Readers React: Why peaceful, secular Europe owes its prosperity to Christianity

To the editor: Phil Zuckerman is only half right when he says that religious societies have many social ills. However, it is not societies with religion that have them; it is those with bad religion that do. (“Think religion makes society less violent? Think again.,” Op-Ed, Nov. 1)

Progress and development in Europe — the shoulders on which secularism stands — is the product of good religion. It is the Christian ethos of Europe (and the United States) that made freedom, liberty, equality, scientific inquiry and other areas of progress possible.

Secularism is not the absence of religion. As a philosophical system, it does not generate the impetus for altruism and peace as good religion does. More often than not, it produces a seductive, self-destructing narcissism that unfortunately dominates the secular world.

Having a society with no violence or other ills is not the point. The broader question is what society does when they are absent. Secularism has no answer. Good religion does.

The Rev. Vivian Ben Lima, Woodland Hills

..

To the editor: How refreshing to see the righteous comments of Bill O’Reilly and Mike Huckabee on the evils of secularism exposed to the light of reality. Having traveled to more than 75 countries and observed the mind-set of people in a couple dozen, I find that the more a society is into its religion, the less it is into its humanity.

Much of man’s inhumanity to man comes out of religions, and while the charity leg of some religions produces a lot of good, somehow the faith and practicing aspects appear to diminish the awareness and trust of humanity.

Humans have evolved into intelligent, loving, creative creatures, and there is no need for religion to assist us in developing humane societies. Zuckerman’s Op-Ed article suggests we should be praising secularism, not denigrating it.

Stan Stachura, Marina del Rey

..

To the editor: Zuckerman’s commentary demonstrates the problems arising from drawing conclusions with limited data. Several factors could be responsible for greater violence in a society.

Why did Zuckerman limit his comparisons to more religious versus more secular societies? Why didn’t he use crime, poverty or education to make his point?

To the best of my knowledge, Sweden, Denmark and Norway are not dealing with crushing poverty, widespread corruption and drug cartels. Is it fair to compare these countries with El Salvador, Colombia and Mexico?

Similarly, Louisiana and Mississippi do not share the wealth and education of Massachusetts or Connecticut.

Zuckerman did not enlighten. His piece was just a cheap shot, and he ought to know better.

Nathan Post, Santa Barbara

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook