Driving Behaviour and Religion

spen666

Commuting to work this morning, I saw a female wearing full hijab (head to toe outfit) drive straight through a red light and turn left. There was no doubt this was a deliberate and conscious act. The light had been red for a time. She looked to her right and checked before going through red light. Her action caused me no danger and also did not inconvenience any other road users.

I have to confess to being a little suprised to see this- I think because I associate someone wearing such garb as being deeply religious and understand all/ most religions teach that you should respect the rule of law. It then set me thinking that it is more noticeable in muslim women because of their dress style, but people of other religions do it- eg how often do you see illegally or dangerously parked vehicles parkend near churches and other religious institutions when services are on.

I wonder how those "church" goers square their selfish lazy self centred behaviour with the teachings of their faith.



[This is not a dig at muslims, merely that it was a muslim lady whose actions set off this chain of thought.]

redddraggon

Under sharia law she should be stoned or sent to prison for a very long time for doing that, or something disproportionate to the crime committed.

I wonder if she'd have done something like that in Saudia Arabia?

iainment

redddraggon wrote:

Under sharia law she should be stoned or sent to prison for a very long time for doing that, or something disproportionate to the crime committed.

I wonder if she'd have done something like that in Saudia Arabia?

I think you'll find that there is currently a campaign to allow women to drive in Saudi, so she couldn't have at present.

gavintc

I personally think that the relationship is more between persons trained in a foreign country and driving standard rather than religion.

spen666

gavintc wrote:

I personally think that the relationship is more between persons trained in a foreign country and driving standard rather than religion.

I am not trying to make a point re any religion- it is more the contradiction between the teachings of religions and the actions of its adherents.


I suspect from her age, other items on/around car etc that she was brought up in this country.



The comments are focussing on this girl, but ignore the wider point which was the one I was making

flattythehurdler

I would be as concerned about meeting the visual field requirement. The worst driving i see is in the drop off zone outside the local exclusive ladies school. See lots of nice things there too though.

spen666

flattythehurdler wrote:

I would be as concerned about meeting the visual field requirement. ....

I don't think the hijab restricts the view below legal requirements.

grayo59

I do notice that cars with a fish symbol (except fish delivery vans ) tend to have law abiding drivers.

Cunobelin

Don't be fooled....

That fish on the back simply means...............

"Prepare to meet your maker!"

ChrisLS

...oh boy spen666 how right you are on this one. Sunday mornings service kick off time and when the service ends are really dangerous times to be near a church. For instance, a short while ago a women with a car load of children nearly ran my young son, myself and a friend off the road, as she passed too close to us, blaring her horn in her race to get a parking place outside church. When I spoke to her, quite shaken because of the danger she had put my lad in, she just told me I shouldn't be on the road...well praise the lord!!! :?

...kicking out time in my experience is also just as dangerous as they stream out of the carpark paying no attention to what's going on in the material world... :evil: :evil: :evil:

Eat My Dust

I commute along Ealing Rd in NW London. Mosque at one end and a Indian Temple at the other end. The most dangerous part of my 13 mile commute.

sylvanus

The OP is really, really silly since:

1) If religious followers or Christians were perfect then there would self-evidently be no need for religion. JC was pretty specific he wanted to attract "sinners" not just the righteous and I think you'll find such people tend to do all sorts of naughty stuff including being bad drivers...

2) Religion is not only about morality - in fact morality is arguably a vital / useful practice or outcome but its not the whole purpose of religion

3) All religion involves what the modern world regards as hypocrisy since it involves less than perfect humans aspiring to a higher ideal . Fat people going to Weightwatchers or Drunks going to AA are admired but imperfect people going to church - What Hypocrisy!!!

4) In general you and I both know empirically that religious people do tend to be more moral and better people, albeit far from perfect, than the non-religious - it would actually be surprising if that weren't the case. We can't prove it since we don't have stats but it remains very likely true!

spen666

sylvanus wrote:

The OP is really, really silly since:

1) If religious followers or Christians were perfect then there would self-evidently be no need for religion. JC was pretty specific he wanted to attract "sinners" not just the righteous and I think you'll find such people tend to do all sorts of naughty stuff including being bad drivers...

Clearly you have not thought through what you have posted
a) You are assuming that there is only 1 religion
b) You forget that even the bible says that Christ came to save us ALL

2) Religion is not only about morality - in fact morality is arguably a vital / useful practice or outcome but its not the whole purpose of religion

Erm I don't think anyone is saying religion is only about morality. Indeed I don't think I mentioned morality at all

3) All religion involves what the modern world regards as hypocrisy since it involves less than perfect humans aspiring to a higher ideal . Fat people going to Weightwatchers or Drunks going to AA are admired but imperfect people going to church - What Hypocrisy!!!

