Djevv said:
Isn't Buddhism about 'reaching enlightenment'? Despite there being much wisdom in it, it seems to me fundamentally inward looking.
In the areas where Buddhism is prevalent, it doesn't seem to have spent much energy changing these evils, not that I'd ever heard anyway. In fact in the East tyranny seems to have flourished. This is the point that Athiests seem to miss. Much good has been done in the name if Christianity. For instance do a little research on these topics:
Where did the school of the air come from?
How did Aboriginal come to be able to read and write prior to 1967?
Where did the RFDS come from?
Why do so many hospitals have religious names?
Why was much classical music written?
Who kept ancient knowledge alive during the Dark Ages?
Who was the first man to actually enact legislation against slavery, and what faith was he?
Main issue with Buddhism is that to achieve enlightenment walking away from want is one of the biggest steps you need to take. For this reason, most monks live in poverty, while up until the 20th century being a Christian minister of nearly any pursuasion was a financially good career.
On you list, are you seriously listing slavery?? I thought the Bible in several sections specifically referred to slaves, with them being handed out like candy by God to his believers.
Djevv said:
The Bible implores people to actually 'do good'. Don't just talk about it, don't just believe it, live it!!!! Thats why in countries with a Christian background are often 'free' countries in which individuals had rights. Thats why Christian sought to live out their faith by:
Doing missionsary work
Supporting the welfare of the poor
Building and supporting hospitals
Supporting schools for the underprivelidged
Investigating the natural world (science)
Trying to apply their Christian faith to the world of politics
Giving to those 'less fortunate'
Speaking out against dictatorial government policies (do you remember the Anglican Church speaking out on WorkChoices?).
ETC
I'm not sure where control comes into it. Churches are to some extent contolling as they have an authority structure. In nations with a Christian heritage people generally have freedom of conscience so they have the right to believe and say what they like. Try doing this in the a nation like the Sudan with a Moslem cultural heritage!
Now much of this good work is primarily for promotion and recruitment?
1) No good ever came of missionary work, this is 100% recruitment
2) Welfare for the poor? Want some soup, gotta hear about the Bible
3) Hospitals I will give you
4) Schools - 100% about brainwashing the next generation
5) Are you serious about science? Christians killed people who said the world was not flat with the earth at the centre of the universe. Even now, millions are being spent not on researching how the world was created, but proving evolution is wrong and creationism is right. How can science be pure if your outcome is predetermined as a 100% no fail possibility?
6) Politics - How is this good? Using their will to force politicians to act against the will of the electorate in favour of church policy? There is a reason for laws seperating church and state, and its because just about every time in history the church has help secular power, it has been corrupted. Also if a government is representing church politics, what about the rest of the population not of the faith? Do they just bugger off like the Israelis, or do we kill them like was done in South America?
7) Giving to the less fortunate - again, you only receive if you believe, or are willing to have a long chat
8) Speaking out against dictatorial Govt policies - Given I know several churches of Salvation Army and Evangelical faith which have told members who they can marry and who they cannot marry (or they will be banished from the church), bit of pot calling the kettle black here.
As for Christian nations having more freedoms, don't get so self righteous. The West has only had proper democratic principles for 100 years. Before that women were excluded, and before that the poor were excluded (you often had to be a land owner), and before that those outside nobility were excluded. Most of the Asian, African, and South American nations are only newly independant, having been the b1tches of European empires until the last 50-100 years. Its a bit much to ask these nations which are only new to democracy (let alone managing their own affairs) to get it right in the first 5 minutes. This is especially as much of the past 60 years saw massive interference in any democratic structures set up by the United States and the Soviet Union in their little Cold War. How many democratic free countries had revolutions sponsored from abroad because their politics did not agree with either the USSR or the USA?