The Brit riots: “When churches disappear, the vacuum is filled by gangs or tribes.”

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 21, 2011

Atheism, Culture}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In “Cleaning up pre-riot” (Toronto Sun August 19, 2011) British-born Canadian commentator Michael Coren discusses practical riot prevention, suggesting, among other things,

3) Stop the war on religion. Whatever your view of faith and God, the massive decline of religious observance and community in Britain has removed one of the glues that held the country together.

When churches disappear, the vacuum is filled by gangs or tribes. Beyond this is the disappearance of moral standards and ethical absolutes. Witness how in the black community it is the Christian evangelical youths who are least touched by the anarchy.

It was noted at the time that Muslim youths didn’t riot either. Thoughts?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Japanese think religion is going to a weekly meeting and forking over money. They are very religious, but they don't even know it. I live in Okinawa where the history and traditional religion isn't in line with mainland Japan, but in this respect they are very much the same. When asked why I won't attend to the traditional prayers in front of the alter and burning of incense, I respond that I am a Christian, to which invariably the questioner replies that their tradition isn't a religion. It's quite funny to see their face when I say, "Great! Please come to church on Sunday."Brent_{August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT}

Japan is an interesting example. The wikipedia entry isn't sure whether Japanese are 80-90% religious or 80-90% atheist/agnostic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan I also suspect there is some bias in that article, since when I follow the link regarding the quote "84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion" the actual quote is: 'According to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion, but most follow “the customs of Japanese traditional religion.”' From what one of my friends tell me, it seems more the Japanese take an ala carte approach to religion, where they believe in almost everything incase it is right. Additionally, while many are not observing Buddhists or Shinto, their culture is very much based on those religions. So, it seems that while Japanese people may intellectually not believe in God, it seems they are still culturally pretty religious. But, it also seems that cultural religion is on the decline.Eric Holloway_{August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT}

The riots were done by bad people. These lower classes simply have more bad people. Its always been that way with the lower classes. perhaps they are lower because they are bad. perhaps God rewards people based on morality. These areas further are ethnic (non English) that are more hostile to the native population generally as I note it. I don't think these riots would happen so easily in poor English areas. The ethnics are not just poorer but are blaming the british to some extent for their condition. These rioters simply took it too a further degree. They are not that many. In fact I understand the gov't has been more firm then usual because other ethnic groups do quite well in britain and there is no more liberal "blame the white man' credibility left. If they are an enemy then be firm with them as a enemy and let the punishment fit the crime. Here the crime is not just the details of robbery/fire. it is the crime of rebellion against the people and their gov't and law.Robert Byers_{August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

What? Do you not understand the basic Biblical truth that all men are sinful???, or do you not understand the basic Biblical truth that man cannot be redeemed (perfected; set free from death both physical and spiritual) by his own good works, i.e. by his own endeavors??, as was clearly illustrated by Benjamin Franklin in his personal 'experiment' of self imposed morality??? If so, Here is a neat little study on 'Good works' vs. Faith that is clear to understand: Good Works and Salvation - The Doctrine of Justification by Faith http://www.redeemedscoundrels.com/Writings/salvation/justification.62607.html ================ Casting Crowns - Who am I? with lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt7OZyBj5Ik Lyrics excerpt: 'Not because of who I am, But because of what you've done. Not because of what I've done, But because of who you are.'bornagain77_{August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

It was also not so widely reported in recent times that the grandfathers of these Japanese were responsible for the rape of Nanking, and much more. The Chinese were viewed by those grandfathers as other, so the power of the tribe led to massacre rape and worse. 1/4 million murdered IIRC. This time around, law and order did not break down in Japan.
I'm not sure the contrast "this time around" is necessarily warranted. It wasn't a case of the Japanese acting outside of their moral beliefs in the cases mentioned.Brent_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

No indeed. Why do you think that Japanese morality isn't grounded in a higher authority than their society? That is not even close to being correct. I don't agree with their thinking about God, but to say that their sense of morality isn't based on a transcendent source, or at least idea, isn't the case. And surprise, they act accordingly.Brent_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

It’s selfish – it’s grabbing stuff for yourself, never mind the trouble and loss you cause from someone else.
This is one area where it is very easy to talk past each other. In one breath you say "selfish" as if it is bad (i.e. actually wrong), and speak as if it is also wrong to cause someone else trouble and loss. The problem isn't that we disagree on that! We do agree. The problem is when I decide to say, "To hell with your morals. I'll do as I please." What THEN!? To who or what do you appeal? Another man's morals? I clearly don't care, for I am a man and therefore at least his equal. To the government? Governments of MEN? No. There is no ought derived from another man.
Your implication that for an atheist “morality is whatever you like or agree with at the moment” is simply false.
No, it is quite correct as I've just shown. If there is no higher authority than my own equivalent, then I am my own authority.Brent_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

