Is religion good for us?

[dcs]

Is religion good for us?
KEVIN BALDEOSINGH
Trinidad & Tobago Newsday
Friday, June 1 2007


If VS Naipaul had attended St Mary’s College instead of QRC, he might not have won a Nobel Prize. At least, not if he had become a Catholic.

“Consistently, studies have reported that social scientists are among the least religious, most often with overrepresentation of ‘nones’ or Jews (who are highly secularised), together with some liberal Protestants but a paucity of Catholics,” writes psychologist Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi in an essay in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (available at The Reader’s Bookshop). Something in the Catholic creed, it seems, ensures that faith trumps reason.

Among the winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature, the largest single group (33 percent) identified themselves as having no religious affiliation. Of a sample of 696 Nobel laureates, Beit-Hallahmi found that 51 percent could not even be classified by religious affiliation, while most of the remaining 49 percent could not be slotted into any particular denomination. “Eminence in natural and social sciences (and even in literature) is clearly tied to a personal distance from religion,” Beit-Hallahmi concludes.

An obvious question arises, however: if religiosity is correlated with lower intellectual capability, how is it that the denominational schools in Trinidad and Tobago produce the top-performing students? The short answer is, they don’t. It is class, not religion, which accounts for the success of the “prestige” schools. A survey by Professor Ramesh Deosaran found that, in these schools, 51 percent of the students were middle-class, 31 percent were upper-class, and a mere 18 percent lower-class.

Nonetheless, many people believe that religion is a crucial part of ensuring that young people are both academically successful and well-behaved. But a paper by Deosaran and Derek Chadee in Crime, Delinquency and Justice — A Caribbean Reader (available at the UWI bookshop) shows that a religious background does not prevent high-risk youths from getting into trouble.

Their survey of juvenile homes, revealed that 35 percent of the inmates were Catholic, 15 percent Baptist, 11 percent Pentecostal, ten percent Seventh Day Adventist, nine percent Anglican, six percent Hindu, four percent Muslim, and seven percent had no religion.

Even so, the Congress of the People (COP), which recently revealed their plan to make religion instruction mandatory in all schools, reflects a widespread belief in saying, “The teaching of comparative religion will...lead to greater harmony and understanding in our society.” But this would be so only if such teaching reduced religious belief. Beit-Hallahmi writes, “Since the 1940s, numerous studies in the United States have...shown that the more religious are less tolerant. Jews and the irreligious are the most tolerant.” That means that inculcating religion in children could very likely undermine the societal harmony we so like to boast about.

The COP also claims that “all religions teach morality, ethics, truthfulness and sound values.”

However, sociologist Phil Zuckerman in his survey of countries in the Cambridge Companion, writes, “The nations with the highest homicide rates are all highly religious nations with minimal or statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism, while nations with the lowest homicide rates tend to be highly secular nations with high levels of atheism.” This holds true for the Caribbean, where 91 percent of Trinbagonians, 97 percent of Jamaicans, and 99 percent of Haitians are religious.

Additionally, religion does not seem especially efficacious in changing people’s behaviour. UWI researcher Ian Ramdhanie, in his paper in A Caribbean Reader, looked at how likely convicted criminals were to commit further offences after serving their sentences. Analysed by religion, Islam was the least effective, with 65 percent of Muslims being recidivists. Next in ineffectuality were Seventh Day Adventists at 59 percent, followed closely by Jehovah Witnesses at 58 percent. All the other denominations had a failure rate of 50 percent or more.

Ramdhanie’s statistics also show that religious groups were over-represented in prison as compared to the general populace: 29 percent of the inmates were Catholics as compared to 26 percent outside; Baptists had the worst ratio, at 14 percent to 0.2 percent; Muslims were represented twice as much in prison as in the wider populace: 12 percent against six percent; Seventh Day Adventists were seven percent against five percent; and Jehovah Witnesses one percent against 0.6 percent. Anglicans and Pentecostals were equitably represented at nine and six percent respectively, but only Hindus (13 percent against 22 percent) and Presbyterians (one percent against three percent) were under-represented in the nation’s jails.

