Certainly you have a point, I could be more informed on the theory. But I don't think that's all what matters. What reads in the Quran and how it's interpreted, and put into practice in different societies, countries and sects are two different things. For example, the Gulf-states would easily have the money to build the most well-being and equal welfare states in the world, if they so wished. Yet they haven't done it, which leads me to believe that no religion will overcome natural selfishness of people.
All religions teach their followers to show compassion towards the less fortunate of their society - and societies of all religions regularly fail to do this. Ideologies shouldn't be judged solely based on teachings, but also what actually happens. If there was an exceptionally good religion, it should deliver exceptionally good results. Religion and income inequality seem to have little correlation, which leads to a conclusion that they're all equally useful or useless in this practical aspect, no matter what other differences they may have.
In addition to that, buildings should be made to last. Badly designed or built houses can be just ticking time-bombs for mold and other air-quality issues, and certainly not sustainable.
Only when they find a job and integrate. At least most European countries haven't been very successful at making this happen with migrants/refugees who have little education and money when they arrive. It appears the US is better at this.
I fail to see this charity and kindness in practice, especially in case of modern Islam. The country which contains the most holy places of Islam has a reputation for treating its foreign workers like trash, and has some of the highest income inequality in the world. Their funding of hate preachers abroad isn't a very nice behaviour either.
It's not just the teachings that matter, but the actual reality and practice. Unfortunately many of those with most power in Islamic world prefer hate over kindness. Historically, same has often been the case with Christianity as well.
Twitter is probably the worst medium for developing a balanced, well-educated view of anything. Americans don't need more fast-paced social media, they need quality education and journalism that covers all sides of these issues.
But of course that's not going to happen. For modern people with attention span of a goldfish it's too much of an effort to read long texts - thus they'll just keep watching the news, or reading short, one-sided tweets full of hate.
As a Finn I wouldn't take any findings from our social scientists very seriously. By treating teens and children like adults they have already ruined our once great education system.
Same here. At least in Facebook you mostly communicate with people you've chosen to accept as friends, and know who they really are.
Reddit and Twitter on the other hand show all the bad sides of anonymity to the fullest. Way too much blind tribalism and conflict seeking, few adults actually capable of real discussion. So it's not only a waste of time, but one that gives you a bad mood as well.
Similar experiences here. I was a news addict for most of my youth. The general knowledge I gained that way sure helped me to ace college exams, but that's about it as far as benefits go.
All the negativity in news was definitely bad for my mental health. Constantly checking out news was also a giant waste of time - time that could have been spent on self-development, or something that makes me happy. Now I've blocked all news sites of my country on all my devices, and I definitely feel much better. Checking out bbc.com or whatever once a day is enough.
They'll just rebrand it, an average flyer won't know the difference between 737MAX and the older model by looks. At best they might be able to tell that it's a 737.
Yep, and the thing is that most Chinese don't even mind the high level of control for the time being. I don't see any significant large scale instability as long as the material quality of life continues to improve for the average Chinese.
Working hard is good, but working so hard that you completely neglect rest of your life isn't. For most people's well being things like family and hobbies are at least as important as work, and there's nothing wrong with that. If our economic system doesn't allow them to enjoy those parts of their lives, then the fault lies on the system, not on individuals.
All religions teach their followers to show compassion towards the less fortunate of their society - and societies of all religions regularly fail to do this. Ideologies shouldn't be judged solely based on teachings, but also what actually happens. If there was an exceptionally good religion, it should deliver exceptionally good results. Religion and income inequality seem to have little correlation, which leads to a conclusion that they're all equally useful or useless in this practical aspect, no matter what other differences they may have.