The Catholic Boom

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nohome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I read the op-ed in my local paper yesterday. It’s main purpose is to reinforce the stereotype that religious people are inherently less productive or able to produce wealth. It assigns the economic advancement of Catholic to a loss of religious belief.

In a certain sense, Mr. Brooks is correct. Many people who are quasi-religious replace God with money. This happens when the focus of their lives become the acquisition of wealth. If just a few of these people become economically successful, the averages would be affected.

The author presupposes asset accumulation is a good indicator of success. I suggest money does not equal happiness and total assets are not a good indication whether a group or a nation is healthy.
 
Maranatha said:
It’s main purpose is to reinforce the stereotype that religious people are inherently less productive or able to produce wealth.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I read quite the opposite.

That said, materialism is the modern God. The Bible talks of having two masters; loving one and hating the other.

Nohome
 
Nohome said:
Hmm. I read quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the article states: “First, college students who attend religious services regularly do better than those that don’t.”

But I think the article is putting the cart before the horse. Economic success does not happen because a person questions their religious belief. Rather, the attitudes and aptitudes which lead to economic success also incline to disbelief of religious certainties.

At root, I think, is a person’s sense of self-reliance. If a person achieves worldly success “on their own” they are less likely to feel an reliance on God. And a heightened sense of self-reliance will lead a person to value his or her independence when it comes to matters of faith. That person feels comfortable making decisions based upon his own opinions.

The article’s advice:
Always try to be the least believing member of one of the more observant sects. Participate in organized religion, but be a friendly dissident inside. Ensconce yourself in traditional moral practice, but champion piecemeal modernization. Submit to the wisdom of the ages, but with one eye open.
Click to expand...
may or may not be appealing to a new graduate, but as a prescription for economic success its just plain goofy.
 
The editorial or commentary, whatever, is just filled with non-sequiturs. I don’t see a causal relationship between church membership and economic advancement. I do see a causal relationship between personal discipline and economic advancement. Every religion has adherents who exhibit highly developed personal discipline and adherents who are slobs and everything in between. John D. Rockefeller was a staunch Southern Baptist and never waivered; Ken Lay was a Methodist who exhibited great discipline but was guilty of some bad business practices. Jack Abramhoff, whose questionable practices landed him in the clink, is Jewish. I don’t know what, if any, religious affiliation Warren Buffet or Bill Gates have, but I don’t think it makes any difference.
 
OriginalJS said:
The editorial or commentary, whatever, is just filled with non-sequiturs. I don’t see a causal relationship between church membership and economic advancement. I do see a causal relationship between personal discipline and economic advancement. Every religion has adherents who exhibit highly developed personal discipline and adherents who are slobs and everything in between. John D. Rockefeller was a staunch Southern Baptist and never waivered; Ken Lay was a Methodist who exhibited great discipline but was guilty of some bad business practices. Jack Abramhoff, whose questionable practices landed him in the clink, is Jewish. I don’t know what, if any, religious affiliation Warren Buffet or Bill Gates have, but I don’t think it makes any difference.
Click to expand...
This was very well said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top