So the COP’s plan to force children to have religious instruction is not a genuine policy plan, but a political ploy designed to woo Catholic votes away from the PNM and Hindu votes away from the UNC. In so doing, the COP shows that its “new politics” is no different from the old politics of those two parties. Which, in a sense, is okay — a political party has to attract as many interest groups as it can. But when politicians try to exploit the nation’s children to that end, a line must be drawn. So the COP will not be getting my vote: but neither will the seer woman nor the singer of the Hanuman chalisa.

Email:kbaldeosingh@hotmail.com

[fari]

what's the old saying..."closest to church and furthest from god".  baldeo raised some salient points here.  he's right about prestige schools too, i myself was a struggler and is only caring parents and relatives that really push me or else who knows.  is only cause i realize that them fellas had a safety net and i didn't. 
   i'm not sure about the COP idea of religious instruction in all schools however it would be good to at least teach the youths about religion, later in life they will probably make their own decisions.

 

[Organic]

kevon baldeosingh articles are interesting but same way he have de right not to beleive in good, i think he is an atheist, same way other people could chose. if u read his articles often as i use to do..he  does try to make people feel dotish with thier choice to beleive in a higher power.

[pecan]

I glanced at the article and what struck me significant was the lack of an explicit definition of "religious" in the context in which the article is written.  Furthermore, "having no religious affiliation" does not imply the lack of religion or spirituality.

A recent biography ("Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, 2007) of Albert Einstein by looked at Einstein's idea of God.

Einstein was often asked if he was religious and if he believed in God.  He considered himself religious and he attempted to answer those questions in a credo he published called "What I Believe".  It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious.

“The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.”

A Colorado banker wrote that he had already gotten responses from 24 Nobel Prize winners to the question of whether they believed in God, and he asked Einstein to reply as well. “I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals or would sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation,” Einstein scribbled on the letter. “My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”


So here we have a man, who does not believe in free will and does not believe in the type of God that many Christian ascribe to, stating that he is religious.

I tink we often confuse religion with spirituality.  Just because you are non-religious does not imply that you do not believe in a God.


Just an observation that may or may not have any bearing on Baldeosingh's article.

[socachatter]

nice contribution P!

Baldeosingh belongs to a group called the TT Humanist Society or something like that.  here is the thing i think bothers them the most about religion:

"Moral cartainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority.  The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong.  All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who doubted current moral values, not of men who tried to enforce them.  the truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant."  H.L. Mencken

as to his definition of 'religious'...i suspect it has everything to do with the Prime Minister who has done very little to hide the fact that his own religion will dictate public policy in things like the gender policy, death penalty etc.

what i find interesting is that the very same arrogance of 'certainty' that bothers him is the same arrogance he displayes in his writing.  he is also 'certain' of his position. 

i think theological study is essential to the understading of societies and people, especially now. and the COP's comments are unclear as to whether they want to introduce something like theology vs individual religious studies.  i am inclined to think that what we should be teaching in schools is theology and ethics.

my two cents for what it is worth

[E-man]

That article is laced with agendas.
The writer quotes a psycologist that claims smart and intellectual people tend not to be religous. He bases the claim on the number of nobel laureates that have connection to religion. He says 51% can't be classified - but since most of the prizes are science categories - that makes sense. The religious affiliation of a scientist is generally not known because they separate that from their profession. It doesn't mean they aren't religous.

On top of that the Nobel committee, a set of Norwegians - hardly a representation of the world population, chooses the winners. It's been shown that they have a liberal bias compared to the world at large. So why would their selections reflect anything different? So I don't think using an analysis of nobel prize winners as a basis to show whether "smart" people are religous or not is valid.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/02/21/cstillwell.DTL (see section on PC nobels)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15226870/

[oconnorg]

That article is laced with agendas.
The writer quotes a psycologist that claims smart and intellectual people tend not to be religous. He bases the claim on the number of nobel laureates that have connection to religion. He says 51% can't be classified - but since most of the prizes are science categories - that makes sense. The religious affiliation of a scientist is generally not known because they separate that from their profession. It doesn't mean they aren't religous.

