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 145 by dianaiad]

I didn't bring it up. You did.

You're still avoiding the question, and not very well at that. You refuse to answer it. That says A LOT

No, I wouldn't...but I don't know of anybody that charges gays more for a service because they are gay.

So you're not for discrimination against your own Mormons, but you are for gay people. Nice...

What, you think that banning polygamy because one simply doesn't like it is permissible, do you? Or that destroying lives because of a religious perception of marriage as it applies to the religion is permissible?

And AGAIN, you didn't answer the question directly. I'm starting to see a MO here
Your lack of direct answers says enough abotu a lot of things.

If you won't answer questions w/o trying to avoid them (for some reason) there's no need to continue discussing it with you.
Enjoy your posting on this site.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 145 by dianaiad]

I didn't bring it up. You did.

You're still avoiding the question, and not very well at that. You refuse to answer it. That says A LOT

No, I wouldn't...but I don't know of anybody that charges gays more for a service because they are gay.

So you're not for discrimination against your own Mormons, but you are for gay people. Nice...
....

I believe you have misstated or misunderstood her position. Here's the exchange:

Here's the question for you to answer AGAIN:
I can assume you'd be OK with the same or similar discrimination against Mormons? Should Mormons be charged more for doing whatever because they are Mormons?

Dianaiad:

No, I wouldn't...but I don't know of anybody that charges gays more for a service because they are gay. That's why I asked. If they aren't, what is your purpose for using this as an example?

She is saying neither gays nor Mormons should be charged more for the same service, just because of their status. She's just saying she is not aware gays ARE being charged more. The essence of this portion of the debate deals with a difficult part of the law, the interface between personal conscience and religious belief on one side, and the right of people to be treated equally by those who provide services and goods to the public.

The polygamy question does not go directly to this point, but is certainly relevant to the more general issue regarding the government's right to regulate religious practices. The government cannot and should not control religious opinions or beliefs, but it has regulatory power over actions. The blood transfusion cases and others that deal with government limiting religion motivated actions that are harmful, especially to the more vulnerable members of society should be distinguished from actions that are not harmful.

Polygamy arguably falls into the latter category, despite government claims to the contrary. See Reynolds v. United States (1878).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

Based on the rationale in which Reynolds was decided I think it is bad law.
Absent a showing that polygamy is inherently dangerous or unsafe, or ruinous to society, in my opinion the government should not be able to prohibit it. Polygamy was treated as if it was equivalent to infanticide. The anti bigamy laws were specifically aimed at Mormons as a central target.

Having said that, if there were evidence that polygamy is inherently dangerous or unhealthy, or deprives others of fundamental rights, its prohibition would be justified.

I have grave doubts that it is inherently dangerous or dysfunctional.
The government apparently has no problem with allowing adults to have multiple sexual partners or have a domestic partnership with one multiple spouses; they just don't want relationship solemnized by a wedding ceremony.

In other words, tho' I don't think polygamy is a good idea, and probably leads to abuses or otherwise disadvantages a vulnerable class, it is not inherently harmful and therefore the government should keep its big fat nose out of it.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 145 by dianaiad]

I didn't bring it up. You did.

You're still avoiding the question, and not very well at that. You refuse to answer it. That says A LOT

No, I wouldn't...but I don't know of anybody that charges gays more for a service because they are gay.

So you're not for discrimination against your own Mormons, but you are for gay people. Nice...

What, you think that banning polygamy because one simply doesn't like it is permissible, do you? Or that destroying lives because of a religious perception of marriage as it applies to the religion is permissible?

And AGAIN, you didn't answer the question directly. I'm starting to see a MO here
Your lack of direct answers says enough abotu a lot of things.

If you won't answer questions w/o trying to avoid them (for some reason) there's no need to continue discussing it with you.
Enjoy your posting on this site.

Moderator Warning


Address the content of the post, not the perceived behavior or posting style of the other debater.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[dianaiad]

,snip to here>

I have grave doubts that it is inherently dangerous or dysfunctional.
The government apparently has no problem with allowing adults to have multiple sexual partners or have a domestic partnership with one multiple spouses; they just don't want relationship solemnized by a wedding ceremony.

Actually, the government's only problem here is with the advantaged it assigns to married couples; that is, any survival, tax or insurance benefits that go along with them. Or at least, that's the only problem they SHOULD have.

In other words, tho' I don't think polygamy is a good idea, and probably leads to abuses or otherwise disadvantages a vulnerable class, it is not inherently harmful and therefore the government should keep its big fat nose out of it.

Actually, polygamy lived properly is indeed disadvantageous. To the men. Polygamy. lived properly, means that everybody in the relationship, male and female, is equal and free to exercise their talents; they can go out and be writers and lawyers and judges and doctors...and still know that their children are raised properly, AT HOME, by someone (not necessarily a woman) who chooses to do so because s/he wants to; because that is what his or her career path IS.

A real choice.

The problem is that in such a relationship, where everyone in it has equal say in the running of the household and family, the man gets outvoted.

Men don't like that. They do NOT want to give up the power.

History shows us (certainly my own family history does, at least) that women have no problem living polygamy properly. It is very much to their advantage.

Because men can't handle it, polygamy hasn't been practiced 'properly' for a long time. Indeed, most of the time it's tried, it fails...because men are jerks.

[Danmark]

,snip to here>

I have grave doubts that it is inherently dangerous or dysfunctional.
The government apparently has no problem with allowing adults to have multiple sexual partners or have a domestic partnership with one multiple spouses; they just don't want relationship solemnized by a wedding ceremony.

Actually, the government's only problem here is with the advantaged it assigns to married couples; that is, any survival, tax or insurance benefits that go along with them. Or at least, that's the only problem they SHOULD have.

