Culture is downstream from the cult

What is the foundation of culture?

In thinking about this, I have a vague recollection of hearing someone (I can't remember who) saying something to the effect that "the foundation of cult-ure is the cult; the religion held by the people and holding the people together."

In this sense, the religion of held by the people is a unifying force and when it finds its expression it leads to those elements of culture that many find profound, such as the arts.

When I was travelling and living in East Asia, especially in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, the dominant cultural expression that I witnessed was rooted in their Buddhist beliefs. The statues, paintings, architecture and temples were everywhere. When people talk of travelling through Italy and France, they remark on the Cathedrals and the art work, much of which has religion themes and subjects.

When we look at modern western culture, we see that it is dominated by sex and much of the political discourse is focused on death. We see that modern culture is fragmenting society through an ever increasing list of -ists and -isms for which people can be derided, shamed and shunned. Tolerance is the buzzword, but it is not actually practiced. Modern culture is becoming more and more totalitarian in its practice as elements within the culture (the loud radical left) scream for ever more censorship, deplatforming and shunning of opposing views, especially those that would be considered more traditional and those that oppose their agenda.

The fracturing, wounding and decaying of western culture is due to its foundational cult - sex worship. The slut pride walks, the gay pride parades, the destruction of the family unit, and the murder of millions upon millions of innocent children is all due to the modern worship at the altar of sex and the profane. By seeking to destroy the culture of the past, rooted as it was in Christianity, they producing a society that is not only opposed to Christianity but is its opposite.

Where Christianity promotes unity, the modern naturalistic, amoral, relativistic sex cult promotes disunity.

Where Christianity promotes the sanctity of human life, the modern naturalistic, amoral, relativistic sex cult denigrates and demeans human life.

Where Christianity promotes the sanctity of the family as the foundation for society, the modern naturalistic, amoral, relativistic sex cult  demeans and destroys the family unit.

Where Christianity promotes humility and love, the modern naturalistic, amoral, relativistic sex cult  promotes pride and arrogance.

Where Christianity promotes meekness and service, the modern naturalistic, amoral, relativistic sex cult promotes violence and selfishness.

Western culture is changing, it is being undermined by people who hate what it once stood for and what it once promoted (unity, life, family, humility, love, service, meekness) and want to see it replaced with disunity, individualism, pride, arrogance, violence and selfishness.

I've heard too many people foolishly say that it doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is how you act; but our actions are rooted in our beliefs.

If you believe that traditional western culture is worth saving, then act accordingly.

If you believe that it needs to be destroyed, well when you sow to the wind, you reap the whirlwind.

Satan has long been trying to destroy what God has established, but we know that he will not prevail against Christ and his Church.

In the words of Moses, today you have been given a choice, to choose blessing or curse, to choose life or death. Choose life.



fragmented religious beliefs lead to a fragmented culture and is a disunifying influence.

I just don't get it

A few days ago people across North America and the world took a moment to remember those who died as a result of the terrorist attacks against the US on September 11, 2001. It was the worst act of terrorism committed against the US with nearly 3000 people losing their lives. To this day it is not forgotten and to this day it is used as a rallying cry for those who would encourage the US to be ever more vigilant in defending its interests domestic and abroad.

It was a tragedy and one that I am in no way trying to diminish or disparage.

But given the way this one event has seared the soul of America one would think that an even greater tragedy would not go by with the minor level of attention that it does receive.

Imagine if you would if last year more than 300,000 Americans were murdered. Killed in cold blood. Imagine if we knew who the murderers were but chose not to bring them to justice. Even worse imagine if hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets in order to argue that these people did nothing wrong and in fact their murderous actions should be defended by the government.

It reads like an absurd scenario, one not worthy of consideration or a moments thought.

Unless of course you understand that I'm speaking about abortion.

Yes, I believe that abortion is murder and it pains me that each year approximately 3/4 of a million innocent people are murdered in cold blood and our society would argue that this is okay.

One of the most important questions that we have to answer as a society is: who is a person?

The abortion promoter would argue that a baby inside a woman's womb is not a person. This is the stance of the government. So if a woman is pregnant and decides to have an abortion it is a legal procedure that does not injure a person.