On top of that the Nobel committee, a set of Norwegians - hardly a representation of the world population, chooses the winners. It's been shown that they have a liberal bias compared to the world at large. So why would their selections reflect anything different? So I don't think using an analysis of nobel prize winners as a basis to show whether "smart" people are religous or not is valid.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/02/21/cstillwell.DTL (see section on PC nobels)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15226870/

I like your argumet E-man.. you really cant argue with that.. Kevin did not use the best example there when you break it down like that..  that said,

You say that "The religious affiliation of a scientist is generally not known because they separate that from their profession. It doesn't mean they aren't religous". The scientific principles that directly contradict religious beliefs, things that scientists have studied and provided prof as scientific fact, and now regarded as accepted principle, do you think that merely "Seperate" religion from science, or they just donr practice religion atall..

[Swima]

I glanced at the article and what struck me significant was the lack of an explicit definition of "religious" in the context in which the article is written.  Furthermore, "having no religious affiliation" does not imply the lack of religion or spirituality.

A recent biography ("Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, 2007) of Albert Einstein by looked at Einstein's idea of God.

Einstein was often asked if he was religious and if he believed in God.  He considered himself religious and he attempted to answer those questions in a credo he published called "What I Believe".  It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious.

“The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.”

A Colorado banker wrote that he had already gotten responses from 24 Nobel Prize winners to the question of whether they believed in God, and he asked Einstein to reply as well. “I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals or would sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation,” Einstein scribbled on the letter. “My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”[/b]


So here we have a man, who does not believe in free will and does not believe in the type of God that many Christian ascribe to, stating that he is religious.

I tink we often confuse religion with spirituality.  Just because you are non-religious does not imply that you do not believe in a God.


Just an observation that may or may not have any bearing on Baldeosingh's article.

Never have I read a statement that so accurately describes my own feelings toward spirituality and what we term to be God.

Whatever has put us here has put us here to be a part of something beyond our understanding. We make our lives so inflated as it is, that I do not think it would be healthy for humans to gain a full understanding of what has put us here. Not even the most brilliant scientific mind can say with the utmost certainty that he/she understands what has put us here. Theories that become evolved due to advances in science on serve to add to our speculation.

This may be off topic, but I wanted to share something and get some feedback from some of the posters here:

My math teacher in high school once told us that his view of spirituality could be explained through physics. He told us about a square whom he personified. He said that the square could only perceive 2 dimensions, up-down & left-right. It was in the form of a two dimensional shape and thus could not comprehend the concept of depth or volume. His proposed theory was that spirituality was like finding a fourth dimension that our physical limitations deny us. That we would gain a perspective that goes beyond what we perceive in our physical universe through spirituality.

I have always found that facinating, and wondered how many people thought along those lines.

[pecan]

I glanced at the article and what struck me significant was the lack of an explicit definition of "religious" in the context in which the article is written.  Furthermore, "having no religious affiliation" does not imply the lack of religion or spirituality.

A recent biography ("Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, 2007) of Albert Einstein by looked at Einstein's idea of God.

Einstein was often asked if he was religious and if he believed in God.  He considered himself religious and he attempted to answer those questions in a credo he published called "What I Believe".  It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious.

“The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.”

A Colorado banker wrote that he had already gotten responses from 24 Nobel Prize winners to the question of whether they believed in God, and he asked Einstein to reply as well. “I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals or would sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation,” Einstein scribbled on the letter. “My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”[/b]


So here we have a man, who does not believe in free will and does not believe in the type of God that many Christian ascribe to, stating that he is religious.

I tink we often confuse religion with spirituality.  Just because you are non-religious does not imply that you do not believe in a God.


Just an observation that may or may not have any bearing on Baldeosingh's article.

Never have I read a statement that so accurately describes my own feelings toward spirituality and what we term to be God.

Whatever has put us here has put us here to be a part of something beyond our understanding. We make our lives so inflated as it is, that I do not think it would be healthy for humans to gain a full understanding of what has put us here. Not even the most brilliant scientific mind can say with the utmost certainty that he/she understands what has put us here. Theories that become evolved due to advances in science on serve to add to our speculation.

