₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
Could you ever quit with the useless storytelling? 🥱🥱🥱

If the wellbeing of an innocent newborn is "useless storytelling to you, then nothing left to discuss with you. My concern remains with the child. Yours, it seems, is with scoring cheap points as well as protecting your ego.

correctguy101:
See this man o...

Some of us didn't plan o. We simply went with the flow and gbam, she's pregnant. I didn't plan my first but I was sure I was capable enough to shoulder such happenstance 😁...

But the old boy is not saying he can't care for the child. He's just saying he can't care for the child the way the females know how to. Even me wey dey here, I no go fit o.

You have spoken well ,and it shows you have empathy and are reasonable.

Kobojunkie:
She made sacrifices to raise him, so she should also make additional sacrifices to raise his child, too? 🥱🥱

2. Oh, he is not a family member and blood equally capable of making similar sacrifices for his own child as his own mother did for him? 🥱🥱

3. So, the father of the child cannot raise the child he wanted to have and impregnated a woman to have? 🥱🥱

What do you know about this person to know his mother never got help to "raise" him as a newborn baby?.

Our mothers know it's dangerous to leave a first-time mother alone with a newborn. It's for this reason we have cultural practices like "Omugwo" so an experienced mother or close relative can stay temporarily to provide critical care and assistance during the most vulnerable period of a baby's life..

This young man, aware he lacks the experience to provide that care, is wisely calling for help to prevent the baby from suffering, and he's willing to pay for it.

Yet people like you, for some strange reason, insist he do it himself. Do you want the baby to suffer the more, or even die, just so you can later blame him for failing at a task he was set up to fail?. That is not empathy. It's cruelty.

We're talking about a newborn, not a 3- year old who can walk and talk. Can you name one first-time mother in this country, or anywhere, who raised her newborn completely alone without any temporary help. You can't.

Even your own mother, when she had you certainly had help from her mother, mother-in-law or a close relative. She did not do it alone. Unless you're prepared to lie about that, your argument crumples. If you insist she did, then sorry to say, she acted irresponsibly by putting your life in severe danger.

A newborn needs all the care in the world to help its fragile brain develop in a way that will not impact its mental health later. And that care can only come from an experienced hand, which is why I believe this young man is begging for help. He is aware of his limitations, which is the first sign of a responsible parent. The baby's constant crying is toxic stress for its development.

lawani:
I agree that Ifa can be taught in schools. Comparative religion can be taught too but as you said it should not be taught to kids as truth. Ifa is science. Religion is not science

The purpose is not to teach these narratives as literal or scientific truth. If it were, I would not have hesitated in my reply to the student who questioned me about me about Angel Gabriel .

As with folktales, like the tortoise stories, the focus is on moral instruction, cultural understanding and critical thinking. The curriculum is designed for education about traditions , not indoctrination into them.

This distinction is clear in practice: Students who try to use doctrinal beliefs from their faith to answer exam questions in Religious studies usually do not perform well. The subject assesses understanding, not personal beliefs. It's exactly for this reason I am advocating for the teaching of local traditions like IFA in our schools so our people stop demonizing it due to ignorance.

lawani:
Not just in schools. It should be banned from the public space

No, religious studies should not be banned from schools.

The person who created this thread has set a trap, which you and others have unfortunately fallen into. His confusion is deliberate. If you reread his post carefully, you will see he intentionally uses misleading terms like "Bible class", or "Islamic studies" instead of Religious studies.This is to create the false impression that schools teach students religious doctrines or stories the way churches or mosques do, a disingenuous framing meant to provoke outrage and advance an anti-religious argument disguised as pro-science advocacy.

But the truth is that in our schools, Religious studies is taught with academic detachment. And its purpose is to educate students about the beliefs, histories, and practices of various religions and to draw from them ethical and moral lessons relevant to society.

I know this firsthand, having been temporarily assigned to teach it alongside English and literature at a private school years ago. As someone who has since left organised religion, I still found great value teaching the subject. Unlike in a church, students in a Religious studies class are free to question and express doubt.