Yet if I were to kill a pregnant woman I would be charged with murdering the woman and the child who was in her womb.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime."[10] In the U.S., 36 states have laws with more harsh penalties if the victim is murdered while pregnant. Some of these laws defining the fetus as being a person, "for the purpose of criminal prosecution of the offender" (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2008).

So let me get this straight, if a woman kills a "child in uterus" its called an abortion and its legal. If a pregnant woman is harmed and her "child in uterus" dies, it is murder.

How does that make any sense?

It seems that the distinction is the intent of the woman. In the first case the woman doesn't want to be pregnant and so the "child in uterus" is not a person and so when killed its not murder. In the second case the woman wants to be pregnant and so the "child in uterus" is a person and therefore a murder was committed.

How convenient.

What kind of society does one expect to have when we allow 16 year old girls to be the arbiter of what does and what does not constitute person - hood?

To make this tragedy of epic proportions even more heinous is that now people are using the twisted logic of abortion to argue that even if a child were born it could still be killed and be legal.

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion. 

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor. 

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” 

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow. 

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?” 

"I do not have that information," Snow replied. "I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.” 

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?” 

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

So what she is saying that even if the baby is born, lying on a table, kicking and screaming, it is still not a person because only a person deserves to be protected by the law whereas this person's fate should be decided by the woman and her doctor and if they should choose to kill it, that should be okay.

We are a sick and perverse generation that argues for and defends the right to murder their own children. If we were killing babies by burning them alive it would be barbaric and everything should be done to stop such a horrific crime against humanity. Call it a "choice" and use the term "abortion" and its all okay.

Don’t you see that children are God’s best gift?
    the fruit of the womb his generous legacy?
Like a warrior’s fistful of arrows
    are the children of a vigorous youth.
Oh, how blessed are you parents,
    with your quivers full of children!
Psalms 124:3-5

The first command that was given to man by God was to be fruitful and to multiply; to have children. Yet here we are killing 2150 of these innocent children every day!

Solomon once wrote:

There is a way which seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.

How wise he was.

Hypocrisy and the NY Times

So there is a big furor happening in America now concerning the governments plan to have medical insurance cover birth control. "A provision of the 2010 healthcare reform law mandates that basic birth control services for women be included in as part of any employer-provided health insurance plan." 

Not surprisingly the Catholic Church stood up and said that they would fight this.

Not surprisingly this brought about criticism of the Catholic Church by various groups including the Freedom From Religion Foundation which ran the following ad in the NY Times:

Here is the ad's copy:

Dear ‘Liberal’ Catholic: 

It’s time to quit the Roman Catholic Church. 

It’s your moment of truth. Will it be reproductive freedom, or back to the Dark Ages? Do you choose women and their rights, or Bishops and their wrongs? Whose side are you on, anyway?
It is time to make known your dissent from the Catholic Church, in light of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops’ ruthless campaign endangering the right to contraception. If you’re part of the Catholic Church, you’re part of the problem. 

Why are you propping up the pillars of a tyrannical and autocratic, woman-hating, sex-perverting, antediluvian Old Boys Club? Why are you aiding and abetting a church that has repeatedly and publicly announced a crusade to ban contraception, abortion and sterilization, and to deny the right of all women everywhere, Catholic or not, to decide whether and when to become mothers? When it comes to reproductive freedom, the Roman Catholic Church is Public Enemy Number One. Think of the acute misery, poverty, needless suffering, unwanted pregnancies, social evils and deaths that can be laid directly at the door of the Church’s antiquated doctrine that birth control is a sin and must be outlawed. 

A backer of the Roman Catholic presidential candidate says that if women want to avoid pregnancy we should put an aspirin between our knees? Catholic politicians are urging that the right to contraception should be left up to states? Nearly 50 years after the Supreme Court upheld contraception as a privacy right, we’re going to have to defend this basic freedom all over again? 

You’re better than your church. So why? Why continue to attend Mass? Tithe? Why dutifully sacrifice to send your children to parochial schools so they can be brainwashed into the next generation of myrmidons (and, potentially, become the next Church victims)? For that matter, why have you put up with an institution that won’t put up with women priests, that excludes half of humanity? 

