

Reversing The Moral Decay Behind The London Riots - jkuria
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903639404576516252066723110.html

======
TomOfTTB
I think this article touches on the real issue here but then abandons it for a
more politically charged point.

The problem here isn't religion or morality per se. To make that argument
you'd have to be making the point that the people rioting didn't know what
they were doing was wrong. I don't see that as valid.

The issue, as the author says at the beginning, is self-restraint. Britain has
seen a decline in religion and without the "fear of God" there's a certain
segment of the population (the lowest class who have nothing to lose) who no
longer see the need to restrain themselves. So the issue is teaching them why
they should restrain themselves even without fearing God

Given that I see a very simple solution here. In societies where religion is
losing favor schools and parents have to teach kids secular morality. Explain
to them that a riot destroys businesses which deprives the government of
revenue which in turn will come back to harm the people who caused the riot in
the long run.

Basically switch the "Golden Rule" for the "Categorical Imperative" (which to
be honest are virtually the same thing anyhow)

------
jkuria
I'm interested in hearing what HN'ers think about this:

"He quotes a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, tasked with
finding out what gave the West its dominance. He said: At first we thought it
was your guns. Then we thought it was your political system, democracy. Then
we said it was your economic system, capitalism. But for the last 20 years, we
have known that it was your religion.

It was the Judeo-Christian heritage that gave the West its restless pursuit of
a tomorrow that would be better than today. The Chinese have learned the
lesson. Fifty years after Chairman Mao declared China a religion-free zone,
there are now more Chinese Christians than there are members of the Communist
Party.

China has learned the lesson. The question is: Will we?"

~~~
TomOfTTB
I'm far, FAR more religious than almost anyone on HN (in my experience) but I
don't entirely buy this. I think religion can give purpose. It can imbue
someone who doesn't have a purpose with a strength of conviction. So in that
sense I think the quote is correct.

But I don't think someone who has a purpose they truly believe in is worse for
not having religion in a motivational sense. So what I think religion has done
for the United States is to give the masses (people who are fine with a 9-to-5
day) more motivation to work diligently even when they aren't chasing their
dream.

But the thing about countries like China and India is this: What Americans
consider mundane work is the dream of many people in these countries. I've met
people from India who dreamed of a job in a call center since they were a
little kid. Meaning those people are just as motivated if not more so than
their American counterparts who worked hard because they thought God commanded
them to.

------
mithaler
_Social capital ... has not disappeared. It is alive and well and can be found
in churches, synagogues and other places of worship. Religious people, he
discovered, make better neighbors and citizens. They are more likely to give
to charity, volunteer, assist a homeless person, donate blood, spend time with
someone feeling depressed, offer a seat to a stranger, help someone find a job
and take part in local civic life. Affiliation to a religious community is the
best predictor of altruism and empathy: better than education, age, income,
gender or race._

Struggling politically for more government action (and by extension, taxation)
toward the same goals isn't altruistic?

------
michaelpinto
The folks at News Corp should do an internal house cleaning before they go on
about "moral decay".

~~~
TomOfTTB
I actually don't mean to attack you here but can I ask what you expected to
accomplish with this comment? It isn't relevant to the article nor is it
really logical (since I doubt this low level reporter has anything to do with
the high level scandal at News Corp).

I sincerely doubt anyone involved in the News Corp scandal reads HN so it
isn't like you'd be getting a dig in and it doesn't seem like your comments
were meant to be funny.

The reason I bring this up is your comment seems to be hate based. As if your
hatred for News Corp is so significant that you can't help but express it even
when there's no real purpose to doing so and that seems unhealthy to me.

Even if you aren't religious one of the tenants of judeo-christian religion is
forgiveness. Not for the sake of the person being forgiven but for the sake of
person with the hatred in their heart. Because hatred, even when justified,
tends to eat away at you until you end up a bitter person.

Anyway, something to think about...

~~~
michaelpinto
The Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corp — so the comment isn't about
hate, but an observation.