This may be off topic, but I wanted to share something and get some feedback from some of the posters here:

My math teacher in high school once told us that his view of spirituality could be explained through physics. He told us about a square whom he personified. He said that the square could only perceive 2 dimensions, up-down & left-right. It was in the form of a two dimensional shape and thus could not comprehend the concept of depth or volume. His proposed theory was that spirituality was like finding a fourth dimension that our physical limitations deny us. That we would gain a perspective that goes beyond what we perceive in our physical universe through spirituality.

I have always found that facinating, and wondered how many people thought along those lines.

Swima .. I think along similar lines I believe .. I find it difficult to believe we can even begin to understand or comprehend the universe.

Einstein believed in the existence of a superior reasoning power revealed in the incomprehensible universe

We try to understand and explain the incomprehensible and put nice wrappers around it to explain our own short comings and biases.

Your 2 dimensional people living on the surface of that square cannot understand that third dimension.  But I believe that through spirituality we can get a better perspective but we have a long way to go before we can get a full understanding, if at all possible,  in generations to come.

[ribbit]

nice contribution P!

Baldeosingh belongs to a group called the TT Humanist Society or something like that.  here is the thing i think bothers them the most about religion:

"Moral cartainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority.  The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong.  All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who doubted current moral values, not of men who tried to enforce them.  the truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant."  H.L. Mencken

as to his definition of 'religious'...i suspect it has everything to do with the Prime Minister who has done very little to hide the fact that his own religion will dictate public policy in things like the gender policy, death penalty etc.

what i find interesting is that the very same arrogance of 'certainty' that bothers him is the same arrogance he displayes in his writing.  he is also 'certain' of his position. 

i think theological study is essential to the understading of societies and people, especially now. and the COP's comments are unclear as to whether they want to introduce something like theology vs individual religious studies.  i am inclined to think that what we should be teaching in schools is theology and ethics.

my two cents for what it is worth

sc, you raise some very good points. it's unclear whether religious "instruction" has the potential to turn into religious "indoctrination" - i think this is a test for the educational system and society at large. if we live in an open society then how much is there to be feared on learning about religion? perhaps there is an expectation that such instruction could not be delivered without academic rigour?  

[pecan]

nice contribution P!

Baldeosingh belongs to a group called the TT Humanist Society or something like that.  here is the thing i think bothers them the most about religion:

"Moral cartainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority.  The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong.  All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who doubted current moral values, not of men who tried to enforce them.  the truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant."  H.L. Mencken

as to his definition of 'religious'...i suspect it has everything to do with the Prime Minister who has done very little to hide the fact that his own religion will dictate public policy in things like the gender policy, death penalty etc.

what i find interesting is that the very same arrogance of 'certainty' that bothers him is the same arrogance he displayes in his writing.  he is also 'certain' of his position. 

i think theological study is essential to the understading of societies and people, especially now. and the COP's comments are unclear as to whether they want to introduce something like theology vs individual religious studies.  i am inclined to think that what we should be teaching in schools is theology and ethics.

my two cents for what it is worth

sc, you raise some very good points. it's unclear whether religious "instruction" has the potential to turn into religious "indoctrination" - i think this is a test for the educational system and society at large. if we live in an open society then how much is there to be feared on learning about religion? perhaps there is an expectation that such instruction could not be delivered without academic rigour?  

I believe that courses like comparative religion are already delivered in non-theological settings.  So they should stand the test of academic rigor in any good school.

Religion is part our our fabric, whether  we like it or not, .  I say keep the state and religion separate but provide avenues for people to practice or study religion without fear of reprisal.

Was it not the Romans who recognized the importance of allowing the states they conquered to maintain their religion?

[socachatter]

nice contribution P!

Baldeosingh belongs to a group called the TT Humanist Society or something like that.  here is the thing i think bothers them the most about religion:

"Moral cartainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority.  The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong.  All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who doubted current moral values, not of men who tried to enforce them.  the truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant."  H.L. Mencken

as to his definition of 'religious'...i suspect it has everything to do with the Prime Minister who has done very little to hide the fact that his own religion will dictate public policy in things like the gender policy, death penalty etc.

what i find interesting is that the very same arrogance of 'certainty' that bothers him is the same arrogance he displayes in his writing.  he is also 'certain' of his position. 

i think theological study is essential to the understading of societies and people, especially now. and the COP's comments are unclear as to whether they want to introduce something like theology vs individual religious studies.  i am inclined to think that what we should be teaching in schools is theology and ethics.

my two cents for what it is worth

sc, you raise some very good points. it's unclear whether religious "instruction" has the potential to turn into religious "indoctrination" - i think this is a test for the educational system and society at large. if we live in an open society then how much is there to be feared on learning about religion? perhaps there is an expectation that such instruction could not be delivered without academic rigour?  