No self-respecting feminist, civil libertarian or progressive should cling to the Catholic faith. As a Cafeteria Catholic, you chuck out the stale doctrine and moldy decrees of your religion, but keep patronizing the establishment that menaces public health by serving rotten offerings. Your continuing Catholic membership, as a “liberal,” casts a veneer of respectability upon an irrational sect determined to blow out the Enlightenment and threaten liberty for women worldwide. You are an enabler. And it’s got to stop. 

If you imagine you can change the church from within — get it to lighten up on birth control, gay rights, marriage equality, embryonic stem-cell research — you are deluding yourself. If you remain a “good Catholic,” you are doing “bad” to women’s rights. You’re kidding yourself if you think the Church is ever going to add a Doctrine of Immaculate ContraCeption. 

It is disgraceful that U.S. health care reform is being held hostage to the Catholic Church’s bizarre opposition to medically prescribed contraception. No politician should jeopardize electability for failure to genuflect before the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. (Question to ask your Bishop: Does he hold up an umbrella against the rain? Isn’t that just as “unnatural” as using a condom or diaphragm?) 

Your Church hysterically claims that secular medical policy is “an assault against religious liberty.” You are savvy enough to realize that the real assault is by the Church against women’s rights and health care. As Nation columnist Katha Pollitt asks: Is it an offense against Jehovah Witnesses that health care coverage will include blood transfusions? The Amish, as Pollitt points out, don’t label cars “an assault on religious liberty” and try to force everyone to drive buggies. The louder the Church cries “offense against religious liberty” the harder it works to take away women’s liberty. 

Obama has compromised, but the Church never budges, instead launching a vengeful modern-day Inquisition. Look at its continuing directives to parish priests to use their pulpits every Sunday to lobby you against Obama’s policy, the Church’s announcement of a major anti-contraception media campaign — using your tithes, contributions and donations — to defeat Obama’s laudable health care policy. The Church has introduced into Congress the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, ” a bill to place the conscienceless Catholic Church’s “rights of conscience” above the rights of conscience of 53 percent of Americans. That the Church has “conscience rights” to deny women their rights is a kissing cousin to the claim that “corporations are people.” The Church that hasn’t persuaded you to oppose contraception now wants to use the force of secular law to deny contraceptive rights to non-Catholics. 

But is there any point in going on? After all, your misplaced loyalty has lasted through two decades of public sex scandals involving preying priests, children you may have known as victims, and church complicity, collusion and coverup going all the way to the top. Are you like the battered woman who, after being beaten down every Sunday, feels she has no place else to go? 

But we have a more welcoming home to offer, free of incense-fogged ritual, free of what freethinker Bertrand Russell called “ideas uttered long ago by ignorant men,” free of blind obedience to an illusory religious authority. Join those of us who put humanity above dogma.
As a member of the “flock” of an avowedly antidemocratic club, isn’t it time you vote with your feet? Please, exit en Mass. 

Very truly,
Annie Laurie Gaylor
Co-President
Freedom From Religion Foundation

Following on this the groups "Stop Islamization of Nations" and the "American Freedom Defense Initiative" tried to place an ad in the NY Times pointing out the destructive elements of Islamic groups and their influence on American culture. To make their point, they copied the language and style of the ad that was run by the NY Times criticizing the Catholic Church.

Here is the ad and its copy:

Open Letter to "moderate" Muslims: 

It’s time to quit Islam. 

It’s your moment of truth. Will it be religious freedom, freedom of speech, or back to the Dark Ages? Do you choose women and their rights, or imams and their wrongs? Whose side are you on? 

In light of the ongoing, ruthless, international jihad against non-Muslims, the 1,400-year record of institutionalized oppression of women, the 18,560 Islamic attacks across the world since 9/11, and the endangering of free peoples across the world, if you’re part of the Islamic jihad, you’re part of the problem. 

Why are you aiding and abetting Islamic leaders who have repeatedly and publicly announced a jihad to subjugate Christians, Jews, Hindus, and all non-Muslims, and to deny the rights of all women everywhere, Muslim or not?

Think of the acute misery, poverty, needless suffering, social evils and deaths that can be laid directly at the door of the Islam's antiquated doctrine that commands jihad and genocide. 

If you imagine you can change the mosque from within — get it to lighten up on Jew-hatred, hatred of women, hatred of non-Muslims, hatred of gays — you are deluding yourself. If you remain a “good Muslim,” you are doing “bad” to the rights of women and non-Muslims everywhere. You’re kidding yourself if you think the mosque is ever going to expunge the Qur'an of its violent texts that inspire jihad, or interpret them out of existence. 

