Welfare means World Peace?

Hi everyone, Once again I have thought of this theory, and there's probably a lot of people here that can prove me wrong, but i'll tell it anyway...
If this is posted in the wrong forum, please excuse me.

I think that when the welfare in the world grows, so will the chance to having world peace. That's because of religion.
As you can see, in welfare countries of these days (USA, Western Europe, Japan etc.) religion has got moved to the background. Sure people still are religous, but they don't put it central in their lives. Also they stopped living in the way their God would want it, so that they could get acces to an afterlife of peace.

At the same time the places of conflicts have faded here. In western europe there is peace in nearly every place, an exception is Northern Ireland which is, excactly, relatively poor.

Nearly every conflict in the world is based on differences in religion. So if in these countries welfare would grow, the depency on religion would decrease as well, and finally the tension between groups with different religions.

Now, ofcourse it's almost unimaginable for some countries to have more wealth, and the progress of becoming a welfare country, or at least no longer being a Third World country, is very long. But it isn't impossible. So if my theory is right, world peace will also not be impossible.

Like to hear what you have to say about this.
Either way, thanks for reading it.

Hmm no opinions? Too bad...

People are inherintly stupid and lazy. If a handout comes the vast majority will jump to take it. Hell, some will actually complain it isnt enough.

As the government gets more power and control through welfare and socialization the government in the peoples eyes will gradually become their religion.

That wont make world peace. An absence of faith WILL NOT bring world peace.

WWI and II had nothing to do with God. Napoleon did not conquer for God. Vietnam had nothing to do with God. The Civil War had nothing to do with God.

Find me a war, other than the crusades, that was actually fought in the name of God.

If anything Gods name was invoked to rally troops to fight the wars of governments.

God, and the concept of a higher power, is supposed remind people that no man and no government can control their lives. That they are absolutely free unless they willingly subject themselves to the law of man. Government, and other elites, figured this out real fast and politicized religious leaders and corrupted the concept of a God to serve their needs. The needs of the governments.

Dont buy into this whole "religion makes war" crap. Its just what the socialists and dictators of the world want you to do.

I don't think welfare and lack of religion are the prime factors in peace, if by welfare you are referring to those who rely on money from the government to get by. If I'm not mistaken though, I think affluence is the concept you're trying to convey here. I would say that education, affluence, and personal freedom/empowerment are the prime reasons for peace in western culture. It's hard for tyrants to control an educated and affluent society, the way they can in third world nations. I'd argue that religion's role or lack thereof isn't necessarily the reason for peace though.
Many western nations, the US included used to have religion much more in the foreground, and they didn't try to start wars over it(we're talking post 18th century mind you- but that has to do with improved education as well). While many bad things have been done in the name of religion, many modern principles which would be considered positives, have been derived from religion too.

Find me a war, other than the crusades, that was actually fought in the name of God.

You may be right that those big wars like WOI and WOII were not based on religion, although, wasn't it Hitler who wanted to destroy all of the Jewish religion?

But it's mostly the conflicts between two nations living close to eachother. I'll give a few examples:
- Northern Ireland
- Nigeria (though it's not really a war)
- Israel and Palestina
- North and South of Cyprus
- India and Pakistan

As far as i'm concerned these conflicts have a cultural and religious basis.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
People are inherintly stupid and lazy. If a handout comes the vast majority will jump to take it. Hell, some will actually complain it isnt enough.

.... and they won't bother to work because they are getting free handouts for sitting on their backends.

Seriously .. if you (author of this thread) think that redistributing the world's wealth will take care of war, you are wrong. Is that what you think? I'm having trouble following your post. Redistribution of wealth would just mean that middle class America would bust it's back working so that our hard earned money could go to others ... and that is THEFT from us... and it's wrong.

It wasn't about Jewish RELIGION to Hitler. Not every blood Jew practices the religion. Hitler killed Jews who were Christians as well. Being a Jew is an ethinicity as well as a religion. My family on my father's side are blood Jews, but hardly any of them practices the religious part. Many of them go to Christian churches. They still get targeted by anti-Jewish people. My ancestors were so scared of being found out to be Jewish when they moved to the U.S. that they didn't pass the heritage down for fear of being discovered. We don't even know which of the European countries they moved from.

As far as welfare goes, not everyone on welfare is lazy. Some people are disabled and not able to hold down a job. Some single parents have ex husbands who are deadbeats that abandoned the family. Most people on welfare have at least a part-time job, so they are not sitting around doing nothing. Raising children is work too, and when they have men who abandoned the family and left them to do everything by themselves, the stress can be overwhelming. Then there are mothers who are trapped in areas with no jobs because the courts recognize the fathers' parental rights even when they do abandon the family and leave the mother to do everything by herself. The courts will court order the women to live in the area where she lived when the man took off with no care to whether or not she is able to support herself and her child(ren). I know women who have had to do it alone for years and don't even know where the ex moved, but still must remain in the area in case the 'father' wants to pop back in the kid's life someday.

One woman I know, her ex was gone for 14 years and the ex was finally tracked down for child support by the courts/child support enforcement on an order which was issued when the child was still a baby. The man came back to town and filed for custody of a child whom he didn't even remember the name. The girl was a teenager involved in lots of extracurricular activities and the court did not care. The girl had to give up the activities and start visiting with her father who abandoned her when she was a baby. The man was a total stranger to her. Imagine being uprooted from your day to day life and forced to be with a stranger with the threat that your mother who reared you will go to jail if you refuse/fight it in any way. The courts refused to make it supervised or have it transitioned in anyway. The girl had her life stolen from her. And this happens frequently in these cases. The mother and children must keep their lives in limbo and their lives can be disturbed years later on the whims of the father. Often the fathers take off again leaving the mother and children unsure when the next disruption will occur. The teen I mentioned had this happen. Then he took off again after the girl already lost out on her activities and then she must wait until the following year to get started in the activities again because her spot had already been replaced. But he could pop in again at any time, so until she turns 18 will be forced to live in uncertainty, her life and plans continuously disrupted. This is the life of many single mothers and their children who have biological fathers who abandon the children.

OK, I think that either me or you are mistaken by the world welfare.
By welfare, I DON''T refer to people relying on getting money from the government. I just mean that countries are getting better economics, richer people etc. I am probably mistaken with that word since i'm the one who is not from an English speaking country

Maybe this clears things up... sorry for the confusion

Uhh I was a bit confused by the post also.

NoSuchAgency- I wouldn't think of it as being "right" or "wrong." Humans are living organisms and use a variety of means to make themselves happy. Obviously in poorer nations they use religion to maintain happiness and in more developed countries we use material wealth.

FlyersFan-

Seriously .. if you (author of this thread) think that redistributing the world's wealth will take care of war, you are wrong.

Actually, I think there is some logic to what the author is saying. Wealth is one way to divide people. When people are divided (not one) then they fight. The problem is redistributing wealth is completely unrealistic and even if one accomplished this impossible task, you'd still have to unite people on other fronts where divisions would remain.



Jessicamsa-

This is the life of many single mothers and their children who have biological fathers who abandon the children.

Nice post but let's not forget there are 2 sides to every coin. It seems like you're singling out men? Remember for every "deadbeat" father there is some idiotic woman who chose to have kids with him.

The problem is redistributing wealth is completely unrealistic and even if one accomplished this impossible task, you'd still have to unite people on other fronts where divisions would remain.

Yes you are right about that, but I stated that myself in the first post as well.
I know it's a very unlikely thing to happen, but this is more like a 'what if' theory...

That's why I knew there would be a lot of people who knew something to say against this theory from the beginning