Oh so now you seem to accept there are more religions than the one involving Christ?
Drunks who go to AA and carry on drinking immediately they get out of the meeting and who drink immediately before the meeting are not admired- similarily with weightwatchers we don't admire those who eat cream cakes immediately before and after a weightwatchers meeting

4) In general you and I both know empirically that religious people do tend to be more moral and better people, albeit far from perfect, than the non-religious - it would actually be surprising if that weren't the case. We can't prove it since we don't have stats but it remains very likely true!

Johnny G

sylvanus wrote:

4) In general you and I both know empirically that religious people do tend to be more moral and better people, albeit far from perfect, than the non-religious - it would actually be surprising if that weren't the case. We can't prove it since we don't have stats but it remains very likely true!

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence for this?

flattythehurdler

spen666 wrote:

flattythehurdler wrote:

I would be as concerned about meeting the visual field requirement. ....

I don't think the hijab restricts the view below legal requirements.

In theory or ideal conditions ie tight to the face I am sure it doesn't. In practice as it wrinkles/folds/falls forward, I have my doubts.

sylvanus

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence for this?

I have no data as I pointed out in the sentence you quoted! There is quite a lot of data and evidence to show that religion makes people happier and psychologically "healthier" but I agree its always surprised me that the churches / synagogues etc do not commission more research on the practical benefits and effects of religion.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone who went on a cycling club sunday club run each week became generally fitter and thinner. I'd be just as unsurprised to see someone who goes to the church, synagogue or temple each week become a generally calmer, more spiritual and more "moral" individual. However plainly mileage may vary and for example, Josef Stalin seems to have quickly shed any benefits from his early years in a seminary, if he ever had any!

(edited for typo)

nwallace

spen666 wrote:

Commuting to work this morning, I saw a female wearing full hijab (head to toe outfit) drive straight through a red light and turn left. There was no doubt this was a deliberate and conscious act. The light had been red for a time. She looked to her right and checked before going through red light. Her action caused me no danger and also did not inconvenience any other road users.

I have to confess to being a little suprised to see this- I think because I associate someone wearing such garb as being deeply religious and understand all/ most religions teach that you should respect the rule of law. It then set me thinking that it is more noticeable in muslim women because of their dress style, but people of other religions do it- eg how often do you see illegally or dangerously parked vehicles parkend near churches and other religious institutions when services are on.

I wonder how those "church" goers square their selfish lazy self centred behaviour with the teachings of their faith.



[This is not a dig at muslims, merely that it was a muslim lady whose actions set off this chain of thought.]

Ever heard of the Right on Red rule present in some Left Hand Drive countries?

A neighbour got hit by an American gent trying to do a full circumnavigation of a circle in the left lane. His excuse for this odd behaviour was that that is what they do in belgium.

pneumatic

nwallace wrote:

Ever heard of the Right on Red rule present in some Left Hand Drive countries?

A neighbour got hit by an American gent trying to do a full circumnavigation of a circle in the left lane. His excuse for this odd behaviour was that that is what they do in belgium.

Good point! I remember being scared out of my wits being driven around Atlanta by an Italian woman, who routinely ran red lights in order to make right turns. She avowed that this was what you were supposed to do.

Conversely, last year in Provence I found one of the few places left in France where "priorite a droite" still applies (i.e. you give way to cars joining the flow of traffic) and, needless to say, completely messed it up, much to the irritation of the bloke I cut up, judging by the length of his blasted horn (fnar, fnar). I wasn't wearing anything visible that identified me as religious, though; I was just out of my context.

NlEDERMEYER

sylvanus wrote:

The OP is really, really silly since:


4) In general you and I both know empirically that religious people do tend to be more moral and better people, albeit far from perfect, than the non-religious - it would actually be surprising if that weren't the case. We can't prove it since we don't have stats but it remains very likely true!

In the words of Withnail - Balls!
Better people - like the lovely Muslims of Sudan 'kill her, kill her'
Better people - like the lovely extremist Baptists of the bible belt
Better people- like the settler Jews evicting Arabs and illegally occupying their lands
Better people - like the huge number of kiddy-fiddling Catholic priests
Better people - like he moslems who kill their own daughters for bringing shame on thei families.
The problem is that the believers in these fairy tales believe also that that belief makes them better than both non-believers and believers in a different fairy tale. In what way are people who go to church better than other people. What do they do that makes them better?

sylvanus

The problem is that the believers in these fairy tales believe also that that belief makes them better than both non-believers and believers in a different fairy tale. In what way are people who go to church better than other people. What do they do that makes them better?

