the evidence is that if you are dead they can take your stuff and you won't be around to put up much of a protest

I was thinking about reasons for morality that aren't linked to religion, but thinking further, this only covers some very basic morals and would not encompass any type of say sexual morality, and of course it is lack of empathy (of recognising others as same as self) that allows such things as racism to take place.

The morals that even the most atheistic of us in the west now take pretty much for granted are founded on thousands of years of religious influnce. Religiously based morals which we have all been indoctrinated with since birth. Our morals are inextricably linked with religion and I would say it is almost impossible to disentangle what moral values come from religion, what come from rational and what are innate?

lol - well given that all mental proceedures like logic are attributed as a sub catergory of religion it is not surprising - there is a social paradigm given in the vedas of religious principles, economic development, sense gratification and liberation (dharma artha kama moksa)

the idea is that one establishment gives th eopportunity to lead to the next - liike for instance if there are religious principles then such things that require relative civil atmospheres (like agriculture and commerce for eg) can develop - which in turn can lead to increased prosperity which in turn can lead to pondering on the higher values or significances of life (even the pursuit of science requires a social civil atmosphere for research, as well as literally tons of money) - and all this pursuit of knowledge ultimately culminates in the notion that we have no ultimate connection with material existence -

It seems that the example of the pinnacle of sense gratification in recent times was the 1950's in america (which btw has a strong foundation in religious principles, despite whatever may be going on at present) but then came the hippy movement which was an unsuccessful attempt at liberation, which resulted in a slip back to sense gratification - and perhaps with the latest going on in the middle east the americans are begin to struggle on the newly revisted platform of economic development (IMHO anyway ....)

well given that all mental proceedures like logic are attributed as a sub catergory of religion


Please explain further?

You would be surprised how much religion has contributed to morality

And to it's decline of course. The morals of both developed and impoverished religious countries are questionable. If religion is very popular in impoverished countries then it appears to do a poor job on reducing crime. And of course in America, a developed religious country, I certainly don't share my morals with your average christian. They don't seem to mind the thousands that die in collateral damage in a war they invented for no good reason (although maybe they wouldn't agree with it if they happened to be christians?), yet they don't wish a clump of cells to be destroyed as 'collateral damage' in the war against very real diseases which millions of adults and children suffer from.

Actually even materially advanced countries have problems - and its not like science is going to solve them

I know, but you have to admit, a secular country should be one that all but the most religious fundamentalist would desire.

lol - well given that all mental proceedures like logic are attributed as a sub catergory of religion it is not surprising - there is a social paradigm given in the vedas of religious principles, economic development, sense gratification and liberation (dharma artha kama moksa)

Nonsensical. Please show an accepted definition as to where or how logic is even related to religion, far less being a "sub category".



the idea is that one establishment gives th eopportunity to lead to the next - liike for instance if there are religious principles then such things that require relative civil atmospheres (like agriculture and commerce for eg) can develop - which in turn can lead to increased prosperity which in turn can lead to pondering on the higher values or significances of life (even the pursuit of science requires a social civil atmosphere for research, as well as literally tons of money) - and all this pursuit of knowledge ultimately culminates in the notion that we have no ultimate connection with material existence -

This rambling paragraph is a maze of words that basically says: scientific pursuits and religious ponderings are luxuries that develop after a certain level of socio-economic standard is arrived at.

Correct?

If so I would agree with you somewhat, however this does not imply that they both happen at the same level of evolution. Religious theories develop on a much earlier ladder-rung of human development.

Side note: IMO We are on the cusp of rejecting religion on a grand scale (within a decade or two) and moving ahead with advanced science.



To address the thread topic. Given my response to Lightee, I (grudgingly) admit that religion in some circumstances may be practical. To expound: I mentioned that religious theories develop earlier. I also put forward that religion as a policing and political tool are powerful in a lesser developed society. Brazil, while being a large contributor to various socio-economic sectors of the planet, still has a very large poplace that are very simplistic and academically under exposed. In such a circumstance, religious authority may be necessary as a crowd control clamp and perhaps even granting the general masses a (false) sense of self worth.

