Hi folks,
I have a very tiny kettle of fish to open up.
To what extent do religions act as breeding programs?
Do religions compete for maximal population count
of followers?
If so, is their doing so equivalent to eugenics i.e.
does it impact the genome?
What evidence is there that religious groups
deliberately influence breeding behaviors or
match people up or influence the number of
children?
Which came first, the culture that tells people to
have large numbers of children or the religion
that stands to benefit from having more believers?
Interesting article:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0825-02.htm
Thanks.
Ken - 18 Nov 2007 17:57 GMT
> Hi folks,
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Thanks.
As several poiunts of evidence, catholics don't believe in birth
control or abortion, morman's love large families, and brainwashed
fundy xtians want lots of kids to support their stupid religious
delusions.
Roger Coppock - 18 Nov 2007 22:32 GMT
> > I have a very tiny kettle of fish to open up.
There is nothing small about your kettle of fish.
There be sea monsters in that kettle, matey!
> > To what extent do religions act as breeding programs?
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> fundy xtians want lots of kids to support their stupid religious
> delusions.
There are also religious practices and groups that
limit breeding. Seen any Shakers lately? Please see:
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Shakers.html
Besides numerical, here are other religious effects
on breeding too. Families of 18th century American
religious communists, (like the Amish,) starting in
the early 20th century were encouraged to marry
outside the faith to control inbreeding. Religion
also enforces castes, which creates isolated
breeding pools.
Bill Habr - 18 Nov 2007 19:06 GMT
> Hi folks,
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Thanks.
Pre-industrial societies and early industrial societies depended on manpower for food
production and defense. A society that did not produce more people would either be
conquered or absorbed by those that did produce more people. Since most religions were
tied to a single society there was no reason to preach that religion in order to "benefit
from having more believers" but rather for the society's protection.
Michael Gray - 18 Nov 2007 23:34 GMT
>Hi folks,
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Do religions compete for maximal population count
>of followers?
Most do.
The Shakers didn't.
>If so, is their doing so equivalent to eugenics i.e.
>does it impact the genome?
I have no idea of what you mean by this nebulous query.
>What evidence is there that religious groups
>deliberately influence breeding behaviors or
>match people up or influence the number of
>children?
The RCC official policies on breeding is the most popular form of
regulation on reproduction.
The Amish also have very strict breeding rules.
There are countless other examples.
>Which came first, the culture that tells people to
>have large numbers of children or the religion
>that stands to benefit from having more believers?
The culture IS the religion and vice-versa.
Again, I have difficulty parsing your question.
>Interesting article:
>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0825-02.htm
>
>Thanks.
Ron Peterson - 20 Nov 2007 04:23 GMT
> Do religions compete for maximal population count
> of followers?
Yes, if they want to be successful.
> If so, is their doing so equivalent to eugenics i.e.
> does it impact the genome?
No. Religions don't depend on a person's DNA.
> What evidence is there that religious groups
> deliberately influence breeding behaviors or
> match people up or influence the number of
> children?
Rev. Moon does something like that.
> Which came first, the culture that tells people to
> have large numbers of children or the religion
> that stands to benefit from having more believers?
The number of followers is how religions are measured.
--
Ron