One of the main strategies used by most religions to keep a hold on their congregations, is and always has been to make themselves indispensable for people's need for security - not just for personal salvation, but for the provision of services - for inclusion in social and community fabric of society - and for the safety in 'belonging', of 'being one of the gang'. That may indeed have been the reason for the invention of religion and it's original allure in the first place as an organisation for mutual support in a hostile world.

The church has always used people's social needs and services - community activities, health and education - quite deliberately, as a way of binding people to it's organisation. It knows that if people have to rely on being a member of a church in order to be included in the social life and support systems of a place, even if they do not really believe in the doctrine, they will stay 'within the fold' paying lip service to the religion in order not to feel excluded. People who live in places dominated by religion frequently express their feelings of exclusion.

It is a tactic that reinforces the pressures within families and communities to be loyal to a religion, cult or sect.

In countries that have developed secular services, welfare, leisure and community that do not depend on religious affiliation people do not need to fear 'exclusion' and lack of support, if they do not have to join a religion in order to fulfil these basic human needs, they are thus free of this particular pressure.

With secularisation - health and welfare services, education, and all manner of sports, leisure and social clubs free of ideology, comes freedom from fear of social isolation. Which is why religion is on the wane in countries in which people feel reasonably safe and secure, physically and psychologically. Secular welfare states such as those of Western Europe..

It also explains why here in the UK the churches are so desperate to hang onto 'faith schools', 'faith based welfare', and their premises that are used for community activities even when rational and financial consideration would lead them to close them as church premises - when they could hand them over to the community and use them on the same basis as anyone else. They are rightly afraid that if they lose that social glue the drain from their beliefs will continue.

This also explains to a large extent the apparent paradox of the USA, a nominally secular state which is also highly religious. I believe the personal and social insecurity of many if not most of its citizens, as a result of their lack of welfare and community services makes them feel vulnerable and unvalued. This in turn is a result of their history, belief in individualism, and their love of the protestant work ethic and the go-getting entrepreneurial culture that is so much part of the American way - why it favours competition over co-operation, private over public, that has prevented the development of comprehensive health and welfare services in America, the worlds richest country that has millions of people who live in poverty and deprivation. Particularly in the southern bible belt states. Compare this with Australia or Canada.

The same insecurity applies to people who live in poor and developing countries, and equally makes them ripe material for the supposed safety net of religions that offer them services and the 'feeling that they matter' if only to Jesus - that they belong, feelings not gained from the poverty stricken states or communities in which they live. Much of their traditional infrastructure of family and community support destroyed by missionary activities and supplanted by the Christianity.

That the better off in these societies also adhere to the religions does not contradict my explanation, since it is in their best interests that they are not called upon to pay for communally provided services. They have the best of both worlds. They can afford to pay for their own services, and do not have to pay for those services for those who can not. So there is not only no incentive for them to change anything that makes that easier, but from their advantaged point of view it makes sense for them to continue to support the institutions of the church.

Wherever this situation occurs, their religiosity is reinforced by their need to feel that they matter as individuals that is reflected in the care, in the form of services and welfare of their state.

While ever the religions can maintain their privileged position in society and be subsidised into the bargain, they will continue to pray on people's needs. And while ever people do not recognise their motives the tactic will continue to be effective, but with the rise of secular society, the need to rely on church, will diminish, and people will continue to feel able to leave the dependence on churches.

I think this explains why the poorest countries in terms of social security, and welfare, whether from economics or ideology, are also the most religious, and also explains the religion's choice of 'charity' rather than politics, equality and rights as method of choice in dealing with deprivation - when it has been shown to be ineffective in all but limited extent and in the short term.

Shaw