They try to follow an organised system of belief and morality, what philosophers call a "nornative principle". Surely if someone tries and makes major efforts to be more moral, ethical, loving and kind then in general, over time, its likely that they'll make progress. I'm not arguing that the religious have a monopoly on good since plainly an individual can choose or try to do the same. In that sense its possible for an atheist to be a secular saint just as religious people sin all the time.

The problem for atheism has been that it has no organised system of support or community to encourage moral behaviour or group cohesion and community. The humanists make a brave effort but lets be honest an atheist society is a fragmented and lonely place where sadly all too often the lowest common denominator rules and the society itself and its art and architecture become dedicated to the worship of mammon and every false god that wanders in from the cold. Go and buy Zoo magasine or OK or watch Celebrity Big Brother and you'll see the practical result.

clanton

NlEDERMEYER wrote:

sylvanus wrote:

The OP is really, really silly since:


4) In general you and I both know empirically that religious people do tend to be more moral and better people, albeit far from perfect, than the non-religious - it would actually be surprising if that weren't the case. We can't prove it since we don't have stats but it remains very likely true!

In the words of Withnail - Balls!
Better people - like the lovely Muslims of Sudan 'kill her, kill her'
Better people - like the lovely extremist Baptists of the bible belt
Better people- like the settler Jews evicting Arabs and illegally occupying their lands
Better people - like the huge number of kiddy-fiddling Catholic priests
Better people - like he moslems who kill their own daughters for bringing shame on thei families.
The problem is that the believers in these fairy tales believe also that that belief makes them better than both non-believers and believers in a different fairy tale. In what way are people who go to church better than other people. What do they do that makes them better?

Agreed!

nicklouse

pneumatic wrote:

nwallace wrote:

Ever heard of the Right on Red rule present in some Left Hand Drive countries?

A neighbour got hit by an American gent trying to do a full circumnavigation of a circle in the left lane. His excuse for this odd behaviour was that that is what they do in belgium.

Good point! I remember being scared out of my wits being driven around Atlanta by an Italian woman, who routinely ran red lights in order to make right turns. She avowed that this was what you were supposed to do.

Conversely, last year in Provence I found one of the few places left in France where "priorite a droite" still applies (i.e. you give way to cars joining the flow of traffic) and, needless to say, completely messed it up, much to the irritation of the bloke I cut up, judging by the length of his blasted horn (fnar, fnar). I wasn't wearing anything visible that identified me as religious, though; I was just out of my context.

Yes and Yes.

the priority to the right is also common here in Sweden UNLESS there is a yellow diamond AFTER the junction facing you which means you have right of way. Also the normal on the round about priority still applies, but as roundabout are still quite new i have found people stopping on roundabout to let drivers on! way scary.

NlEDERMEYER

sylvanus wrote:

The problem is that the believers in these fairy tales believe also that that belief makes them better than both non-believers and believers in a different fairy tale. In what way are people who go to church better than other people. What do they do that makes them better?

They try to follow an organised system of belief and morality, what philosophers call a "nornative principle". Surely if someone tries and makes major efforts to be more moral, ethical, loving and kind then in general, over time, its likely that they'll make progress. I'm not arguing that the religious have a monopoly on good since plainly an individual can choose or try to do the same. In that sense its possible for an atheist to be a secular saint just as religious people sin all the time.

The problem for atheism has been that it has no organised system of support or community to encourage moral behaviour or group cohesion and community. The 'humanists make a brave effort but lets be honest an atheist society is a fragmented and lonely place where sadly all too often the lowest common denominator rules and the society itself and its art and architecture become dedicated to the worship of mammon and every false god that wanders in from the cold. Go and buy Zoo magasine or OK or watch Celebrity Big Brother and you'll see the practical result.

You're believing your own hype. Why should it require 'God' or 'Jesus' or 'Mohammed' or 'Ganesh' (or 'Zeus or Wodin' for that matter) to tell you to be 'ethical, loving and kind'. If you weren't going to be that way anyway, is it the threat of punishment or 'His' displeasure that brings you back into line? In which case you're only being good under duress - not so admirable in my book as the many (in my close aquaintance) atheists and agnostics who do practical acts of public good.

The trouble is that your 'organised system of support or community to encourage moral behaviour or group cohesion and community' is too often used to opress/victimise/estrange those who don't conform - vis the Catholic Church and it's persecution of all other religions and sects over the centuries; vis the Anglican church and its position on homosexuality; vis the good Christians of Alabama who for many years used christianity as a crutch for segregation; vis the commandment in the Qu'uraan to kill apostates.