The Japanese response was orderly, but not much beyond that display of civic order or politeness. They emptied the grocery shelves, hoarding. There wasn't the spontaneous inclination to help others that we see in America. I saw no stories of those in distant cities collecting goods, loading semis and heading to those in need. All seemed to wait on the government. I've heard similar stories of public piety in Islam. Shows of piety and prayer, but living behind walls while sewage runs in the streets. Perhaps where the pressures for conformity are greatest, the human tendency is to pay mere lip service.africangenesis_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

That is the type of statement that just doesn't make sense to me.africangenesis_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

Hi everyone, I'd just like to comment on the oft-heard claim that the Japanese are not religious. They are. I vividly remember a conversation I had with a Japanese friend a couple of years ago, on this very subject. He was a young man who had no religious beliefs, but he earnestly informed me that there was an important difference between Western atheists and Japanese atheists. In Japan, everyone takes part in certain popular religious ceremonies, no matter what their religious beliefs are. Religion in Japan is seen as a matter of practice, rather than belief; hence even atheists can be quite religious. Thus, for instance, even Japanese who are total atheists will still visit a Shinto shrine on New Year's Day, join their hands in prayer, and bow three times before the altar before clapping their hands and making a silent prayer. How seriously they take it, I don't know, but the fact that they take the trouble to do it every year is remarkable in itself. Also, around the middle of August, many Japanese families congregate in their gardens, burn off pieces of kindling and paper in a large metal bowl and welcome home the ancestral spirits for their annual visit, which lasts about three or four days. The spirits get a similar send-off, when they depart. There are other religious practices which the Japanese also engage in. The point I wanted to make is that until about 50 years ago, Japanese society was steeped in religion. In the aftermath of World War II, religious convictions weakened, but many of the practices that glue a society together continued. According to some accounts, the word religion comes from the Latin religare, meaning to bind fast. In this sense, the Japanese are a highly religious people. The Japanese moral code has been heavily influenced by various religions: Confucianism, Buddhism (especially Zen) and Shinto. It would be a mistake to view it as secular.vjtorley_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

Well, If Franklin was an Atheist, which is a point I won't argue, the point of this 'good man's' self observed 'imperfection', to his rather modest personal system of self imposed morality, is all the more vivid testimony towards the Biblical truth that 'sinful' man needs a 'perfect' Savior in order to face, and be redeemed by, a perfect and holy God. i.e. Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, G.O.S.P.E.L. Poetry Slam; To The Point http://vimeo.com/20960385 ==================== The Mountain http://video.yahoo.com/editorspicks-12135647/featured-24306389/the-mountain-24960678.html POD - End of the World - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYWQLXHml-0bornagain77_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

I think Franklin was probably an atheist. People with whom he would be open about his intellectual life seemed to think so. After Franklin's death, Priestly, in a letter to Jefferson, lamented that it was too bad Franklin wasn't a believer, that from one of the founders of Unitarianism and whom Jefferson credits for his continued belief. We would probably know more if his correspondence with Hume had survived, although I doubt they discussed atheism, their discourse would have taken that as a given. Franklin wasn't one to unnecessarily shock or alarm those around him. Source for the Priestly info: http://tinyurl.com/44rwttwafricangenesis_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Very good point DickMichael Servetus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

africangenesis, I was mainly trying to make a somewhat subtle and perhaps ethereal point about the connection between what one professes and what one lives and how they sometimes conversely mix and match , as in the cases I alluded to. I in no way mean to call you or anyone in particular a hypocrite towards others. But rather I was trying to highlight what may liberally be called an unwitting hypocritical stance towards a worldview or perhaps most simply a inconsistency. There are many variations of mindsets out there and judging by the few gentle and thoughtful words you have shared I would not lump you together with atheists--seeing you are probably not absolutely determined on the subject-- or hypocrites.Michael Servetus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