Once, after I narrated how the Angel Gabriel inspired Prophet Muhammad in a cave to write the Quran, one of of my brightest students, who had been listening intently, asked, "Sir, how do you know Gabriel appeared to him? Were you there"?. It was an unexpected and sensitive question, especially with Muslim students present. Before I could formulate a careful reply, another student, who obviously noticed my hesitancy, intervened, asking him, "How do you know Jesus was crucified on the cross? Were you there"?. The first student fell silent, the point made. And the class continued without need for my intervention.

That is the essence of a Religious Studies classroom. It is a space for inquiry, not indoctrination; for discussion, not preaching.

It is also about understanding why people believe what they believe, how religion shapes culture and history, and how to engage respectfully in a multi-faith society. This is exactly why it is a mandatory subject in places like the UK, to foster informed citizenship, not conversion.

In fact, I would argue we should expand the curriculum to include the academic study of indigenous traditions like Ifá, allowing students to engage with their own heritage intellectually instead of through prejudiced or foreign lenses.

Removing Religious Studies or banning it , would not make students more rational. It would leave them culturally ignorant and ill-prepared to thoughtfully navigate the world.

DeepSight:
+
Fair enough but it's really a medical thing. Nothing like juju there. People just panic and yea a doc will inject a muscle relaxant to get it unstuck.

I think the point SIRTee15 is making is not that it isn't a medical phenomenon, but that it is extremely rare, so rare it borders on being considered a myth.

Base on this, if we're not dismissing the recent cases being discussed here and elsewhere as fabricated skits, how do you explain something documented as a rarity now seeming to occur with surprising frequency in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa? What do you think might account for this apparent contradiction?

Also, I'm curious to know your personal definition or understanding of juju? How do you perceive it?

jaephoenix:
These are not isolated cases. These are common occurrences. The way you argue confidently with a doctor concerning medical practice is amusing. The doctor is telling you something is common practice nd you're insisting it's not and telling me it's an anecdotal. I have told you several times that i have not done a poll on doctors to know their tendencies to attribute anything to spiritual,so whatever I'm saying is an estimate based off my practice experience. I hope this sticks to your brain and you won't say I'm contradicting myself

I will ignore your condescension. It is irrelevant. You continue to shift the goalposts, moving from "rife" to. "not very common" and back to "common occurrences", all while admitting your claims are estimates with no data. This is the definition of an unreliable, contradictory narrative. On a forum where anyone can claim to be anything, your credibility is your evidence, not your self proclaimed title, "doc"

Besides, I am not "confidently arguing medical practice" with you. I am demanding you provide evidence for your claims. Do not confuse the two.

Moreover, @DrAda whose professional opinion I sought, spoke clearly: such conduct is not standard practice and is a reportable ethical breach. She never claimed you lied, nor expressed doubt about your stories. Yet you misconstrued this professional standard as a personal attack. It is telling that I, a non-professional, understood her position perfectly, while you, a claimed doctor, struggled to grasp it.


And again, your excuse for not reporting; that the MDCN is "filled with Christians,
is a demonstrable lie. Its composition, I just found out by asking and researching, is a statutory national body representing the entire profession across Nigeria, including the Federal Ministry of Health and associations representing all practitioners. So your claim is a lie invented to justify your own inaction. Claiming it's homogeneously Christian is as absurd as saying the ICAN or NBA are. If you insist on this, provide the evidence.

The irony that has emerged from our conversation is this: you demand evidence from religious people all the time, but you offer only unverified, shifting anecdotes as your own proof. If this were truly common occurrences, it would be widely documented, not confined to stories.

But even accepting your anecdotes as true, you have completely failed your original task.

How do these stories proof that not suppressing religion causes underdevelopment. They don't. They are a deflection.

You're part of the problem you describe. The professional advice was clear: report malpractice, don't weaponise it online.

The task before you is simple. Provide the causal link between religion and underdevelopment with evidence, or concede your argument is baseless. That's all.

Here below is a screenshot which clearly shows the composition of MDCN. So you lie.