Let me liken this to math class. While in early days, children are taught that there is nothing less than zero. While growing up, we dispense with that idea and learn of negative numbers. Growing even further, we even entertain the idea of complex numbers.

What I am saying here is that Brazil as a community mind set, is at the point where they have not learned that there is anything less than zero (liken this to "anything other than god"). Use of religious authority might be practical in this situation, to keep more base behaviour under control until the masses become further educated.

So would you say an active campaign of going in to these areas and Convincing everyone that;
There is no god
no afterlife
no afterdeath reward or punishment for deeds committed.
That it is all about survival of the species
Survival of the fittest
Convincing them that there is no truth to any supanatural theory whatsoever.

Would that make the situation better or worse??
That does not constitute scientific literacy. Let's start with teaching science (among other things), and let people make their own conclusions.

Survival of the fittest is not a personal ideology. Evolution does not require an individual to "buy into it" like a religion, for it to work. It works wether we believe in it or not.

Please explain further?

There is no great pursuit of logic or science unless there is an established social civility by established religious principles - it falls back to the dharma artha kama moksa paradigm - having the spare time to ponder on the deeper significances of life is easier if you don't have to wonder where your next meal is going to come from or whether some ravaging horde of barbarians will rape and pillage you

I am scathed somewhat to find that I am in a *grumble* position of some measure of agreement with Lightee ;)

Religion wielded as a crowd control 'political' tool is a force to be reckoned with in a largely superstitious society that has not progressed to widespread scientific understanding or acceptance. In the Brazil example, while they aren't "ravaging hordes", Brazil folks seem to be largely religious and will respond more quickly to a church authority. (Any Brazil folks on the board? Perhaps who may share some insight into Brazil on the whole, Campina Grande specifically?).

I wonder how well the Catholic Church's stand on contraception is serving them.

LOL stop it! You bad! :p

Seriously though, all overly religious communities seem to be very selective on their respective authority's rules. Boredom is the best catalyst for a high sex drive...so...contraception all the way!

Great response guys. Unfortunately I haven´t got easy access to the internet so I will have to wait a while before responding myself. Needing to write a post out by hand first is a real pain....oh well.....I think however all points are valid however one must consider the scale of the issue especially here regrading Brazil. We are not talking about just a few thousand persons here we are talking about a 10s of millions of persons....shall post soon...

I must admit prior to actually coming to Brazil I had a similar but not quite as extreme view as Spider Goat is displaying. Now that I am here in the thick of it I find my earlier view to be in error and in error considerably. I guess with out actually experiencing the chaos and desparation of the extremely poor one can not really even begin to cast judgement or opinion that can come close to describing the reality of such a state.

It is over whelming, the financial figures that go through you head when you attempt to rationalise this issue. For example: Just to provide a cheap tooth brush and a smal portion of tooth paste to all the poor in Brazil would bankrupt most countries.
Just providing essential services is near impossible, not to mention schooling which in Brazils schools includes science and other non-religious subjects.

The people here are constantly complaining about a corrupt government and how they do very little for solving the issue of resoursing a path out of destitution yet even from my un-educated eye I can see that the task of supporting such a low income producing society is simply way to hard if not impossible if one wants growth and future improvement. The immediate need is just simply too big.
So it seems to me that the goverenment is struggling just to keep people alive with little resources being available to generate a more affluent future.

Now as I once held Spider Goats view I simply have to step down from such an unrealisting perception of the problem and take another look.

As it seems to be always the case when a government is unable to provide for various reasons, the church seems to step in and with the help of millions of volunteers and charitable donations facilitate provisons for those who can not provide for themselves. In most cases religious worship is not even required to gain support.
However if one is watching their children starve to death and along comes the church that puts food on their table and a tooth brush in their hands is it no wonder that those persons would worship the root of such generousity?