I believe that courses like comparative religion are already delivered in non-theological settings.  So they should stand the test of academic rigor in any good school.

Religion is part our our fabric, whether  we like it or not, .  I say keep the state and religion separate but provide avenues for people to practice or study religion without fear of reprisal.

Was it not the Romans who recognized the importance of allowing the states they conquered to maintain their religion?

Ribbit, it is within the context of a fear of 'indoctrination' that i suspect Baldeosingh writes.  specifically as it (religious indoctrination) pertains to or how he feels it can hamper human or societal progress. Thus the Nobel Laureate example.  the TT Humanists, of which he is a part, are atheists (as far as I understand) so his/their writings will reflect his beliefs that a society does not need religion to be a functioning society.

P, i agree that religion is a part of our fabric.  and i have seen many examples of people who have struggled through enormous life challenges where had it not been for their 'faith', i question whether they would have come through it the people they are today. while i may not subscribe to their faith i do believe that people are entitled the freedom to believe what they choose, what works for them and what helps them 'survive' their own lifetime.

To me, in an ideal world, all we as fellow human beings can ask for is that we behave ethically, respectfully, decently, fairly, towards one another.  But to me organized religion does not have the monopoly on ethics or ethical behaviour. If I had my way, I would suggest the study of comparative religion, ethics and human rights in schools.  But that’s just me.

Here’s the thing for me…5 centuries from now will the intellectuals, thinkers, scientists be rocking back with laughter at what we believed, will science prove the existence of god or a superior being, or prove the exact opposite? For now I choose to consider that it could go either way.

As it pertains to this little rock we live on, I have a real problem with a government that implements its own religious beliefs or dogma as public policy.  Especially in a country that is so multi-denominational and in some cases non-denominational.

To get back to the headline of his article and the question posed in this thread…I think it is a “dumbed down” question on a complex global debate. A debate that would require more pages than this website could maintain and take us all the way to Christian vs. Islamc fundamentalism and beyond.

[dcs]

The future of our youth
By Dr Morgan Job
Trinidad Express
Wednesday, June 13th 2007

Our economy will not be boosted by Trinidadians planning to burn down New York. They have the world focused on the land of pan. Prime Minister Patrick Manning was in Addis Ababa during our Carnival season January 27, 2007), elegantly costumed in Yoruba sartorial fashion, telling some of the world's most obnoxious leaders dressed in Saville Row three piece suits, "You must tell us who we are. Rastafarianism is one of the fastest growing religions in Trinidad." That the world's major media are crawling over Trinidad looking for links of Al Qaeda to Abu Bakr's Jamaat says much about Mr. Manning's grasp as Minister of Finance of the reality of international crime and its connection to Islamo-fascist delusions of youth inspired by a nasty, vicious version of Caribbean cultivated anti-Americanism. The rapid growth of Rastafarianism cannot be disconnected from the rapid takeover of many minds of urban ghetto youth by Islamo-fascist ideology, even if Mr. Manning cannot see or understand the facts.

Terrorism has cost us dearly since 1990. Yet, both Mr. Manning and Mr. Panday had time to be seen coddling with Mr. Abu Bakr, and Mr. Manning actually defended his political relationship with Abu during the election campaign of 2002, even promising land to the Jamaat, a matter that may reach all the way to the Privy Council. Old men may be the comical part of the alleged plot to blow up New York, but the young men in Trinidad and Tobago who admire Abu Bakr and hate America is no joke. Mr. Manning while boasting in Addis Ababa about the young Rastafarians in Trinidad seems ignorant of the fundamental tenets of that faith, among which is the desire to reject Babylon - Trinidad and Tobago - for the Promised land of Ethiopia. This same rejection of Mr. Manning's 2020 vision inspires some Trinidadian youth to admire Usama bin Laden.