Your mosque hysterically claims that freedom of speech and the truth about jihad and Islamic supremacism are “an assault against Islam.” You are savvy enough to realize that the real assault is by the mosque against human rights. A captured internal document of the Muslim Brotherhood declares that its goal in the U.S. is "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house." Is that an agenda you endorse? 

Obama has compromised, but Islam never budges. Instead, it is fully embarked upon a stealth jihad, using the Justice Department to force businesses and educational institutions to accommodate Islamic law -- the same Islamic law that denies thefreedom of speech, mandates death for apostates, and oppresses women and non-Muslims.

Why put up with an institution that dehumanizes women and non-Muslims -- fully 9/10ths of humanity? Ask your imam: Does he support Hamas? Hizb'Allah? The destruction of Israel? Does he condemn the slaughter of Christians in Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, etc.? Does he vocally denounce Islamic honor killings, FGM, forced marriages, child marriage, polygamy? As a "moderate" Muslim, you tell yourself and the world that you have chucked out the violent doctrine and hateful, oppressive decrees of your religion, and yet you keep identifying with the ideology that threatens liberty for women and menaces freedom by slaughtering, oppressing and subjugating non-Muslims. 

There is a more welcoming home for you!

Join those of us who put humanity above the vengeful, hateful and violent teachings of Islam's "prophet." 

As a member of the “umma,” of an avowedly hateful, supremacist, and antidemocratic club, isn’t it time you vote with your feet? Please, exit en mosque. 

Very truly,
Pamela Geller
President, Stop Islamization of Nations, American Freedom Defense Initiative
Robert Spencer
Vice-President, Stop Islamization of Nations, American Freedom Defense Initiative

The ad's style and wording were specifically chosen to mimic an ad that attacked a Christian group, but replaced the Catholic Church with Islam. In so doing it was a fairly interesting method of testing their hypothesis that too many in the west, including such self proclaimed vanguards of truth and defenders of society as the NY Times. If the NY Times ran the ad, then the group would get its message out on an equal platform as the anti-Christian ad. If, however, the NY Times were to reject the ad, would it point to the very thing that the group was trying to make known?

Well, in fact the NY Times did refuse to publish the ad. Their stated reason was for the sake of the troops fighting in Afghanistan, so as not to put them in any further danger.

This of course rang hollow with many who couldn't help but point out the instances in the past when the NY Times ran articles that violated national security and knowingly put people in harms way. You can read about that more in depth here: REJECTED! WHAT THE NY TIMES WON'T RUN: COUNTER-JIHAD FACTS WHAT THE NY TIMES WILL RUN: ANTI-CATHOLIC SMEAR ADS. Included in their write up is a copy of the letter sent by the NY Times stating their reasons for rejecting the ad.

Now I'm obviously not the first, nor even the second, to write about this episode but I can't help but use what tools I have to help get this message out into the public.

Dawkins and Williams, agnostics at heart

So apparently Richard Dawkins, world renowned herald of Atheism, has admitted during a discussion with Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) that his certainty in atheism was not 100%.

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

...

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.

“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

This I can understand. I think that if you are going to hold that science is the only basis through which truth can be known, and science is a never ending process of acquiring a greater degree of knowledge, then the best one can hold to would be agnosticism as one could never say that science can never learn anything more about a certain subject; even God.

What I find more interesting is the stance of Rowan Williams, the head of the Church of England and believer in God, who said:

During a wide-ranging discussion the Archbishop also said that he believed that human beings had evolved from non-human ancestors but were nevertheless “in the image of God”. 

He also said that the explanation for the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis could not be taken literally.

I wonder what else he does not take literally? Is it merely held to the creation account? Even just a portion of the creation account?

Rowan Williams does not need to answer to me, but I would be interested to know what portions of the Bible he thinks are believable and which portions aren't.

Feminists finally get what they want and are angry

I find the world a bit strange at times. As I look about me and see the signs of 'progress' and can't help but shake my head sometimes. I look at a world (the West at least) that looks to abandon Christianity but can't handle its loss. It seems that much of the world is running, straining forward towards an abyss of its own making but has blinded itself to its own inconsistencies and their resultant consequences.