The church [ religion ] giving the despairing poor a purpose to their suffering and a sense of equality and dignity as they consider that every one is equal in the eyes of God. And as they watch their children fall ill and die from preventable illnesses they find some consolation that the life just lost and the lives that continue do so for some purpose or reason even if they are not privy to those reasons.

Whilst suffering they consider that one only needs to live morally and with ethics to make their suffering worth while. Sure some will say that this is mere self delusion and that they suffer for naught but I challenge those that hold such a view to go to such a community and try to tell them so to their faces. Tell them that their sufference is an exercise in futility, and that their hopes and aspirations in this world and what they believe to be the next are a fraud and delusion.

So I ask is there an alternative to the very real and practical value of what the church and it´s religion supply a needy community?

Can just simply supplying a food and goods drop of emergency rations and commodities be any where sufficient in providing motivation and a reason to go on?
It seems that people need much more than just food and stuff, they need also inspiration and motivation too.

What way is there to maintain societal cohesion and stop those poor from just simply taking what they need from persons they see as corrupt and selfish?
How does one teach a child simple morality with out even a fictional authority figure to support such? [Given that most poor families are single mothers and no father to provide that moral or character development that we in the West take for granted]

I see the very real value of Religion as being tremendous at this level of societal evolution, [ as mentioned earlier by another poster]
It is all very well to declare a system as foul but to do so with out providing a suitable alternative is considerably more foul.

please excuse the rambling nature of this post.

Don't you think the church is exploiting the gap in the government's social responsibility?
Isn't the church promoting co-dependency?
You say the government is corrupt and isn't that the central issue here?
Does the country have to be so needy?
Doesn't that point out the fact that the country doesn't have the resources to support so many people?
Abandon the church, use condoms, end the corruption that prevents free education (Cuba and most European nations can do it)... In this way, people can attain social mobility, become middle class, and get some real power. Why shouldn't they steal from the corrupt?
They should overthrow them, but the Church prevents this, instead offering them the carrot of the afterlife. Certainly abandoning religion without first fixing the basic issues of making a living is impractical, on that I agree.

Morality doesn't need an "authority" to be a valuable lesson in how people should act. I think this is a myth, and a legacy of patriarchal religion.

Brazil is not a giant slum. We are very hard working people. A lot of us work very hard throughout our lives and live just as well as the lower middle class in north america. The main difference between those not-so-poor people and north americans is that they are not addicted to convinience. We don't have dishwashers, for example. Or extremely unhealthy fatty snacks. :rolleyes:

The problem in Brazil is not even education, anymore. The problem is that we are, and for a long time have been, constantly abused by the US, the IMF and the World Bank. To make a long story short, when our economy was booming about 50 60 years ago, the US didn't like the competition. So they secretly manipulated some people from the military to install a dictatorship here. They slowed down the economic growth and increase debt considerably. Now, all the money that we make goes to pay debt that never ends. Basically, just the interest. So now, all the money that we could use to invest in our people is going to the US.

Nice, eh? :rolleyes:

I think that's going on in many countries, a kind of economic bullying. I don't want to overplay the role of religion and blame it for everything, it's a personal choice, but one I feel will gradually fade as other human institutions take it's place.

I think that's going on in many countries, a kind of economic bullying. I don't want to overplay the role of religion and blame it for everything, it's a personal choice, but one I feel will gradually fade as other human institutions take it's place.

Actually as spiritual pursuits decrease, they are replaced by materialism and hedonism. So I disagree with you. I think as religious institutions slacken, they will be replaced by intense materialism, disregard for the environment and resources, more competitiveness for existing resources, less regard for human life and greater possibilities for war and human casualties. People will be more interested in the here and now and will place greater importance on fulfilment of immediate desires.

Actually as spiritual pursuits decrease, they are replaced by materialism and hedonism. So I disagree with you. I think as religious institutions slacken, they will be replaced by intense materialism, disregard for the environment and resources, more competitiveness for existing resources, less regard for human life and greater possibilities for war and human casualties. People will be more interested in the here and now and will place greater importance on fulfilment of immediate desires.