Oh, I'll grant you that coffee mornings at the church hall and the Romanesque and Gothic architecture are very nice, but it's such a shame that they are the result of mass delusion.

As to the state of society, I'll bet you that the leaers of all the political parties that ave presided over this decline hav been avowed church-goers, and the last 2 at least are not even pretending.

sylvanus

I understand your point but lets agree that there is no perfect answer. I'll freely accept that religion is far from perfect and as you point out it can even be a source of evil. However in general, religion and spirituality are a force for good despite their earthly defects.

You must though tackle the central "hole" in rationalist atheism which is that it has no method of defining an objective moral direction or a social structure. Lets adopt a cycling metaphor to illustrate what I mean.

Lets assume there are two sorts of cyclists in London, club-members and non club-members. Lets call the non club-members "individualists". The club-members have many advantages since they are motivated by organised club and training runs and meet other club members that introduce them to sportives and racing. The peer pressure and encouragement of belonging to a club tend to cause them to train and race more and so become fitter and faster.

The individualists have advantages too since they can train whenever they wish and can be entirely self-motivated. Many individualists are uncomfortable with being part of a group or with the apparent arrogance of clubs like London Dynamo or Agiskoviner with all their club kit nonsense and competition. The individualists however, tend to train and race much less often than the club members and have less peer encouragement and example to follow. As a result they tend to be slower and fatter. The individualists however deny that and say cycling clubs are pointlessly oppressive. Some even claim that British Cycling does not exist and that racing is a waste of time.

I'm a member of a cycling club just as I'm a member of a church and I believe, perhaps wrongly that one helps me be thinner and faster, the other helps me to be calmer, more spiritual and probably more thoughtful about morals. I have to be honest though and admit I spend a multiple of more time on a bike than in a church....

Johnny G

The idea that we behave morally and ethically through fear of an imaginary being, rather than because we instinctively feel it is the right thing to do, is ridiculous. If your god wasn't looking, would you then feel free to behave as you like?

NlEDERMEYER

Point taken - to a point. If you lack the self discipline to be a "good person" maybe "churchin' up" is a way of addressing it. You could however do it without the fables and moral imperialism with the likes of the Rotary, Round Table or Lions organisations - I don't think they've ever issued edicts on homosexuality or birth control, or begeaded members for defectin to one of the other organisations.......

By the way, your cycling club church analogy is very prescient; my club (Gregarios, NW London) have just wrtten a clause forbidding condom use into the regs. My objections about spreading AIDS and other STIs fell on deaf ears, the club's policy is abstinence.

Jon G

sylvanus wrote:

its always surprised me that the churches / synagogues etc do not commission more research on the practical benefits and effects of religion.

Perhaps because it might show that all religions produced much the same effects. Each religion wishes to show itself to be unique - the only true one - so none would want to be shown to be just like all the others.

Jon

sylvanus

I don't think they've ever issued edicts on homosexuality or birth control, or begeaded members for defecting to one of the other organisations.......

I think you might be over-egging this a bit! Christians have really very seldom done this sort of thing except in some fairly horrid instances like the Albigensian crusade against the Cathars and that was 800 years ago! Despite what the media likes to print, most religions are fairly tolerant and easygoing, even Islam historically had no issue tolerating Jews and Christians.

Equally you seem to have an obsession with "sin" which really is not the case with most religions today. I don't think I've ever heard a priest speak about contraception or homosexuality but I have heard them urging love, prayer, peace and forgiveness but then I guess that gains less headlines!

magicroundabout

Apologies in advance for the long explanation. You can't really do half a job of this. You either explain all of it or not bother...

In what way are people who go to church better than other people. What do they do that makes them better?

The answer is nothing. Christians don't DO anything to be "better". Quite a common misunderstanding.

First, let's define "better". Christains, Jews and Muslims all believe in a God who demands absolute perfection from the people he has made. He made you to be perfect, but you've been messed up by the world, and you've chosen to mess up a few times yourself. If we were all perfect, as God demands, then there world would be a pretty amazing place. Peaceful, enjoyable, healthy, with people's differences not mattering (and with everyone driving perfectly, of course!!). We all fall way short of our God's standards!

When people who follow this god try to be better, they're trying to gain the approval of the God. That's what being "better" is for them.

The people of the religions you mention are all trying:

1) to match up to Gods standards - trying to be "better" as defined above
2) to try to encourage the rest of the world to understand this

My understanding of Christianity is pretty good, but of other faiths is not so good, so apologies for that too. My understanding is that the followers of these faiths try to be seen as better by God in the following ways:

Jews: by following the Laws that God laid down to Moses, or interpretations of those laws.
Muslims: by holding to the (5? 7?) main principles of Islam (anything else? not sure what the entry criteria are here)
Christians: by believing that Jesus' death made up for all their wrong. Jesus died in the place of the Christian...in the place of ALL people who will believe in him.