Both the Prime Minister and his Attorney General, John Jeremy, are wrong to claim that Trinidad and Tobago is safe, because they have the Jamaat and Abu Bakr under control. They do not control the mind of Police, or Defense Force, or Coast Guard, officers who support Bakr; and they did not control the mind of Beverly Jones (killed as a guerilla girl fighting against the PNM government), Jennifer Jones, Guy Harewood (killed by Randolph Boroughs' counter insurgency police), and the youth who took up guns against Dr. Eric Williams. They did not control the minds of the children Abu Bakr led into Parliament where MP Leo des Vignes and other innocent people were murdered. They do not control the minds of hundreds of thousands of children dumped in Trinidad's ghetto illiterate, and without hope, while filled with hate (for Indians, Syrians or any body with more money than they have) incited by politicians, calypsonians devoted to preaching racial hatred on behalf of the PNM, or learnt from other narratives which help construct their identity. Trinidad and Tobago may not be a womb for al Qaeda operatives, but the deadly vicious virus of wrong ideas or millenarian illusions have deep roots in the fundamentalist mentality cultivated by politicians and other opinion leaders. Yes, Trinidad and Tobago has suffered the ravages of terrorism, and we are in mortal peril from the admiration too many youth lavish on Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and - Osama bin Laden.

The World Bank/ United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's recent report is no news to the honest observer, not deluded by fantastic dreams about Vision 2020. No Caribbean Government, political party, regional institution or any self-respecting national of our Caribbean Community could be unaffected by the distressing picture that has been painted in a joint United Nations/World Bank report on serious crime and violence in our region. Narco-trafficking and its corrupting influences on even law enforcement agencies and the political directorates have been fingered as core challenges facing a number of Caribbean societies - with Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana being among the most affected but with all contaminated and suffering.

Both PNM and UNC have been callously seen to use Abu Bakr and the Jamaat al Muslimeen to give credibility, if not also thug effect, to competition for state power. Now, they retreat into the habit of blame-shifting - particularly as elections season arrives - for escalating crimes of blackmail, ghost gangs, extortion, murder, rape, kidnappings and armed robberies. Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago where new elections are soon due, manifest all the symptoms of drifting to a denouement with destiny as versions of Nigeria or Congo, islands of Africa in the western Atlantic. Mr. Manning accuses Winston Dookeran of putting Sean Francis, who is charged for no criminal act, on a C o P platform, while conveniently forgetting his relationship with the late Mark Guerra of the Jamaat and close ally of Abu Bakr, or the fact that as Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago he has defended his meetings with people he christened "Community Leaders," a set of which the majority of the population has definite, or distinctly different views.
Patrick Manning

Many Trinidadians have migrated in response to crime. That is an immense loss. That their children will not return is a greater loss. Transformation of the economy is hindered by Trinidad as a block in the murder capital of the world - the Caribbean mini states. The report says GDP can increase by billions if murders are drastically reduced. Who doubts that, " If murder is reduced to 2 per 10,000 from current 3 per 10,000, then GDP per capita will double." There will be no Trinidad paradise in 2020 while we ignore the value of Islamo-fascist illusions to youth indoctrinated by Machiavellian politicians using obeah, religion or televangelistic manipulation of the mind for political profit. Youth drifting into delusional versions of Rastafarianism or admiration for fundamentalist Wahhabi versions of Islam are a potential source of terrorism, however few they are, or, whatever Mr. Manning believes about the virtue of youth retreating into the comfort of Rastafarianism.

Dr Morgan Job was a university economics lecturer and a former Minister in the Ministry of Finance.



Morgan Job
Feedback: mrganjob@gmail.com

[ribbit]

anyone read christopher hitchen's book God is Not Great.

[pecan]

anyone read christopher hitchen's book God is Not Great.

only excerpts

entertaining stuff, I am a believer in God, but I like to understand opposing views... but de fundamentalists getting vex 

[WestCoast]

Maybe TrueTrini is right after all
check this pastor's rant
http://www.break.com/index/this-pastor-is-insane.html

[fishs]

  Is it a sin to worship cold beer ?