That's nonsense. America is an intensely religious country, yet it is all the things you mentioned whilst being spiritual. And I think the 'be here now' desire is far less dangerous than the 'be here after' notion as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims show on a daily basis by their lack of concern for peace and the environment.

What's wrong with materialism and hedonism? Appreciating the material world is the opposite of American life as it is now. We live in virtual worlds of TV and DVD, buy cheap plastic crap and abandon craftsmanship. Hedonism is fine, too. It's OK to enjoy yourself. Hedonism with a sense of moderation (so as to maximise pleasure) is called Epicurianism.

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 340–c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention. Following Aristippus—about whom very little is known—Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of our desires. The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life make it quite different from "hedonism" as it is commonly understood. [wiki]

That's nonsense. America is an intensely religious country, yet it is all the things you mentioned whilst being spiritual. And I think the 'be here now' desire is far less dangerous than the 'be here after' notion as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims show on a daily basis by their lack of concern for peace and the environment.

The people may be religious but it is the politicians and scientists who regulate society and control the direction of politics and technology, who determine access to resources, exploitation of said resources and the direction that policy will take. And politicians and scientists are not spiritual.

Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of our desires. [wiki][/I]

This is the main point here.

The people may be religious but it is the politicians and scientists who regulate society and control the direction of politics and technology, who determine access to resources, exploitation of said resources and the direction that policy will take. And politicians and scientists are not spiritual.

Politicians can not be elected in America unless they are religious. Even if the politicians are faking it, the policies they can get away with due to their religious voter base, when you look closely, are utterly disgusting by secular standards.

Science actually has no power in regulating society either, unless you're actually refering to corporate companies which give us all sorts of materialistic goodies. Scientists are emphatically not spiritual (at least in a religious/god sense), and this is the reason why science has made such progress in our understanding of the universe and ability to find legitimate answers. Politicians however, I don't know about the word 'spiritual', but most certainly, in many parts of the world are very religious.

The other day you posed an argument that if scientists were largely atheist, then how could they take part in building weapons... Well let me throw the same argument back at you: if citizens are 'spiritual', then how can they be in a class of their own with regards to materialistic greed?

Politicians can not be elected in America unless they are religious. Even if the politicians are faking it, the policies they can get away with due to their religious voter base, when you look closely, are utterly disgusting by secular standards.

Science actually has no power in regulating society either, unless you're actually refering to corporate companies which give us all sorts of materialistic goodies. Scientists are emphatically not spiritual (at least in a religious/god sense), and this is the reason why science has made such progress in our understanding of the universe and ability to find legitimate answers. Politicians however, I don't know about the word 'spiritual', but most certainly, in many parts of the world are very religious.

The other day you posed an argument that if scientists were largely atheist, then how could they take part in building weapons... Well let me throw the same argument back at you: if citizens are 'spiritual', then how can they be in a class of their own with regards to materialistic greed?


1. so if the politicians are not religious, then they are using deception to come into and stay in power and then using media manipulation to retain their power. Makes them no different from any theist with ambition and corruption. So what is the advatage of atheism? (PS has there ever been an atheist in power who has not misused it?) And how can you really tell if a politician is really religious?

2. who said people are really spiritual anymore? spirituality is not synonymous with religion, even though it is mostly associated with it. Spirituality has already been replaced by materialism to a very great extent. However, if you look at those people who are still largely spiritual, like Buddhist monks or the Amish, you will notice that materialism plays a minimal role in their lives.

I was thinking about reasons for morality that aren't linked to religion, but thinking further, this only covers some very basic morals and would not encompass any type of say sexual morality, and of course it is lack of empathy (of recognising others as same as self) that allows such things as racism to take place.

The morals that even the most atheistic of us in the west now take pretty much for granted are founded on thousands of years of religious influnce. Religiously based morals which we have all been indoctrinated with since birth. Our morals are inextricably linked with religion and I would say it is almost impossible to disentangle what moral values come from religion, what come from rational and what are innate?

You should read Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, he covers this subject matter in some detail.

