Luis Gutierrez wrote: > > 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.
You are not tying your data and conclusions closely enough to be very convincing. For example, the chart at http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm shows muslim growth rate (2.13) exceeding christian growth rate (1.39), which does not support your #1 conclusion. The data show muslim population growing faster than christian because 2.13 new muslims per muslim per year is greater than 1.39 new christians per christian per year. You note that the annual addition to christian population (2.5 M per year) is greater than the annual addition to muslim population (2.3 M per year). Assuming the difference exceeds measurement error, how does this relate to your argument that birth rates are influenced by "patriarchal mind set"? We know from your data citation that the rate of natural increase is higher for muslims than christians, but is that because "patriarchal mind set" is more prevalent among muslims than christians? Do you have any independent evidence to test this hyposthesis (how do you measure "patriarchal mind set" and does it vary by religion as birth rates vary by religion?) > > May I reiterate what I wrote in my last post: It is not necessary to repeat large portions of text - it is sufficient to summarize & rephrase, as you have done below. > > 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. > You focus on religious institutions, but have you ruled out a competing hypothesis: poverty? Education seems like an appropriate response either way, but I suspect you will have difficulty passing legislation to pay for your educational program by taxing some religious institutions and not others. You might have better luck paying for sex education in public schools by taxing proportional to income, regardless of religion. > > > > 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 ... Sorry, I don't have access to it either. Perhaps your nearest library can obtain a copy via inter-library loan. Ask your local librarian. > .... 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 Glad to see you agree with the conclusions of a scientific literature review on religion and fertility. While I highly recommend a visit to your local library, you may find on-line access more convenient. The Population Council's web-site contains their access policy for _Population and Development Review_: "To view the full table of contents of the latest issue, order a subscription, or purchase individual articles, please go to Blackwell Publishing/PDR." http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/padr?cookieSet=1 Regards, -dl --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