In other words, tho' I don't think polygamy is a good idea, and probably leads to abuses or otherwise disadvantages a vulnerable class, it is not inherently harmful and therefore the government should keep its big fat nose out of it.

Actually, polygamy lived properly is indeed disadvantageous. To the men. Polygamy. lived properly, means that everybody in the relationship, male and female, is equal and free to exercise their talents; they can go out and be writers and lawyers and judges and doctors...and still know that their children are raised properly, AT HOME, by someone (not necessarily a woman) who chooses to do so because s/he wants to; because that is what his or her career path IS.

A real choice.

The problem is that in such a relationship, where everyone in it has equal say in the running of the household and family, the man gets outvoted.

Men don't like that. They do NOT want to give up the power.

History shows us (certainly my own family history does, at least) that women have no problem living polygamy properly. It is very much to their advantage.

Because men can't handle it, polygamy hasn't been practiced 'properly' for a long time. Indeed, most of the time it's tried, it fails...because men are jerks.

I agree with all of that . . . except the 'men are jerks' part. Polygamous men may be jerks. . . . I confess I don't know much about polygamy. My main point is that I think the Reynolds case was wrongly decided.

My concern about polygyny is along the lines you've mentioned, that culturally men still have more power than women, particularly young women. Power tends to be abused. BTW, am I correct in assuming the LDS church formerly permitted and promoted polygyny only and not polyandry?

[dianaiad]

My concern about polygyny is along the lines you've mentioned, that culturally men still have more power than women, particularly young women. Power tends to be abused. BTW, am I correct in assuming the LDS church formerly permitted and promoted polygyny only and not polyandry?

Yep.

........and the problem with it is that because of the culture surrounding the church, where men and women were absolutely NOT culturally equal, it was a very hard slog to get 'em to behave themselves within the church culture.

the way it was supposed to work was...the man was the 'head of the household' only in religious matters, the way the preacher is the 'head' of the congregation. When it came to 'secular' matters, like running a farm or a business, the women were SUPPOSED to have equal say. It's why Mormon women have always had the vote, why Mormon women were among the first female doctors, lawyers, etc.,

But Mormon men couldn't handle it any better than non-Mormon men.

Being, of course, er.....you sure I can't use the 'j' word?

[Danmark]

My concern about polygyny is along the lines you've mentioned, that culturally men still have more power than women, particularly young women. Power tends to be abused. BTW, am I correct in assuming the LDS church formerly permitted and promoted polygyny only and not polyandry?

Yep.

........and the problem with it is that because of the culture surrounding the church, where men and women were absolutely NOT culturally equal, it was a very hard slog to get 'em to behave themselves within the church culture.

the way it was supposed to work was...the man was the 'head of the household' only in religious matters, the way the preacher is the 'head' of the congregation. When it came to 'secular' matters, like running a farm or a business, the women were SUPPOSED to have equal say. It's why Mormon women have always had the vote, why Mormon women were among the first female doctors, lawyers, etc.,

But Mormon men couldn't handle it any better than non-Mormon men.

Being, of course, er.....you sure I can't use the 'j' word?

It's fine with me, but I recall a rule against 'blanket' derogatory statements.

On a personal note, I would prefer it if my wife called me a jerk.

Which reminds me of a story about Harry Truman. A friend of his wife's talked to Bess about trying to get Harry to quit saying 'manure.' Bess sighed and replied that she'd been trying for 30 years to get him to say it.

[KenRU]

Men don't like that. They do NOT want to give up the power.

History shows us (certainly my own family history does, at least) that women have no problem living polygamy properly. It is very much to their advantage.

Because men can't handle it, polygamy hasn't been practiced 'properly' for a long time. Indeed, most of the time it's tried, it fails...because men are jerks.

That is because religion was created by man. It's all about control, power and subjugation. So, of course it would be advantageous to men. Name me a religion that empowers women, that gives women more power then men. It doesn't exist. In fact, you'd have a tough chore just to find one that made women and men equal.

This goes right back to the OP. Religion does not improve behavior. Its endemic by nature to be otherwise.

[Danmark]

The Bahai faith comes to mind as a religion that at least claims to speak about the equality of men and women. I haven't studied it.

More importantly we have had societies that are matriarchal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

Almost every culture has a religion that reinforces its mores.

This is just a Wikipedia entry, but one could start there for research. I recall some of this from my college days in Anthropology and Sociology, but not in sufficient detail.

'The notion of a "woman-centered" society was developed by Bachofen, whose three-volume Myth, Religion, and Mother Right (1861) impacted the way classicists such as Harrison, Arthur Evans, Walter Burkert, and James Mellaart[96] looked at the evidence of matriarchal religion in pre-Hellenic societies.[97] According to historian Susan Mann, as of 2000, "few scholars these days find ... [a "notion of a stage of primal matriarchy"] persuasive."[98]

The following excerpts from Lewis Morgan's Ancient Society will explain the use of the terms: "In a work of vast research, Bachofen has collected and discussed the evidence of female authority, mother-right, and of female rule, gynecocracy."[page needed] "Common lands and joint tillage would lead to joint-tenant houses and communism in living; so that gyneocracy seems to require for its creation, descent in the female line. Women thus entrenched in large households, supplied from common stores, in which their own gens so largely predominated in numbers, would produce the phenomena of mother right and gyneocracy, which Bachofen has detected and traced with the aid of fragments of history and of tradition."'

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 159 by Danmark]

I guess I probably shouldn't have spoken in such an absolute term. Would you agree that for the vast majority of religions out there, my assertion would be true?

Just an fyi, the second paragraph of the link you supplied, said this: "Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe that exceptions are possible, some of them in the past."

Almost every culture has a religion that reinforces its mores.
Pretty much with the man dominant, and the woman subservient. Its what you would expect to happen if man created religion.

-All the best,