Actually as spiritual pursuits decrease, they are replaced by materialism and hedonism. So I disagree with you. I think as religious institutions slacken, they will be replaced by intense materialism, disregard for the environment and resources, more competitiveness for existing resources, less regard for human life and greater possibilities for war and human casualties. People will be more interested in the here and now and will place greater importance on fulfilment of immediate desires.

With respect Sam, I don't see any evidence to support your claims. Here in the UK the more secular and wealthy we are becoming, the more we seem to care about social issues, the environment, protection of endangered species, climate control, poverty, etc.

The people may be religious but it is the politicians and scientists who regulate society and control the direction of politics and technology, who determine access to resources, exploitation of said resources and the direction that policy will take. And politicians and scientists are not spiritual.

You forgot to mention the economic heavyweights, such as big business, the world bank, etc.
Don't forget that politicians use religion to control the masses, make them think they way they want them to think. In this sense religion is a tool that people would be better off without.

You forgot to mention the economic heavyweights, such as big business, the world bank, etc.
Don't forget that politicians use religion to control the masses, make them think they way they want them to think. In this sense religion is a tool that people would be better off without.

You assume that religion is the only tool.

Fear is the new religion, weapons the new tool and both of them are directed by technology, fear through the media and weapons through science.

With respect Sam, I don't see any evidence to support your claims. Here in the UK the more secular and wealthy we are becoming, the more we seem to care about social issues, the environment, protection of endangered species, climate control, poverty, etc.

They still sell substantial weapons to third world countries and have corporations installed in countries where you give aid. The UK also contributes to the increase in Third World Debt.

Top 8 arms exporters in 2004

Country Current US dollars
United States $18,500,000,000
Russia $4,600,000,000
France $4,400,000,000
United Kingdom $1,900,000,000
Germany $900,000,000
Canada $900,000,000
China $700,000,000
Israel $500,000,000



Sunday June 12, 2005
British arms sales to Africa have risen to record levels over the last four years and have reached the £1 billion mark, The Observer can reveal.

Analysis of official figures shows annual weapons sales almost quadrupled between 1999 and 2004.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1504698,00.html

They support autocratic regimes.

More than a quarter of the government's arms sales machine is dedicated to selling to a single regime, Saudi Arabia.

A Ministry of Defence publication circulated to defence firms and obtained by the Guardian shows the extent of Saudi dependence on Britain to run its air force.

According to the document, no fewer than 161 of the department's 600 officials work for the "Saudi Armed Forces Project".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,10674,1433250,00.html



2006 marks the fortieth anniversary of DESO, the agency which is responsible for encouraging and supporting UK companies to export arms and military equipment.

DESO admits that it takes what it calls “a pro-active rather than reactive approach” to the promotion of UK arms and military equipment overseas and it is this push of arms that the campaign seeks to end.

A confidential DESO report, released last week under the Freedom of Information Act, reveals that Iraq and Libya are now 'priority' markets for DESO’s arms push, as are Colombia and Kazakhstan, both criticised for human rights violations.

They use Third World debts for profit.

Lloyds, Midland and Barclays have all made substantial profits from selling, exchanging and making provision for Third World debts.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/ExternalArticles/impact.asp#BritishBanks


British aid money is being used to push water privatisation on poor countries. As poor people lose out on clean water, big UK companies profit from this aid.
http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaigns/aid/index.htm

"Companies must not be allowed to use the bread baskets of Zimbabwe's communities as their playgrounds."
Ebbie Dengu, Intermediate Technology Group, Zimbabwe
Why WDM campaigned on GMOs

"As we see it, the GM revolution is part of a process which pushes our farmers off their land and into plantation labour or unemployment, destroys the local environment and leaves us growing asparagus for export rather than food for our people. Corporations justify GMOs as the solution to world hunger, but these products are dictated by profit making not by farmers' needs or poor nations."
Neth Dano, SEARICE, Philippines

Consumers and environmentalists across Europe have taken up the campaign against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). This has received much attention and we are winning change. Yet these victories must also take into account the threat that GMOs pose to some of the world's most poor and vulnerable. GMOs currently being developed by some of the world's largest multinationals could have a devastating impact on farmers' livelihoods in some of the world's poorest countries.

http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaigns/GMOs.htm

And destabilise Third World economy


Britain uses export credits to subsidise arms sales to the South. 96 per cent of the debts owed to Britain by poor countries are owed to the Export Credit Department of the DTI. Many Third World countries have become deeply indebted because of high military spending. And as wars escalate, they are less able to repay the money they owe.

