A friend asks: Is development more powerful than religion?

Responding to my post titled: "Why would 6 out of 10 Muslims oppose building a mosque in their area?", a friend asks: "Is development more powerful than religion?"

My response: Almost all religions have been anti-development. The exceptions are Judaism, Buddhism, and Protestantism - and (because I consider them religions too), Marxism and Casino Captialism of the sort that emerged with President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher).

Of these, the only ones that produced development without any negative effects were Early Buddhism and the Radical Reformation (i.e. the Radical Protestants).

Buddhism's developmental impact declined once it started being corrupted into the various forms it takes today (excluding Reformed or Christianised Buddhism in the West).

Islam, on the other hand, has had a mixed history. Whenever Islam has been open to non-Islamic views, it has been pro-development. However, Islam has at various times in different parts of the globe, turne in on itself and become what has been called "Islamist". That kind of Islam has always been anti-development.

In fact, development has taken the fangs from most traditional relgiions. Judaism and Radical Protestantism (Evangelicalism) produced the modern world. But Radical Protestantism is what thrives best in it - if measured by the rate of growth of the religion concerned.

Of course, Evangelicalism also produces its own corruptions. Which is why I am not an evangelical but a simple follower of Jesus the Lord. Sphere: Related Content