This tidbit, about Benjamin Franklin, is interesting to the topic; Review of the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin Excerpt: In the book, Franklin talks about his 13 virtues, which he tried to integrate into his life - temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity and humility. He chose a virtue and focused on it for the entire week. Benjamin Franklin wanted to be morally perfect, but found perfection to be elusive. He realized that being perfect wasn't possible, but he was glad he tried because he was a happier and better man after trying. http://ezinearticles.com/?Review-of-the-Autobiography-of-Benjamin-Franklin&id=3781959 of note; I think generally Franklin is considered a Deist, though I have heard that point argued against rather forcefully since he is said to have called for prayer during the constitution convention;bornagain77_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

I value my life, it is incredibly precious. I don't want to live it alone. I value my wife, children and friends (and wish I had more of the first two). I value many benefits of mass society including the comfort and research enabled by the production of surplus. I like helping others, but, lacking in absolutes, would not presume to force others to help. I like the idea that I have rights (even though they have no mass) and am willing to reciprocally agree to respect the "rights" of others. I value earnest seekers of wisdom and truth, such as some philosophers, scientists and Christians. Lacking something systemic, I presume my "worldview" would be the values I was raised with, at least those I continue to embrace. How is that being hypocritical?africangenesis_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

You can indeed blame immorality and troubles on atheism. I disagree with Elizabeth and others who try to argue one cannot. Talkers such as these will always point out the alleged bad behavior of various believers but fail to recongnize the obvious truth that people who behave in this way are behaving --as what?-- when they do these things-- UNBELIVERS. They may be called Christians or Catholics or whatever but the religion they sometimes profess to be a part of, denounces and rejects them and goes onto deny them the right to call themselves that which is sacred and clearly defined. It is thus very easy to see that when people are doing ungodly and unchristian things they are behaving like , well, atheists , as in without God. So if you take a person that the bible or tradition itslef casts out as a hypocrite and unbeliever and insist defiantly as calling him or her a believer for purpose of slander, reproach and advantage in debate or argument, you behave dishonestly. This is not the same as saying all atheists will act like ungodly devils because conversely the truth is, that when a atheists behaves morally he or she is not behaving consistently with thier worldview but are also behaving hypocritically in a sense and behaving as religous moral people who believe in unprovable absolutes and fixed oughts which according to their worldview have no basis in ultimate reality.Michael Servetus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

I think you are confusing the claim that there is no God, with the claim there there is no evidence for a particular God, a claim which should be easily refutable, if untrue. Not all atheists are what I call capital "A" Atheists, insisting there is no god and perhaps even evangelizing that position and perhaps even exhibiting hostility to religion. I don't self identify as an atheist, but find that most would probably categorize me as that based upon their particular definition of "god". By some definitions of "god", I'm an agnostic, and some people worship things I believe in, like the sun or earth, although I see little reason for worship. I'm agnostic about a creator unless one insists for instance he must be omnipresent or can travel faster than the speed of light.africangenesis_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

AG Such atheism in our day is as a rule deeply wedded to evolutionary materialism, which is a worldview. And it is an inherently amoral view that int eh name of "science" undermines moral principles and the fabric of the society, replacing them with might and associated manipulation makes for right. BTW, the "absence of belief in God" attempted rhetorical positioning of atheism fails. Atheism -- on abundant evidence -- is the claim or belief that there is no God [e.g. you have "absence of belief in God" because you think there is no God . . . often because you take on board assumptions about reality that imply there can be no God, like the Youtube advocate who set out to prove there was not a God in two minutes by asserting that here is nothing beyond the material universe], however rationalised. Just, some think it a clever argument to pretend that by saying they do not posit a belief they have nothing to defend. Sorry, EVERY worldview sits at the table of comparative difficulties and needs to answer to empirical adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

bingokairosfocus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

I'm not sure that makes much difference to the people who are victims of those rioting, looting and killing. atheism isn't a moral philosophy that imposes anything, it is merely the absence of belief in the supernatural. About two-thirds of libertarians are atheists, if they riot, loot and kill, they are betraying a principle they voluntarily adopted. Is a voluntarily adopted principle more likely to be adhered to than an "imposed" one?africangenesis_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