If we believe your claims about the MDCN then it means every doctor in Nigeria is a Christian. All the workers in the Federal ministry of health are Christians. Chai. See person I dey waste my time dey argue with.

Modified: Its current registrar, Professor Fatima Kyari, who oversees the day to day adminstration of the council, is a Muslim.

jaephoenix:
https://www.nairaland.com/8604257/how-brothers-fetish-girlfriend-almost
Triplechoice look at this article. This is exactly what I'm talking about. A physician cannot handle a case. What does he do? Instead of referring, he tells the folks to go spiritual,and of course,they will end up in a church and say the doctors have tried their best. As a doctor,you cant know every disease,or its management. Thats why we have a referral system in place. You have primary,seondary, tertiary and even quartenary levels of care.Refer to specialists to do their thing. This mindset is common amongst doctors in Africa,not just Nigeria. You cant try this in advanced countries,your license would just evaporate instantly. I keep on telling me but you have decided to stuff cotton wool in your ears
Learn!

You're deflecting. The main debate was never about whether isolated cases of medical misconduct exist. The debate was "Does suppressing religion cause a country's development?

You have failed to prove that. Instead, you've shifted to sharing anecdotal stories, which, even if true, are individual ethical failures, not evidence of your original thesis. Worse, you have taken these stories out of their context. A family friend doctor, in a hopeless case suggesting spiritual comfort is not the same as systemic malpractice. If the doctor were a stranger, or if the family were Muslim or atheist, such suggestion would be highly unlikely. Context matters, and you consistently ignore it. Do you expect the family to report their own friend for a suggestion they, as fellow believers, likely agreed with?

You, however, have no such excuse. As an atheist who claims to have repeatedly witnessed this malpractice, your failure to report it, using the flimsy excuse of the MDCN'S religious composition, makes you complicit. In the very countries you praise, your licence would be at risk for such consistent inaction. You are part of the problem you describe.

You also continue to contradict yourself. You claim this is "common", but if it were truly a common practice, formal reports and institutional data would exist, not just your unverified stories. Nobody is calling you a liar . Your stories could be true or false. But if you want to be believed, you must provide verifiable evidence, not hide behind the weak defense of , "you don't know this cos you ain't a doc".

Please return to the main debate or concede. Show the causal link between not suppressing religion and national underdevelopment. Everything else is a distraction .

budaatum:
I think you type more than you read. You wouldn't bother saying this to me if you had comprehended I wrote:

"I never said "Christianity is the cause of underdevelopment" in Nigeria, because that is just a stupid thing to say, considering Christianity is not the only religion in Nigeria, and the fact that Britain and the West, that some would say is developed was very Christian in its past."

You not hearing makes it tedious conversing with you.

No . you never said so.
The statement you quoted was a broad conclusion to the core debate, summarising the flawed argument put forth by jaephoenix that not "suppressing religion" alone is the cause of Nigeria's "demise. It was not a specific accusation directed at you .

In fact, I clearly noted our agreement on the real solution : investing in education and institutions. My concluding observation was about the wide pattern of the debate, not about your personally.

I apologise if the phrasing was unclear, but the intent was to close the loop on the main argument so it doesn't drift any further, and not to target you. Our common ground on education remains the most important point. Let's focus on that.

budaatum:
Sorry Triple, but if my mentioning Islam and the Quran and even traditional religions is insufficient for you I can not help you any further.

Your casual mention of Islam and traditional religion is insufficient to dispel the bias evident in your argument. Bias is shown not by a checklist of name , but by what you choose to ignore.

Your entire argument focused on behaviours stereotypically associated with certain Christians, "praying for daily bread" "seeking pastors over doctors", using exclusively biblically references. You did not critique a single practice unique to Islam or traditional faiths in this context, either looking forward to virgins in the afterlife or doing money rituals instead or hardwork. That is selective focus, which is the essence of bias.

More importantly, your analysis suffers from a far greater and more damaging bias: the deliberate exclusion of non believers from any blame.

You argued that religion and religious people are the problem. But who makes up the rest of Nigeria? Atheists, agnostics, myself included, and the irreligious are also citizens. If we're diagnosing a national failure, everyone must be in the diagnosis. To scapegoat one group is not just biased, it's intellectually dishonest and practically useless.