Debt can also lead to and contribute to war. As countries become poorer because of their debts, one route that people take is violence and protest. As this escalates, it can end in war - and does in many countries of the Third World. As the debt crisis broke in the early 1980s, violence in many indebted countries around the Third World erupted into war or escalated dramatically.

Trade justice, not free trade
Our key demands for 2006

1. Stop EPAs and change the negotiating mandate

The UK Government must ensure that the EU drops its demand for reciprocal trade liberalisation and new rules on competition policy, investment and public procurement in its new Partnership Agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.

2. Let poor countries decide their own trade policies

The UK Government should stop the IMF and World Bank imposing trade conditions on poor countries.

3. Water supply should not be covered by international trade rules

The UK Government should insist that the EU withdraw its demand that water is included in GATS.

4. Governments must be free to regulate investment in order to benefit development and the environment

The UK Government should oppose any restrictions on the ability of governments to regulate foreign investment in accordance with their development and environmental needs.
http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaigns/trade/trade1.htm

Secularism is a myth, corruption the reality

Promoting peace is for wimps - real governments sell weapons

Labour seems to see the escalating dangers in the Middle East as little more than an opportunity for business

George Monbiot
Thursday August 24, 2006
The Guardian

It's described by a senior official at the Ministry of Defence as "a dead duck ... expensive and obsolete". The editor of World Defence Systems calls it "10 years out of date". A former defence minister remarked that it is "essentially flawed and out of date". So how on earth did BAE Systems manage to sell 72 Eurofighters to Saudi Arabia on Friday?

One answer is that it had some eminent salesmen. On July 2 2005, Tony Blair secretly landed in Riyadh to persuade the Saudi princes that this flying scrapheap was the must-have accessory for every fashionable young despot. Three weeks later the defence secretary John Reid turned up to deploy his subtle charms. Somehow the deal survived, and last week his successor, Des Browne, signed the agreement. All of which raises a second question. Why are government ministers, even Blair himself, prepared to reduce themselves to hawkers on behalf of arms merchants?

Readers of this column will know that British governments are not averse to helping big business, even when this conflicts with their stated policies. But the support they offer the defence industry goes far beyond the assistance they provide to anyone else.

BAE's previous deals with Saudi Arabia are surrounded by allegations of corruption. It is alleged to have run a £60m "slush fund" to oil the Al Yamamah contracts brokered by Margaret Thatcher. The fund is said to have been used to provide cash, cars, yachts, hotel rooms and prostitutes to Saudi officials. One of the alleged beneficiaries was Prince Turki bin Nasser, the Saudi minister for arms procurement. The Serious Fraud Office was bounced by the Guardian's revelations into opening an investigation. But among the conditions the Saudi government laid down for the new deal is that the investigation is dropped. Let's see what happens.

With this exception, the big arms companies appear to have been granted immunity from inquiry or prosecution.

Should we be surprised that, as the Times revealed on Monday, Israeli soldiers have found night-vision equipment made by a British company in Hizbullah bunkers? Should we be surprised that despite a government commitment to sell Israel "no weapons, equipment or components which could be deployed aggressively in the occupied territories", British companies have been supplying parts for its Apache helicopters and F-16 bombers? The government seems to see the escalating dangers in the Middle East as nothing but an opportunity for business.

Perhaps most damning is this. Blair claims that Britain's security comes first. Yet one of the means by which his government managed to secure this deal was to speed it up. How? The Sunday Times reports that "the first 24 planes for the Saudis will be those at present allotted to the Royal Air Force, with the RAF postponing its deliveries until later in the production run". In other words, the Saudis' perceived need for fighter planes takes precedence over our own.

