Does religion improve behavior?

[Zzyzx]

.

Being religious does not make you better behaved, researchers have found.

A new study found 'no significant difference' in the number or quality of moral and immoral deeds made by religious and non-religious participants. 

The researchers found only one difference - Religious people responded with more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds.

To learn how people experience morality and immorality in everyday life, the researchers surveyed more than 1,200 adults, aged 18 to 68, via smartphone. 
For three days, the demographically diverse group of U.S. and Canadian citizens received five signals daily, prompting them to deliver short answers to a questionnaire about any moral or immoral act they had committed, received, witnessed or heard about within the last hour. 

In addition to the religion variable, the researchers also looked at moral experience and political orientation, as well as the effect moral and immoral occurrences have on an individual's happiness and sense of purpose. 

The study found that religious and nonreligious people differed in only one way: How moral and immoral deeds made them feel

Religious people responded with stronger emotions – more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds. 

The study also found little evidence for a morality divide between political conservatives and liberals. 

'Our findings are important because they reveal that even though there are some small differences in the degree to which liberals and conservatives emphasize different moral priorities, the moral priorities they have are more similar than different,' Skitka said. Both groups are very concerned about issues such as harm/care, fairness/unfairness, authority/subversion and honesty/dishonesty, she said. 

'By studying how people themselves describe their moral and immoral experiences, instead of examining reactions to artificial examples in a lab, we have gained a much richer and more nuanced understanding of what makes up the moral fabric of everyday experience,' Skitka said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... uilty.html

Do you agree or disagree with the bold items above? Why?

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 69 by KenRU]

The vast majority of same sex couples I’ve read about (and the few that I do know) had no desire to force a religious group to perform their wedding. They just wanted the legal right to wed.

Same here. But the religious right likes to make claims like this to bolster their (for some reasons unknown) fear of gay people.

I often hear this argument, and never understood the fear. I never once heard or read about a legal challenge that would force churches, synagogues or mosques to do this.

People fear what they don't understand. And religious people don't typically understand gay people beyond what they're told in their sermons. Religion breeds fear and ignornance and feeds on it at the same time.

Agreed. I have yet to hear this fear justified, despite my best efforts to have it explained to me.

And, oddly enough, this seeming tangent can very easily be tied to the OP. Refusing another the right to wed (with equal benefits under the law), for unjustified fears, is very much the subject here. Don't ya think?

For some it's fear
Others it's nothing but hate
Others it's because they're told they should
I haven't seen any legitimate reason to prevent 2 people to have legal rights that others have when their legal rights don't harm anyone but MAYBE the two getting married!
It's silly that the USA is still allowing religious fear and hate to keep others that have nothing to do with their right to practice their own religion from being legally recognized and equal! Is the earth still flat? I mean seriously. Maybe American s have it too good and they have to tend the flocks of other people instead of their own?

[KenRU]

By the same token, I don't think that it's right to force others to participate in religious ceremonies, like weddings, that violate their religious principles, whether they violate MINE or not.

You keep making this assertion, and I have yet to read a justification for it. Please show me where this has ever happened. I appreciate it.

As for the businesses have no freedom of religion..''baloney. All businesses are run, and owned, by PEOPLE. If a business is owned, entirely, by one person, or a group that have the same religious beliefs, then it is THEIR religious beliefs that are being violated.

Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. So, businesses, in your opinion, can discriminate, as long as it is religiously endorsed?

Muslims (business owners), can refuse services to Jews? It’s ok for an evangelical Christian who owns a convention hall to refuse service to a same sex wedding (being done via civil union)? You’re ok with this?

And, just out of curiosity, how is this not discrimination in your opinion?

I would defend the right of an atheist owned business to refuse to participate in a religious meeting, either through catering, or renting facilities or goods.

So, an atheist who owns a restaurant can refuse to rent out his hall to a religious group? You would be ok with that? Odd. I would think this is discrimination as well.

Apparently, you and I do not define discrimination the same way.

All the best,

[Wordleymaster1]

By the same token, I don't think that it's right to force others to participate in religious ceremonies, like weddings, that violate their religious principles, whether they violate MINE or not.

You keep making this assertion, and I have yet to read a justification for it. Please show me where this has ever happened. I appreciate it.

As for the businesses have no freedom of religion..''baloney. All businesses are run, and owned, by PEOPLE. If a business is owned, entirely, by one person, or a group that have the same religious beliefs, then it is THEIR religious beliefs that are being violated.

Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. So, businesses, in your opinion, can discriminate, as long as it is religiously endorsed?

Muslims (business owners), can refuse services to Jews? It’s ok for an evangelical Christian who owns a convention hall to refuse service to a same sex wedding (being done via civil union)? You’re ok with this?

And, just out of curiosity, how is this not discrimination in your opinion?