Who are the corrupt politicians looting funds for schools and hospitals? They are of all faiths and none. Many are arguably less constrained by religious moral codes.

Who violates traffic laws, evades taxes, and dump waste in canals? Nigerians of every belief, atheists and the irreligious included.

Who are the Nigerians with a reputation for lawlessness abroad? All. It is a national behavioural problem. An intelligent Ghanaian lady I once dated in Ghana said this to me; "the difference between you Nigerians and we Ghanaians is that while we obey our laws, you Nigerians don't obey your country's laws."
[b]
In functional democracies, secularisation was driven by atheists and freethinkers who took reai action, they built institutions, advanced science, and held power accountable. What have many Nigerian atheists done? A great number of them hide on social media, blaming the most vulnerable, the poor church or mosque ", goer" the victim of a broken system, while enjoying salaries from religious employers they publicly vilify. Yes a lot of atheists in this country are in the employ of religious people who they blame for the country's "demise". They do not lead the protest or build the alternatives they claim are needed. This is hypocrisy and cowardice. The Dangotes and the Otedolas of this country you dismiss as " believing in fairy tales written by primitive men", actually build industries and employ people. Dangote is a devout Muslim. Where are the atheist industrialists like those of other countries ( Elon Musk for instance) providing a tangible secular alternative model of success?.

The owner of this platform is an atheist whose business depends on the patronage of believers he often allows to be ridiculed. This is the paradox: a vocal minority benefits from the society it claims is solely ruined by the beliefs of the majority.[/b]

My position is this: Blaming ", religion" lets everyone off the hook, the corrupt atheist official, the lawless agnostic driver, the cynical troll who attacks from the shadows. It creates a simple villain and excuses the rest of us from introspection.

The solution is not to. ", suppress religion" or swap one groups dogma for another's. The solution is what I have always said: universal quality education, strong institutions, and the rule of law. This will empower everyone, believers and non believers alike, to contribute responsibly. Until your analysis includes all Nigerians in both the problem and the solution., it is not just biased, it is a distraction from the hardwork of national building.



Stop the scapegoating. Start thinking systemically. Nigeria is not the only country in the world whose citizens follow the Bible or the Quran. It has not stopped the development of many others. What stops development is the failure to build the institutions that allow a diverse society, of all faiths and none, to thrive.

budaatum:
I hope you are aware the entire conversation is still there for anyone to read from the beginning, which I did.

I never said "Christianity is the cause of underdevelopment" in Nigeria, because that is just a stupid thing to say, considering Christianity is not the only religion in Nigeria, and the fact that Britain and the West, that some would say is developed was very Christian in its past. What UK has that Nigeria has little of is the promotion of critical thought, which is a subject taught from primary school here, and could be said to have replaced religious belief. Religious belief has in fact been eliminated from the public sphere, and is a very private thing here. Critical thought, as opposed to belief, is what brought on the age of enlightenment, and which is what we would like introduced (more) in Nigeria.

The Bible and the Quran both have it written in it that one should work for ones food too, but it is not unusual for many to beg for their daily bread, which just shows that being religious doesn't mean they follow what their holy book says. If people did, atheist me would be promoting the religions because the books are precious to me.

I do not want to suppress anyone's religion however, and it is not suppressed here, though it historically has been. Catholicism was prohibited in UK I'd have you know, with cathedrals literally stripped and torn down. And the Catholic Bible was banned from England, hence the King James Version. The religion that was promoted to replace it, though still Christianity, was cleansed of a lot of beliefs that were not welcomed here. The Church of England does not even require belief, which is why you'd find atheist me in a church. The fruit of ones actions are valued more, and is why predominant Christian London, if any religion can claim predominance in London, elected a Muslim as mayor three times.