A report by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) shows that 39% of all the senior public servants who go to work for the private sector are employees of the Ministry of Defence moving into arms firms. In return, scores of arms dealers are seconded to the ministry. The man who runs DESO, for example, previously worked for BAE, selling arms in the Middle East.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1856915,00.html


The church is actually trying to help.


Thirty UK Church leaders have signed a statement calling for the closure of the government arms sales unit, the Defence Export Service Organisation (DESO).

Two Presidents, fourteen Bishops and a Nobel Prize winner are among the leading church figures from the Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Roman Catholic and United Reformed Church who have joined the Fellowship of Reconciliation’s ‘Stop Living by the Sword’ Campaign.
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_06102deso.shtml



More:
http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaigns/past/index.htm


Environment:

The UK is currently 15th in the Top 20 consuming nations of the world, and if everyone had an impact – a "footprint" – as big as the average person's in the UK, we would need three planets to support us.

Sam, my point was not to do with the current goverment and it's foreign policy, I was stating that the the current trend in the UK is not being directed by religion but towards making the world a better place for our present and future generations. The government is becoming increasingly unpopular, especialy our Prime Minister (who has been criticised for defending his actions in respect to the war in Iraq by claiming that God will judge him, not the people). The Conservative opposition are trying to promote their environmental policies as much if not more than any other issues.
You still haven't supported your claim yet.

Sam, my point was not to do with the current goverment and it's foreign policy, I was stating that the the current trend in the UK is not being directed by religion but towards making the world a better place for our present and future generations. The government is becoming increasingly unpopular, especialy our Prime Minister (who has been criticised for defending his actions in respect to the war in Iraq by claiming that God will judge him, not the people). The Conservative opposition are trying to promote their environmental policies as much if not more than any other issues.
You still haven't supported your claim yet.

But the people enjoy a certain lifestyle through these policies. Are they still willing to make the world a better place if it means sacrificing this lifestyle?

And the politicians will claim whatever it takes to come into power, they may even pass a few bills to support that claim, but the arms trade has been denounced since the 80s and is still in full swing (see the latest of the news reports).

If prices increase, will people still feel the same way? Will they be willing to sacrifice material comfort and pleasure for the betterment of future generations?

I cannot prove that.

Practical value of religion:

In Finland they provide cheap day clubs for kids. And they often organize meetings for mothers and children with free 'pulla' (sweet bread). No need to be religious to eat the pulla. God didn't curse them for atheists.

Actually as spiritual pursuits decrease, they are replaced by materialism and hedonism. So I disagree with you. I think as religious institutions slacken, they will be replaced by intense materialism, disregard for the environment and resources, more competitiveness for existing resources, less regard for human life and greater possibilities for war and human casualties. People will be more interested in the here and now and will place greater importance on fulfilment of immediate desires.

Typical fear reaction. Preachers always say stuff like this...but did you know that the Roman Catholic Church has lost USD 1.5 Billion in sexual misconduct lawsuits (admittedly over a number of decades, but can the same be said of say...Playboy?). And let's not even go into materialism...a la Benny Hinn.

Side note: by strict definition, there's nothing wrong with hedonism. It is mis-defined by the religious Reich to nurture the same fear response.

(Keep in mind before you fire up your keyboard with the difference between spirituality and religion, you actually used them interchangeably here by associating spiriualism with religious institutions).

Bottom line: humans are always concerned with the betterment and indulgence of self. This is not solely an athiest trait. It is a human trait, regardless of beliefs (and granting the ever present and very minor exception to the rule).

What about practical value of religion in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, South Africa, and Mexico? Would you say it's practical there? If you do some research, you'll be horrified to find out that religion actually severely damages these countries when it comes wo women's rights, birth control, AIDS issue, homelessness and poverty, and medical treatments. REligion may have value in a country, but in most cases, it's only damaging.