I would defend the right of an atheist owned business to refuse to participate in a religious meeting, either through catering, or renting facilities or goods.

So, an atheist who owns a restaurant can refuse to rent out his hall to a religious group? You would be ok with that? Odd. I would think this is discrimination as well.

Apparently, you and I do not define discrimination the same way.

All the best,

Many religious people say it's OK to discriminate so long as they're not on the receiving end. Some call it hypocrisy at its core.
Of course, there are religious people who know they have no business in the legal aspects of anothers personal life. Some how, those people aren't as loud as those who think it OK to prevent others from receiving the same legal protection they have for themselves.
There's such thing as BLIND FAITH. Over the years, I'm starting to think there's something else called BLIND ALLEGIANCE - being blind to obvious wrongs either because you're told to be blind or you want to be blind.
Seems a lot of times BLIND ALLEGIANCE (term tradmarked ) is becoming more popular than ever.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 104 by dianaiad]

"They" are religious individuals who are against same sex marriage while supporting the change to the pledge of allegiance that includes under god.

I expect under your rationale you would support a change to the pledge of allegiance that would undo the "under God" part right?

[Zzyzx]

.

I expect under your rationale you would support a change to the pledge of allegiance that would undo the "under God" part right?

For the record:

Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The current Pledge reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

Addition of "under God" has been challenged as unconstitutional by being in violation of the First Amendment.

There is also opposition to the emphasis upon allegiance to a FLAG.

[KenRU]

As I understand, conversions to Islam are more common in prison these days. The latest beheading was done by a Muslim prison convert, right here in the good ol' U S of A.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ading.html

Prob'ly not the best example of religion making people more moral.

Probably not.

But I'll tell you what: I'll see you one Alton Nolen, and raise you Jeffrey Dahmer.

Dahmer killed in the name of his religion???

.....and at least I, unlike the non-believers here on this forum, am not dumb enough to make such sweeping declarations as that all theists are immoral

I never made such a claim. Please do not include me in this “sweeping declaration� that you are making. : )

that theists require religion to be 'good' out of fear because without it they'd be evil monsters incarnate

Should we include the theists who claim this to be true????

or that it doesn't matter how 'good' a theist is, it doesn't matter because at least when an atheist is 'good,' he's 'good' for the RIGHT REASONS.

I do claim this, however. Guilty as charged.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 69 by KenRU]

The vast majority of same sex couples I’ve read about (and the few that I do know) had no desire to force a religious group to perform their wedding. They just wanted the legal right to wed.

Same here. But the religious right likes to make claims like this to bolster their (for some reasons unknown) fear of gay people.

I often hear this argument, and never understood the fear. I never once heard or read about a legal challenge that would force churches, synagogues or mosques to do this.

People fear what they don't understand. And religious people don't typically understand gay people beyond what they're told in their sermons. Religion breeds fear and ignornance and feeds on it at the same time.

Agreed. I have yet to hear this fear justified, despite my best efforts to have it explained to me.

And, oddly enough, this seeming tangent can very easily be tied to the OP. Refusing another the right to wed (with equal benefits under the law), for unjustified fears, is very much the subject here. Don't ya think?

I am so tired of this strawman argument. NOBODY is afraid that the government might force some minister to actually perform (officiate at) a gay wedding.

The problem is that people are being forced to participate in gay weddings...and by 'participate in,' I mean to cater, to photograph, to allow the use of property and venues, to recognize those marriages as marriages 'under God' for the purposes of employment in specifically religious jobs, for housing in church owned apartments or houses that have doctrine based rules for the renters...

That is happening.

Who cares about the 'we won't force you to marry us?" That's not the issue and never has been.

[KenRU]

I am so tired of this strawman argument. NOBODY is afraid that the government might force some minister to actually perform (officiate at) a gay wedding.

Glad to hear. I did not fully understand your argument – though I think I do now.

The problem is that people are being forced to participate in gay weddings...and by 'participate in,' I mean to cater, to photograph, to allow the use of property and venues,

Up to this point in your list, wouldn’t that be the law? How would this be any different than segregation?

Are you arguing that because an Orthodox Jew doesn’t recognize a Reform Jew as “really Jewish� that it is ok for him to refuse to rent, cater to and do business with a Reform Jew? The Reform Jew wishes to rent the Orthodox Jew’s banquet hall, but the owner should be allowed to refuse (according to you) because he thinks the Reform Jew’s religion offends him? This really seems ok with you?

That’s what it seems you are now saying. How and why is this any different than racial bigotry?

… to recognize those marriages as marriages 'under God' for the purposes of employment in specifically religious jobs,

You’ll have to provide an example of what you mean here.

… for housing in church owned apartments or houses that have doctrine based rules for the renters...