If Nigeria wants to progress, it must abandon a lot of the beliefs it holds dear (some of which is a lack of understanding of the religious books and the plastering of what is thought to be Islam and Christianity over our pre-christian/islam ideology). We must read the books with an inquisitive mind instead of just believing what we think we understand is written in those books

As far as health goes, it might help if we build more hospitals instead of religious temples. And we can go futher by teaching healthy lifestyles from primary school instead of leaving our health to the gods.

I have ignored your allegations and accusations because they are just your own biases, note. I am not here to score points, because it is foolish to ignore our common ground, which you intelligently expressed and which I have included below.



This is how UK suppressed (if one may use that word) religion, though it did include steps like abolishing preaching in schools too.

You continue to shift the goalposts and to obscure your original bias while failing to address the core issues directly.

You claim you never blamed Christianity, yet your entire argument was built on exclusively Christian examples, praying for daily bread, seeking priests for healing Instead of doctors, citing the Bible indirectly. You did not for once reference Islamic practice or the Quran to explain national problem affecting both faiths. This selective focus reveals a tacit bias, whether you consciously, admit it or not

And you continue to rely on vague, unsupported anecdotes, "many beg". This is not argumentation, it's generalisation. If you wish to make a factual claim about behaviour, provide data'. Otherwise, it remains a personal impression, not a basis for national policy.

Concerning, "suppression vs "secularisation" , you fundamentally misunderstand the UK's history. The break with the Catholic church was a political and doctrinal schism within Christianity, not a suppression of religion. The Anglican church that replaced it was, and remains, a state religion. The secular public sphere in the UK today is the result of the Enlightenment, education, critical thought, not a state policy of "abolishing" belief. This is the crucial distinction; the UK educated it's way to secularism, it did not at any time deliberately tried to suppress its way to development. You are conflating the two

I am happy we both agree on the need for critical thought and education. That has been my central argument from the start. Where we disagree is your insistence on framing this as needing to "abandon beliefs" or " suppress" religion. The goal is not to make people atheists. The goal. is to empower them with the tools to think for themselves so it becomes difficult to manipulate them.

A person can be deeply religious and also a critical thinker, a scientist, and a productive citizen. The problem in Nigeria is not the presence of belief, but the absence of the educational framework that allows belief and reason to coexist productively

You're advocating for education, which I support, but dressing it up in the language of cultural suppression, which I reject. Let's focus on building the schools, training the teachers, and strengthening the institution's . Empower the people, and they will navigate their beliefs, or lack thereof, just fine, as they do in every truly developed society.

budaatum:
From my own reading, it is you who sees the core debate as you've expounded.

Nigeria's underdevelopment is due to bad ideology, and that ideology is religion based, which is why some go to a priest for healing instead of to a qualified doctor, and pray for their daily bread instead of seeking it with the sweat of their brow.

I do not however agree that a religion like Christianity and Islam or even our traditional worship can not be suppressed, so education is the way to go, as it would significantly inform individual choice. And that suppression will involve limiting where religion is preached (and taught), hence definitely not in the education system.

You came into this discussion late hence the reason you are making the same fundamental errors like jaephoenix..

First, you are cherry picking evidence from the Bible. You quote biblical passages about faith while ignoring verses that clearly command hard work, prudence, and seeking skilled helped, eg, the parable of the Talents, "he who does not work shall not eat", "the sick needs a physician". "the sweat of your brow" You have used selective reading to support a preconceived conclusion, not honest analysis.

Second, you are confusing correlation with causation and revealing a clear religious bias. You observe that some people choose prayer over doctors and conclude that Christianity is the cause of underdevelopment, ignoring that Nigeria has millions of Muslims who follow the Qur'an. This is a logical error.

Your cherry picked biblical verses ignore the Qur'an's equally strong commands for action, work, and seeking knowledge. For example, the Qur'an states , "Tie your camel and then put your trust in Allah", emphasizing practical action before faith. Therefore, the behavior you describe cannot be blamed on "religion" as a monolithic cause.

The vast majority of Nigerians, including devout believers of both faiths, do seek medical care and work tirelessly. You are taking the passive behavior of a minority and incorrectly attributing a national crisis to religious texts, while ignoring the real systemic causes: failed infrastructure, poor education, and corrupt governance.