Perhaps I simply misunderstand but it is my understanding that the purported aims of feminism is equality. To have men and women viewed as equals regardless of the arena in which they find themselves. We are, after all, all human beings. But then you come up against something like this:

As she waited for a flight home from Rome, grandmother Sandra Rogers, 62, told the Daily Mail: ‘There was no “women and children first” policy. There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboats. It was disgusting.’

Now, I don't know Mrs. Rogers and so I can't say whether or not she is a feminist, but shouldn't feminists around the world be celebrating the actions of these men? Is this not victory?

I'm in no way trying to make light of the tragedy or of the loss of life that occurred, but is this action not exactly what progressives and feminists have been fighting for? Everyone looking out for number one. 

The naturalist viewpoint that many have adopted in a rush to abandon Christianity does not see everyone as equal. That was a Christian idea. The idea of women and children first, was a Christian idea. So as they have fought long and hard to divest the world of its Christian shackles and to have everyone viewed as equal, should we not herald this moment as a triumph for modernity?

Should not those men who, seeing everyone as equal, themselves included, did not look down on women as weak or inferior but rather as just as capable as they of ensuring their own survival be seen as feminist heroes? Should not these men that Mrs. Rogers condemns be seen as heroes of the naturalist cause which holds to evolutionary principles, that the strong shall survive? Is this not victory?

As one blogger has already commented, perhaps it would only have been fitting if each of these men were wearing this shirt:

Merry Christmas

I wrote previously concerning (indirectly) Steve Jobs and the cult of personality that seems to (have) surround(ed) him. I thought it amazing that people were able to look past his faults as a human being all because he gave them something shiny. Then I came across this post from a Christian blogger titled "What Steve Jobs Can Teach The Church." Now he admits that as a person, he can't teach it much, but he looks at one aspect of the way that Steve ran Apple.

Another reason that Apple eschews market research is that in Steve’s opinion, “people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” This to me is a much more telling reason and one that can help inform how the church “does business.” While it may strike some people as elitist, the message of the Christian gospel is exactly the kind of thing that “people don’t know they want until you show it to them.” Perhaps they may feel that something is missing in life, but apart for divine intervention, non-Christians aren’t specifically looking for the truth of the gospel. The gospel simultaneously tells people they are far worse off than they think they are and yet the grace of God is far better than they could ever imagine. It’s just not the kind of message you could “guess” or that any kind of market research would reveal people are looking for.

It is presently three days before Christmas. A time when people look to spend copious amounts of money that they don't have on gifts for the people in their life. Its a time when people look to celebrate by going to as many parties as they can and drinking copious amounts of alcohol. Its also a time when many people are hit by bouts depression the most and suicide rates rise. Christmas, or at least how we in the modern western world have taken to celebrating Christmas, is rather a sad time. We talk a good game about love, joy and peace towards our fellow man, but don't get in the way of that frantic shopper on the hunt for the last 'toy of the year' or the person who's had a bit too much egg nog but still decides to drive.

I have no problem with wanting to share things with your loved ones. I have no problem with the idea of having a drink or two while celebrating Christmas. But Christmas is not about shopping, the headaches of overspending or to focus on what we don't have. These are the things that the world tries to shame us with, to make us feel inadequate and incomplete.

No, Christmas is (supposed) to be about celebrating the fact that God loved mankind so much that he sent his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, to live as a man and then to die for the sins of the world. This is the time when we can remember and rejoice knowing that God has intervened, that he has acted on our behalf and that we are loved by our creator. Christmas is a celebration of Christ and because“people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” I want to show you the Gospel of Christ Jesus, for as the Apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Romans "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16).

Contentment

The world searches for meaning, for happiness and contentment but comes up lacking time and again. What we once thought was the solution turns out to be fleeting at best and then we are looking for something new to solve the age old problems. It is unfortunate but too many people choose to escape rather than persevere in their search for meaning or contentment. Living here in Korea, suicide is an all too common occurance with a suicide rate in 2009 of 31 per 100,000 people (the OECD average is 11.1 per 100,000 people). Its a very real and pressing problem.

The call-centre for Seoul's emergency services is a windowless bunker, buried alongside the forested slopes of Namsan hill. 

It used to be the home of South Korea's spy agency. Now it is where the city's emergency calls come in: reports of traffic accidents, crimes, and - increasingly - suicides. 