So, given all that, the answer to your question is that people who go to church don't DO anything to be seen as better in God's sight. Their failings are made up for by Jesus' death and all they have to do is believe that and God sees them as being perfect.

The "doing good" bit comes as part of believing. If you believe in Jesus' death then:

1) You must accept his teachings.
2) You owe him one (in fact, you owe him your life!)

So Christians try to become better people in response to what Jesus did. If you're not trying to do good then you can't be believing in Jesus because he told you to do good!

In response to the list of bad things that people of faith ("Better People") do...well, isn't it true that people who don't have a faith do all these things too?

My experience is that:
- the massive majority of religious people I know, of all faiths, are kind, loving, peaceful people, trying to live out high morals in a corrupt society
- the massive majority of nasty people I know, are very anti-religion

Note that I'm NOT saying that there are kind people who aren't religious, or nasty people who are. In fact, the massive majority of non-religious people I know are very nice people. But unlike people of faith, their morals are flexible and unpublished and not up to scrutiny.

I reckon that if you can show me one non-believer who does voluntary work I'll show you 5 believers who do. You show me one non-believer that gives a significant amount to charity and I'll show you 5 belivers who do. I don't have stats to prove it. That's my experience (as a non-believer for about 22 years, and as a believer for less than halfof that). My experience is that the UK would be a much worse place without the church, without the people of Mosque and Temple communities. I believe that the bad is far outweighed by the good.

The idea that we behave morally and ethically through fear of an imaginary being, rather than because we instinctively feel it is the right thing to do, is ridiculous. If your god wasn't looking, would you then feel free to behave as you like?

This raises the idea of having a moral source. Where does that instinctive feeling of right and wrong come from? We could have a nature/nurture discussion but nobody would win it. Here's some questions. Murder is generally construed to be wrong, isn't it? Why? Who says it's wrong? If we're just all just random lumps of atoms who are going to die anyway then why care? What reason is there to have a moral stance on anything? "To improve the quality of life for others?" I hear some say, but why do that? Why should I care about the quality of life of another random bunch of atoms?

I believe that God isn't just looking, he put within us the sense of right and wrong. As the bible says he "made us in his image" - that means that we have some sort of likeness to him. We all secretly long for the same good, right things that he does.

Back on the main topic...

As a Christian, I mess up. Can I square this with my faith? No! Every time I do something wrong God frowns upon me. But he picks me up, forgives me, gives me another chance. It's a battle. The bible doesn't promise you an easy life if you believe - quite the opposite, the Christian life is hard! Loving people is hard.

It's doubly hard on the road as a cyclist OR as a driver. But do something for me. Have a day, when you have no genuine reason to hurry, where you promise yourself to "be better" and drive or cycle politely. Let people into spaces. Give way. Stick to the speed limit. Stop at red lights. Wave people across. Heck, force a smile if you have to. Slow down and be nice. Forget about you, and think about everyone else. It's hard. But see what a sense of wellbeing you get.

Maybe that person jumping a red light has a kid in hospital who's dying. Maybe the person cutting you up is racing to see his first child be born. Maybe the learner in front is REALLY nervous and has panic attacks about being overtaken. Maybe these people are just crap, arrogant, and/or stupid drivers, but who are you to know?

There's a song: "...kindness is better than any sort of terror or any kind of spite/sometimes that means some come before you/what's gone returns in mystery, love and light"

Perhaps after a day of trying to do right, you'll understand why Christians try to be better. The bit of God in us that helps us know right and wrong also makes us feel good when we do right! And you'll have taken a step towards God's perfect world.

clarkson

grayo59 wrote:

I do notice that cars with a fish symbol (except fish delivery vans ) tend to have law abiding drivers.

the jesus fish! shows they're christian.

pneumatic

NlEDERMEYER wrote:

Point taken - to a point. If you lack the self discipline to be a "good person" maybe "churchin' up" is a way of addressing it. You could however do it without the fables and moral imperialism with the likes of the Rotary, Round Table or Lions organisations - I don't think they've ever issued edicts on homosexuality or birth control, or begeaded members for defectin to one of the other organisations.......

By the way, your cycling club church analogy is very prescient; my club (Gregarios, NW London) have just wrtten a clause forbidding condom use into the regs. My objections about spreading AIDS and other STIs fell on deaf ears, the club's policy is abstinence.

Not sure I know what you are going on about, Neidermeyer, but I dig the way your message signature links to mine!