Furthermore, your language is imprecise and unscientific. You use terms like , "some" and "a few", which are meaningless without data. In any rigoruos analysis, sample size and reoresentativeness matters a lot. You cannot diagnose a nation's problem based on vague anecdotal observations.

In addition, you misunderstand the nature of religion and suppression. Religion is , at its core, a system of internal belief. Its outer expression (preaching, rituals) is just one manifestation. Millions are deeply religious without ever attending a gathering. Therefore, you cannot suppress religion by simply removing it from school curricula or banning public preaching.

The only way to diminish its influence over public life is to outcompete it with better ideas, through education, critical thinking, and tangible improvement in quality life

And the UK proves my point, not yours. The UK is developed not because it suppressed religion, but because it invested in education, science, and strong institutions. Its secular public sphere is the result of that educated, critical populace, not the cause of its development .The UK has not banned religion or is actively suppressing it. It has only separated church from state to protect pluralism.

Therefore, you have presented correlation, anecdote, and selective reading as causation. Until you can provide empirical causal evidence that religion, not poor governance, poverty, or lack of education, is the primary cause of Nigeria's underdevelopment, your argument remains an ideological opinion, not factual analysis.

Invest in people's minds, not policing their beliefs.

budaatum:
I do not think a country can ban a dominant religion like Christianity and Islam. Some countries where they were not dominant (China, Japan) tried it at some point or the other and failed. Besides, knowledge of UK (and world) history would be incomplete if one does not understand the role religion has played and currently plays in the British society.

Its not like we can ban church and mosques for those who want to go there. Its preaching must however be restricted in schools as it is in UK schools, and is a reason many (Nigerian) youths leave the church their parents force them to attend as soon as they depart for university, as it is not easy to convince children who have been taken to see dinosaurs in the museum that some god created the heaven and earth in six days then rested.

The battle is between those who want people to not be empowered and those who do want to empower people, and that does indeed involve increasing access to information and teaching to think critically, which would involve restricting the preaching of (Nigerian type) religion to some extent as has been done in UK schools.

P.S. I specifically used the word "preaching" to delineate it from 'teaching' about. It is a confusion you made about my action regarding a morc, where you thought I was preaching (to grow a congregation) when I was actually teaching (and providing information) so most don't waste their money. The same sort of teaching, in schools, as opposed to preaching, is emptying UK churches. Though on that note, please read kayjordan's detailed opposing view.

No, you have misunderstood me because you have diluted it with the past Amorc incident. The context is not the same.

I did not accuse you of deliberate confusion. I even commended you at the end for exposing his illiteracy. Was that your intention? No.

The confusion I mentioned stemmed from Jaephoenix's misinterpretation of what you shared. He took your statement, "preaching is even banned in UK schools", to mean it was banned everywhere, and as validation of his argument that the UK actively restricts religion.

Before you joined the conversation, he had argued that the UK restricts religion by banning preaching in "certain areas". I corrected him, explaining that this is public nuisance law that applies to everyone, not a policy specifically targeting religion.

That is why someone like him, who already misunderstands the law, would interpret your words as confirmation of his view. So, the confusion was his, not yours.

If you had seen my follow up comment, I clarified to him that if he actually read your link, he would have realised you were referring to the ban on preaching creationism in public schools, not a blanket ban on preaching in the UK.


My statement, "Budaatum brought confusion by what he shared" ,was about his misreading, not your intent. I hope this clears this up the misunderstanding.

The discussion has drifted. So, let me restate the core debate. We are not debating the merits of banning preaching. The main argument is:

Does suppressing religion cause a country's development, and is Nigeria's underdeveloped because it has failed to restrict or totally remove religion?.

Jaephoenix claimed the UK is evidence of this, arguing that its restrictions on preaching in "certain areas" shows it suppresses religion, which he links to its development.

My counter has been that the UK's laws are public nuisance regulations, not evidence of religious suppression for development. He has misunderstood this, and when you shared the link about creationism in schools, he took it as further proof of his misinterpretation.

jaephoenix:
Please tell triplechoice. I'm tired of educating him

Your condescension is misplaced, especially given your failure to establish a single causal link for your main argument.

