[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Luis Gutierrez wrote: >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>Can you tell us something about how reproductive decision making is >>>influenced by religion? > > <...> > >>This is an excellent question. I assume that by "birth control >>technology" you mean the entire spectrum of artificial birth control >>techniques, including contraceptives, abortifacients, and abortion >>procedures, since they are all now supported by technology. >> >>Religion does have a critical influence on reproductive decision making, >>but only minimally via the adoption or rejection of birth control >>technology. To my knowledge, the Roman Catholic Church is the only >>religious institution that has zero tolerance for abortion and keeps >>insisting on a limited use of birth control techniques. There are 1.1 >>billion Roman Catholics, but a very small percentage of "practicing >>Catholics" actually practice what the church teaches on this matter. > The Roman Catholic Church has a formal policy, and evangelical > protestants have an informal policy evidenced by political decisions > made by representatives of that electoral bloc, not to mention direct > action (sometimes violent) campaigns to harass and oppress practicing > physicians. Even for roman catholics and evangelical protestants, this has minimal effect on the number of abortions in the USA, let alone worldwide. >>I think that the strongest influence of religion on population growth is >>via the perpetuation of the patriarchal mindset, which is based to a >>significant extent on the "male God" image. There is empirical evidence >>that this is the case. For instance, if you compare the population >>growth trends in the first and third worlds, it seems clear that the >>first world birth rates are declining (perhaps too much?) while the >>third world birth rates continue to increase. > This is why I asked the question: can you plot (or point to a plot) of > birth rates by the prevalence of what you call the "patriarchal mind > set" - I believe you will find the highest birth rates among nations > with a high prevalence of Islam. Not to put words in your mouth, but Please see some of the data I suggested at the end of my plot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_growth_rate_world.PNG http://www.unep.org/GEO/geo1/fig/fig4_3.gif http://mindprod.com/images/worldpopulationgrowth.png http://www.geog.uni-heidelberg.de/~ttavk/weltkarten/population/population-growth.gif.gif For more detailed date, see the following: Global statistics for all religions: 2001 AD http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm Data is provided to support the following conclusions: "1. There are more new Christians added to the world population than any other religion on earth every day. This data makes the entire discussion about "rates of growth" irrelevant. The fact is today, that Christianity is the fastest growing religion on this most critical basis. This may change, but today, in 2004 AD, Christians take the prize for being the fastest growing religion. "2. On none of the 6 continents are Muslims the fastest growing religion. "3. That Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world is pure myth at best and at worst a deliberate deception of solid statistical facts." > if your hypothesis is true, what do you prescribe as a solution: > theological revolution and mass religious conversion? Neither .... theological revolutions are not possible, and mass religious conversions are improbable ... May I reiterate what I wrote in my last post: >>>>>> This is a complex issue with many factors being influential. We know that "the bed is the consolation of the poor," etc., etc. But the most influential factor is (I think) that both men and women in the first world are better educated in the use of birth control techniquess; both men and women participate (at least to some extent) in reproductive decision making; and a significantly higher percentage of both men and women are able to make such decisions with some degree of freedom from the rules imposed by the patriarchal mindset. In the third world, the situation is reversed: most men and women are poorly educated in the use of birth control techniques; few women participate in reproductive decision making as they must be ready to have sex (marital or extra-marital, protected or unprotected) when the male is ready for sex; and the patriarchal mindset encourages large families, with many men indulging in extramarital sex and most women still being under heavy moral and/or cultural pressure against using birth control techniques, even if they could pay for it. Needless to say, the population growth issue should be considered in context with other global issues, e.g., 80% or more of energy and other resources are consumed by 20% or less of people currently alive. Personally, I believe that the highest priorities are to reduce the extravagant consumption rates in the first world, reduce corruption in the third world, and revise trade agreements which perpetuate "resources going from the poor to the rich, and pollution going from the rich to the poor" (Vandana Shiva). I also propose that those religious institutions that perpetuate the patriarchal mindset be heavily taxed and deprived of any public funding. Specifically, in my opinion, institutions that keep using theological rationalizations to exclude women from roles of religious authority (e.g., the Roman Catholic Church and most branches of Islam) are thereby encouraging many subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) forms of gender violence, from which stem all other forms of violence; thereby inducing great harm to humanity -- both men and women -- and the human habitat. >>>>>> Perhaps I was a bit long winded. These boil down to: 1. More education, both religious and secular, to enable people to make morally responsible reproductive decisions; and less indoctrination to perpetuate mindsets incompatible with freedom of conscience. 2. Heavy taxation of religious institutions that exclude women from roles of religious authority and fail to dennounce religious violence and, in particular, gender violence. 3. Withdrawal of subsidies to religious institutions that exclude women from roles of religious authority and fail to dennounce religious violence and, in particular, gender violence. > I would think there are more practical lessons to be learned by a > careful review of factors known to influence reproductive > decision-making and family planning. If you have access to a research > library, I would recommend starting with this recent literature review > (and the rich bibliography therein): > > When Does Religion Influence Fertility? Kevin McQuillan _Population and > Development Review_ [30, no. 1 (Mar 04): 25-56] I don't have access to this journal, and would be grateful if you could send me a copy of the article. However, these conclusions ... > "The article concludes that religion plays an influential role when > three conditions are satisfied: first, the religion articulates > behavioral norms with a bearing on fertility behavior; second, the > religion holds the means to communicate these values and promote > compliance; and, third, religion forms a central component of the > social identity of its followers." .... are very similar to mine. McQuillan 1: "first, the religion articulates behavioral norms with a bearing on fertility behavior" Agree, but actual fertility behavior is increasingly driven by informed decisions of conscience (as opposed to what the priest or minister or imam says) when people are educated; especially when education includes both religious education and education on birth control options. McQuillan 2: "second, the religion holds the means to communicate these values and promote compliance" Agree, but communication and promotion are not sufficient because it is not possible to enforce compliance. How many Roman Catholics do you know who practice the guidance of "Humanae Vitae"? McQuillan 3: "third, religion forms a central component of the social identity of its followers." Agree, but something is wrong when religion induces and/or sanctions social behavior incompatible with human solidarity and ecological sustainability; such as, for example, religious violence and extravagant consumption of goods and services. > http://www.popcouncil.org/publications/pdr/vol30_1.html I cannot find this in the open access journals ... could you kindly send me a copy? Luis -- Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D., P.E. The Pelican Web http://pelican-consulting.com Solidarity & Sustainability Newsletter http://pelican-consulting.com/solisust.html Current Issue (July 2006) http://www.pelican-consulting.com/solisustv02n07.html Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