Now you’re getting a little fuzzy here. No one is arguing that the church (or mosque or synagogue) should make its property available to the secular world for all businesses (though it would be a nice gesture of compassion and understanding, wouldn’t it?) Nor, am I aware of any religious owned property ever being forced to provide services they consider against doctrine.

Dianaiad,

It seems to me that you are arguing for it to be legal for people (not the church or an institution, but people) to discriminate against one another as long as it is religiously called for. Say it ain’t so.

[dianaiad]

I am so tired of this strawman argument. NOBODY is afraid that the government might force some minister to actually perform (officiate at) a gay wedding.

Glad to hear. I did not fully understand your argument – though I think I do now.

The problem is that people are being forced to participate in gay weddings...and by 'participate in,' I mean to cater, to photograph, to allow the use of property and venues,

Up to this point in your list, wouldn’t that be the law? How would this be any different than segregation?

Are you arguing that because an Orthodox Jew doesn’t recognize a Reform Jew as “really Jewish� that it is ok for him to refuse to rent, cater to and do business with a Reform Jew?

It is if the Reformed Jew insists that the Orthodox Jewish Kosher deli cater his kid's bar Mitzvah and serve ham sandwiches.

The Reform Jew wishes to rent the Orthodox Jew’s banquet hall, but the owner should be allowed to refuse (according to you) because he thinks the Reform Jew’s religion offends him? This really seems ok with you?

If the purpose for the rental violates the religious tenets of the owner? You betcha.

So...it depends on the occasion.

That’s what it seems you are now saying. How and why is this any different than racial bigotry?

Let me ask you:

Is it OK to force a black person to cater a KKK meeting?

… to recognize those marriages as marriages 'under God' for the purposes of employment in specifically religious jobs,

You’ll have to provide an example of what you mean here.

… for housing in church owned apartments or houses that have doctrine based rules for the renters...

Now you’re getting a little fuzzy here. No one is arguing that the church (or mosque or synagogue) should make its property available to the secular world for all businesses (though it would be a nice gesture of compassion and understanding, wouldn’t it?) Nor, am I aware of any religious owned property ever being forced to provide services they consider against doctrine.

then you have NOT been paying attention.

Take Betty and Richard Odgaard, for instance, who have a place in Iowa; a former church turned art gallery which also hosts weddings and receptions.

Now this couple are Mennonites. She is the daughter of a minister. They have hired gays. They have hosted many events for gays. However, when a gay couple wanted them to have their wedding there, the Odgaards said 'no.' They would not provide the venue for, nor services to, a gay wedding; it violated their religious beliefs.

They could hold any OTHER event there, no problem at all.

They have been threatened with fines, punished with sanctions...and are now suing the state of Ohio for violation of their freedom of religion.

That's one.

But if you are going to insist upon a CHURCH being forced to this, then...

the New Jersey Methodist Church was not only sued, it lost it's tax exemption (now THAT'S ironic) because it refused to allow a same sex wedding on its property.

Dianaiad,

Yes, KenRu?

It seems to me that you are arguing for it to be legal for people (not the church or an institution, but people) to discriminate against one another as long as it is religiously called for. Say it ain’t so.

It's absolutely 'so.'

Read the First amendment. You will notice that the very first right mentioned has to do with the freedom of religion, and it is the ONLY right that is mentioned TWICE.

First, that the government shall not establish a religion and second, that it will not prohibit the free exercise thereof.

The Bill of Rights was not written to protect the politically correct. It was not written to protect the free speech of those who agree with you, or the religious beliefs of which you approve.

Quite the contrary. It was written to protect the rights of those you don't like, of whose opinions you do not approve, and whose beliefs you don't share. it was written this way to ensure that, when YOUR beliefs become the unpopular ones, you can still hold them without fear of being fined or sanctioned.

So, yes.

Would *I* participate in a gay wedding? Sure. I have. My daughter has 'shot' (she's a photographer) a couple of them now. Would I allow them to get married in my back yard?

Sure.

But this isn't about what I would do, freely and according to my own beliefs. It's about what y'all would have others do under duress and very much against their beliefs.

[Danmark]

The Bill of Rights was not written to protect the politically correct. It was not written to protect the free speech of those who agree with you, or the religious beliefs of which you approve.

Quite the contrary. It was written to protect the rights of those you don't like, of whose opinions you do not approve, and whose beliefs you don't share. it was written this way to ensure that, when YOUR beliefs become the unpopular ones, you can still hold them without fear of being fined or sanctioned.
....

This is exactly right.
And that is why a business open to the public cannot refuse service to a Jew, a member of the KKK, an African American, a Mormon, a Lesbian, or a gay bashing self proclaimed 'true Christian' just because the business is owned by a Jew, a member of the KKK, an African American, a Mormon, a Lesbian, or a gay bashing self proclaimed 'true Christian.'
Welcome to the USA where your private intolerances and heart felt beliefs do not provide sufficient excuse to allow you the right to deny rights to others.