More importantly you are clowning yourself with contradictions. You denied ever advocating for a "ban", claiming you only supported restriction". Yet, the same you is endorsing a link about the UK banning the teaching of creationism as sciences in schools, as if it supports your call for "removing religion totally" from the state.

These are not the same. A ban on unscientific education is not a ban on religion. Budaatum created confusion by linking banning of preaching to banning of teaching of creation or unscientific claims in UK schools

Before you educate another, go through the link and educate yourself first that the UK policy "bans " teaching creationism in science classes. No policy bans the "preaching of religion" outside that context. In fact, religious studies, learning about faiths, remains compulsory subject in UK schools.

So , you are not educating anyone. You are confusing a specific educational standard, no pseudoscience in science class, with your own broad, unproven prescription, "total removal of religion". One is about fact based education, the other is about authoritarian control.
In any case, I can only thank Budaatum for exposing your illiteracy. You failed to comprehend what he wrote and shared.

jaephoenix:
I didn't say banning the preaching. I never said anything about total suppression. I said RESTRICTION. I suggest you check the meaning of that word

You're now attempting to rewrite history. Your position was not merely about "restriction". You stated clearly and unequivocally that "removing it totally from the state is paramount".

The words, "removing it totally" do not mean "restricting" . They mean complete eradication, a ban. You cannot "totally remove" something while only "restricting" it. The two are mutually exclusive.

You're denying your own words, and that is intellectual dishonesty . It is either you stand by your call for "total removal", which aligns with your initial argument about "suppressing religion" , or you are now retracting it and admitting your initial prescription was extreme and unworkable.

And please do not deflect by questioning my literacy. Your advice about checking the meaning of words is ironically best heeded by you. You have consistently flip-flopped in your own claims, from calling a practice "rife" to retreating to "not very common," Confront your own inconsistency.

The question now is , do you stand by your call for the total removal of religion from the state, or do you retract it?

Here below

"total removal is paramount" jaephoenix

jaephoenix:
You're right. Critical thinking skills are important for nation growth and unhindered religion is the outcome. However, suppressing religion is a good point, and removing it totally from the state is paramount. You won't see developed countries tell its citizens that security comes from any god
But you're right anways

budaatum:
Akinpedia highlighted deficiencies in our education system that dishes out degrees to the unlearnt.

And a solution might be to make science compulsory to first level uni, though a standard of learning would need to first be established so failures aren't passed.

No. Making "science compulsory" at the first year university level would be counterproductive. A scientific mindset can, and must, be instilled much earlier, at the foundational, elementary level.

By the time students reach university, their core cognitive habits are largely formed. So, forcing a social science or arts students into a compulsory, intensive science course at that stage would be a source of frustration and a distraction from developing their actual strengths . It risks turning science into a barrier rather than a tool for critical thinking.

budaatum:
You can't even preach religion in schools in UK.

https://humanists.uk/2014/06/18/victory-government-bans-existing-future-academies-free-schools-teaching-creationism-science/

"You can't even preach religion in schools in UK" is not the same as banning the preaching of religion in the UK. Is it?

budaatum:
I confess I arrived at this thread looking for you, and find delight in the above.

Going to pastors and imams is just an evolution from us going to babalawo, which proves your point that religion (and the promotion of ignorance and non critical reasoning) is a vehicle (for control).

It was clearly used to deliberate disempower and control Adam, who it was written was scared from acquiring knowledge least it kill him. The same narrative however also teaches how Eve used her senses (to do a scientific experiment) and prove knowledge does not kill, but some hid her sense use behind a serpent.

I really appreciate your thoughtful engagement and am glad my point resonated. You have accurately captured the essence of the argument.

Yes, the vehicle may change form, from the Babalawo to the pastor, but the mechanism remains the same: the strategic discouragement of critical inquiry and independent thought to maintain control. The Adam and Eve allegory you reference is a perfect example. It's a story about the perceived danger of knowledge used within a system that can discourage questioning.