AG:
when religion is looked at closely, it doesn’t provide a foundation for moral values that is meaningful to non-believers either.
It seems to be very hard for people to hear what is being said from what is not being said, because the atmosphere has been so poisoned and polarised for a long time. Nowhere have I argued that RELIGION provides a moral foundation for values, though such may well inculcate the relevant values, and sometimes of course such can horribly fail to do so as has plainly happened in Ireland in recent decades, just cf Col 3:5 - 14 and the course of events. What I have said is that a foundational challenge for any worldview is to ground OUGHT in its foundational IS. Let's pause to define a worldview, courtesy Wiki testifying against interest:
A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[1] The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung[2] [?v?lt.?an??a?.??] ( listen), composed of Welt ('world')[3] and Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook').[4] It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it.
As Dr Liddle has now effectively conceded, evolutionary materialism fails that IS-OUGHT gap test. On very many excellent grounds, the only serious candidate worldview foundational IS that is logically capable of grounding OUGHT is the inherently good,Creator God, who having made us in his image, has endowed us with core equal and unalienable rights that for instance governments are instituted to defend from evildoers, foreign and domestic [including government officers gone bad]. That -- standing by itself -- is not an argument that such a God exists, it is a point on IF, THEN. Next, we may observe that it is manifest that we have rights and that we recognise the reality of evil and object to it. That means that we acknowledge the reality and desirability of the good and the right. So, now, what grounds that, on inference to best explanation, why? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

"And every man did that which was right in his own eyes . . . "kairosfocus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

Onlookers, observe here.kairosfocus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Null We have an implicit concession, here. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

The critical point to be made in this discussion, in my opinion, is this: When people who call themselves Christian riot, loot, and kill they are rejecting and betraying the fundamental principles of the belief system they purport to follow. When people who call themselves atheists riot, loot, and kill they are betraying no principle imposed upon them by their atheism.Dick_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

@GEM of TKI, The longer historical perspective is that the presence of churches and religions may have united peoples providing internal cohesion and cooperation within collective identities, whether tribal, racial or national, but did little to improve human behavior against other groups. This internal order and discipline is the normal role of religion in modern humans. You are correct that if religion disappears, there is little to replace it. The "humanists" have a rather unscientific and selective view of human values, choosing to ignore the evidence that the inhuman values are human too. Their self delusion is dangerous, or perhaps they just hope to make their proclaimation of a secular Christian subset of human values a self fulfilling prophecy. But when religion is looked at closely, it doesn't provide a foundation for moral values that is meaningful to non-believers either. Unfortunately, when religion is lost, it isn't evidence based reasoning that replaces it, but something religion-like, but less well tested, like ideologies, or new age beliefs or gaia, or environmentalism, etc. Religion is the human norm. What we need to negotiate are the terms upon which we are willing to live and let live.africangenesis_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

kf, Observe the response to specifically showing the Christian scriptures being violated by any followers of Christian churches involved in the troubles in Ireland, in the case in view. Not to mention the secular history of that affair. Yes, let's pretend it's a 100% religious conflict that has nothing to do with temporal powers, politics, or secular aims. And of course, on the flipside, if a secular act or value is one which justifies crime, then you better not call it secular. Even if it is. Because you'll make someone cry.nullasalus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

I’m not “whimpering” nullasalus, Sure you are, Liz. All over my pointing out just what is 'secular'. you are simply asserting that breaking into a shop is a “secular value”. It isn’t, in any sense of the term that an atheist would recognise. It's not? You told me that 'secular' amounts to "merely “non-religious” when used by atheists." I pointed out that a value of "It's okay for me to smash this shop window, go inside, beat up the shopowner, and take what I want" is a secular value. Are you disputing that it's non-religious? Apparently not - there's no mention of religion there. Are you disputing that it's a value? Apparently not, because you recognize 'selfish values'. The only reason an atheist 'would not recognize' breaking into a shop as a secular value is because of the convenient obfuscation with the word 'secular'. Why, a secular value is only supposed to entail what they and people they agree with praise and call good! Any atheist who thinks that way is in need of a little reality check. I'm supplying it. It’s selfish – it’s grabbing stuff for yourself, never mind the trouble and loss you cause from someone else. Great, it's selfish. There's no incompatibility between a selfish act and a secular act, nor a selfish value and a secular value. And does it not become selfish if you grab some stuff for a girl you want to bed too? The secular can be selfish, Liz. Face it. Your implication that for an atheist “morality is whatever you like or agree with at the moment” is simply false. Have we now hit the point where not only morality is determined by individual like and whim, but truth as well? ;) For the atheist materialist, yes, that is what morality comes down to. And a value which determines that breaking into shops and lighting cars on fire is A-OK is a secular value. London just experienced an outpouring of secular values in action. That they weren't the sort of secular values you think are particularly peachy doesn't change that.nullasalus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

So if churches disappear, gangs and tribes fill the vacuum, and if churches don't disappear, gangs and tribes still appear, organised by church affiliation and incited by religious slogans, but it's still the fault of "secular" values? Somebody is having their cake and eating it I think.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply