The standard of living argument is a flawed one, the Islamic world at its prime was leading the globe in science and literature, this was of course at a time when the religion was not quite as "polluted" as it has become today, but it debunks your theory that progress and development is achieved by atheism or secularism alone.
Yes, but one must remember that you are talking about the middle ages, where the definition of "science and literature" and also of "standard of living" was quite different from the modern one.
Definitely, Islamic empires at their peak were examples of successful medeival societies. But then, they were
medeival societies, and cannot be replicated in the modern world!
Modern Science has progressed beyond medeival thoughts and ideas, and any society which wishes to become modern will have to think modern as well.
Modern day examples include the Gulf States, where "religious" Arabs govern, and "development and progress" is out pacing the countries you mentioned (not saying that they have caught up - just that the rate of progress is phenomenal).
The Gulf states are what they call, a curious result of circumstances:
1. They have no universities and research programs worth taking note of.
2. Their justice systems, treatment of minorities and women is, well, medeival.
The only reasons they are seemingly progressing are:
1. They import their technology wholesale. Western engineers work on projects designed, planned and executed by westerners who just get funded by oil money.
2. They are kingdoms, which means that the king's megalomanic dreams are followed to the letter.
3. Strict imposition of Islam has meant that society is disciplined and follows orders.
Basically, it gives the outward appearance of grandeur, nothing more. Arabic society is medeival to the core and without the oil, would be little better than any other developing nation.
There are a lot of factors that have contrived to keep societies backward - culture, the lack of political evolution, being conquered etc. It is incorrect and dishonest to cherry pick one aspect of those societies and ascribe their relative backwardness to it.
I think if you consider Europe, France, Britain, Germany etc. have been at war for most of history. They indeed have very violent histories. You can't excuse the lack of development and modern thinking by saying that "OH, they were conquered and colonized". Every country was conquered and colonized, Britain by the Romans, Spain by the Moors, etc, etc,
The fact is, that their interpretation of Islam is exactly what is keeping them backward, nothing else.
I say that most of those religions in their "pure unadulterated form" do not offer any leeway to do that - when crime is committed, it is Man who is contriving to find ways to justify it -if religion was not there, it would have been something else - race, ethnicity, tribe, culture, tradition, political system - in fact, all of those have been used as justification throughout history, and would probably have been used as justification had religion not been around.
Yes, this would have been true throughout history until the word "democracy" was invented and until man found better ways to organize society.
A modern secular society has moved beyond tribalism, and by encouraging religion, we are taking a step backward rather than forward.
Religion was also a way to unite people against the other tribe. Fortunately, we have progressed to a point where we can find common ground to build a society with people of other ethnicities and tribes and cultures. So why do we need religion at all?
If a "God" says that "though shall murder, discriminate, and wreak havoc" - of course such beliefs shouldn't be encouraged - just like Stalins and Mao's shouldn't - but since Islam (or my hypothetical religion) does not, then no "evil" will be rationalized. Restricting religion will not stop such men, they will find other vessels to incubate their hate.
I think a modern society can prevent dictators and haters from carrying out their plans. The free media and press, cross cultural dialogue and science will, and has, to a large extend created the modern world where totatitarianism is looked down upon rather than encouraged.
I think that we no longer need a god to tell us what is right and what is wrong, since these things can be explained rationally.
It is true that the power-hungry will always be around, but atleast they won't be able to claim that they have almighty god on their side!!
So I think restricting religin will play a positive role in discouraging such things, even if it doesn't end it completely.
That is more or less what you are defining to religion to be. Its contemporary definition is much looser:
Hah!! The dictionary definition hardly tells you anything about the realities of religion!! Not worth considering!!
It could also be argued that making "us vs them" distinctions is simply a matter of human nature, and religion, with most preaching equality and respect for all, actually trying to repair the sort of mindset that sets stock by such "us vs them" values.
Practical Islam makes quite a clear distinction between the believer and the unbeliever. It clearly differenciates the two, infact, by sending the other to burn in hellfire!!
This "hellfire" itself is the biggest factor which causes division, not to mention hadiths that consider unbelievers inferior and not worthy of respect.
It is absurd to consider religion as a uniting force for the world, when it is clearly meant to differenciate.
The verses that ask you to treat the unbelievers kindly is just charity. The core of the message is that "look, we are muslims, we are superior to non-muslims, who shall go to hell anyways". I don't think there is any doubting that.
Look, who cares what Kosher or Halal is - Those can simply be called "quaint" traditions even - the deeper concern is what principles a belief system puts forward.
These so called "quaint" traditions are often the sole reason for massacres and war!! They are applied with equal zeal as the other principles and the believers feel equally insulted when someone refuses to follow them!!
And it is those principles that determine whether "evil" is justified or not. The principles I put forward are a summary of what I take away from the Quran - and are really the make or break parts of this argument - the rest of the "details" as you call them are just window dressing.
The King of Saudi Arabia, leader of millions, would violently disagree with that one!!
However, I do agree that the details are inconsequential. Problem is, most people don't.
I completely agree with you that religion and politics have become mired in each other, and that I believe is unnatural.
Well I think it is natural, and that religion has been a political tool right from it s conception. It has been used by Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Mayans, name it. All have used it for politics. In fact, some people think that religion was a result of politics, and not the other way around!!
I guess we must differenciate "religion" from "spiritual beliefs". "religion" is a public tool, whereas "spiritual beliefs" are private and personal.
Nuclear power can be harnessed for both good and Chaos, but do not blame "nuclear physics" for that, blame those men who took the knowledge and used it become a destructive force - it is similar with religion.
I think the benefits of nuclear physics far outweigh its faults. But in the case of religion, this cannot be said.
Perhaps it had its benefits in the middle ages or ancient times. In the modern world, religion has very little importance.