According to the government, more than 40 South Koreans a day are taking their own lives - five times as many as in their parents' day. 

Unsurprisingly, the operators here say calls from people wanting to commit suicide - or witnesses to it - are increasing. 

Giant screens flash details of all the calls coming in to the rows of operators. They sit surrounded by dashboards of coloured lights and communications equipment. There is a constant blur of noise. 

It does not take long before the first suicide call flashes up. 

"There's a person trying to jump off a building," the caller says, "and he has a knife in his hand." 

One of the team, Ki-jong Gwan, says the operators have had no formal training in handling these kinds of calls, but that staff often share tips amongst themselves. 

"I think there's a limit to what we can do," he said. "Some of the calls I remember were from people who'd already decided to take their lives and just wanted to ask that their bodies be taken care of. 

"Others call up seeking advice on the best way to commit suicide. There are some situations where we've intervened and helped stop the person taking their life. But I think there needs to be a more fundamental solution." 

[...] 

But the real question is why this is happening at all in a country that is richer, more stable and more influential than at any time in its history? 

[...] 

"From the beginning of childhood, the importance of money and achievement are emphasised by their parents, so they feel that unless you are successful in school grades and a good job, good prestigious college, you're not successful, and the parents behave as if 'you're not my child'," Dr Hong said.

A Korean blogger has taken up the issue and tries to explore why its so high in Korea.

Although over a century old, Durkheim's initial insight about the social causes of suicide is still valid for the most part. Durkheim believed that essentially, suicide is a disease of modernity. Durkheim formulated his thoughts by observing France of the late 19th century, which -- along with the rest of Europe -- was witnessing both a spectacular economic growth and an astonishing rise in suicide rate. (In earlier 1840s, France's suicide rate was around 10 suicides per 100,000 people. By mid-1890s, the same rate was around 24 suicides per 100,000 people.) And regardless of the significant diversity among various European states, suicide rate rose in almost all European countries. Moreover, again across most European countries, suicide rate rose more dramatically in the cities while remaining stable in rural areas. 

What is it about economic development that leads to suicide? Durkheim noted these factors: individualism, spirit of free inquiry, diversified economy, freedom of choice and greater wealth. At a first glance, these reasons make sense -- suicide is a highly individual act, and is often a result of a rational calculation. And Durkheim's insight has been proven to be broadly correct. In late-developing countries such as India and China, suicide rate rose like a clockwork, particularly in cities where the economic development was the most vibrant. In case of India, the suicide rate rose from 6.8 to 9.9 per 100,000 between 1985 and 1995. The highest suicide rates appeared Bangalore (30.3), Indore (30.1), Nagpur (22.1), and other cities with the most dynamic industrial revolution. In 2000, Indian people with high school degrees committed suicide at a rate more than twice of illiterate Indians. (19.8 versus 8.4 per 100,000) 

A lot of Durkheim's more specific insights proved to be correct as well. Durkheim believed that the deterioration of the traditional family contributed to suicide. Sure enough, there is a clear negative correlation between the number of children and the rate of suicide. Likewise, there is a fairly clear positive correlation between the rate of divorce and the rate of suicide.

It seems weird that what many point to as being the solutions to life's problems (individualism, the spirit of free inquiry, a diversified economy, freedom of choice, greater wealth and education) tend to increase the suicide rate. Of course as a Christian I'm struck by how this contrasts with what the Apostle Paul has to say in Philippians 4:11-13.

I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength.

The Bible has been telling us for nearly two thousand years that money is not the solution, that self indulgence and narcissism are not the answer, but rather humility and self sacrifice. Luke 9:23-25

Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?

Is it any wonder that when people buy into the materialist mantra of more is better never achieve contentment, and that he who has the most wins leaves everyone feeling like a loser.

Identity

In a previous post I commented on a person's lack of understanding concerning God. Here is a good example of how God is perceived by many.

You are loved

I came across this recently on Post Secret.

It seems strange to me that this person doesn't believe in something that they have already formed an opinion on.

In reality they believe in God and their hatred has turned to denial.

I just wonder about what there is to hate.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 

This leads me to believe that the person doesn't hate God, because they don't know God. They hate a conception of God that has been constructed by them or for them. They believe a lie and so hate the truth.