Parts IV & V

"God is for the poor and ignorant" and "God is bad for women" are the next two characterizations of religion that Armstrong considered. Her answers are "No" and "Yes."

Certainly, the example of America, even with an increasing number of people who claim to be an atheist or to disdain organized religion, is enough to dispute the first statement. The USA is both the richest country in the world and the most religious.

Looking deeper, the major world religions all "developed initially in a nascent market economy" to quote Armstrong. Max Weber's classic "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" linked the religious fervor of protestantism and the development of modern capitalism.

That is not to say that religions embrace the unbridled and self-centered greed that is a core driving force for many in business. As Armstrong notes, To recover from the ill effects of the last year, we may need exactly that conquest of egotism that has always been essential in the quest for the transcendence we call “God.” Religion is not simply a matter of subscribing to a set of obligatory beliefs; it is hard work, requiring a ceaseless effort to get beyond the selfishness that prevents us from achieving a more humane humanity.

As for religion and women, Armstrong notes, Even when a tradition began positively for women (as in Christianity and Islam), within a few generations men dragged it back to the old patriarchy. This leads to her affirmation of the initial statement.

Here, I would wonder whether it is the religion or the male's use of religion that is to blame. Just as human beings have been adept at using religion to justify their violent responses against others, so too, it seems, males have been adept to use religious rules of their own making to subjugate the female.

So, what do you think?