This is why the solution is not to ban the current vehicle, (religion) , but to disable the mechanism by empowering people with education, critical skills and immediate access to information. Once must people in Nigeria can think for themselves, no vehicle of control, religious, political, or otherwise, can operate as effectively.

jaephoenix:
If you don't believe my stories, why would you believe DrAda's views? Cos it aligns to your narrative? If it didn't align to your own narratives, you'd have chucked it aside like you're doing mine. That's dishonest.
I can't tell you how often those actions by those doctors happens cos I haven't done a poll,so I stick to estimates. But if you choose to ignore them,then so be it.
Those consultants tell them to pray and DID NOT REFER THEM. That's negligent! You don't k ow this cos u ain't a doc

Which "narrative"? I do not hold a narrative. You're the one spreading a damaging narrative that the MDCN is incompetent and biased, and that Nigerian doctors routinely substitute prayer for medicine.

To move beyond your unverified stories, I sought an objective professional perspective. If you believe @,DrAda's professional judgement, that such conduct is unethical and reportable, is false, then challenge her directly. Provide your evidence to her, not me, and let's see the outcome. Until you subject your claims to professional scrutiny, they remain what they have always been: unsubstantiated anecdotes in service of your own ideology.

This is not about whom to believe. It is about professionalism. And the difference is very clear. @DrAda stated a verifiable professional and ethical standard applicable to all doctors: "Any healthcare professional who promotes such dangerous practice... should be reported." This is a verifiable professional norm, a benchmark. You provided unverifiable personal anecdotes. One is a standard; the other is gossip. They are not the same.

Your statement, "You don't know this cos u ain't a doc is a diversion. Medical outcomes are not secret knowledge. If your stories were true and widespread, we would see public outcry, official complaints, and media investigations. The deafening silence and lack of corroborating evidence are telling. This is a faceless forum where anyone can claim to be anything. Your insistence on possessing secret knowledge, like a witchdoctor, while offering zero verifiable details destroys your credibility. He who alleges must prove. The burden is on you.

If you are a doctor and witness negligence, your ethical duty is the report it, not to use it as a rhetorical weapon online. Your inaction contradicts your professed outrage.

You have really failed. You failed to prove your original thesis about religion and national development. You have also failed to prove your anecdotal claim about systemic medical malpractice

When you're ready to engage with verifiable facts and causal logic, rather than stereotypes and incomplete stories, we can talk. Until then, you're only talking to yourself.

Modified: You have moved from a definitive "it is rife" to "not very common", back to "rife" and now to an unscientific guess because you "haven't done any poll". An estimate without a method is not analysis, it is prejudice. You're admitting that your major anecdote, the entire foundation of your medical malpractice claim, is nothing more than a personal feeling presented as fact.

There is nothing left to discuss with you again. You're not arguing with evidence, you are arguing with a shifting sentiment that keeps changing each time it is challenged. This is not how truth is established.
Number 1

jaephoenix:
Yes,suppressing religion grows a country. Lemme explain
As a doctor,if I tell a patient that he should have faith in god and ignore his meds,I could lose in license in the UK. But in Nigeria, it's rife.

Number 2 where you retreated to "not very common" after I challenged the first one.

jaephoenix:
I'm a doctor,trust me. My colleagues take this religious shit serious. Though not very common but they do it.

Number 3. In your reply to @DrAda, you reverted to "rife", again.

jaephoenix:
I did not say it's standard practice. I said it's rife.

Number 4. After I called you out for your inconsistency, the below is your latest position .

jaephoenix:
I can't tell you how often those actions by those doctors happens cos I haven't done a poll,so I stick to estimates. But if you choose to ignore them,then so be it.

A story that changes each time it is challenged is not credible. If you presented this shifting testimony in a court of law, your case would be dismissed for fatal inconsistency and a complete failure to meet the burden of proof.

jaephoenix:
I did not say it's standard practice. I said it's rife. A patient told me her doc told her to come to her church for her subfertility. Another colleague told me that he used anointing oil to guard against covid and he encouraged his patients to do so. I have consultants that have told many cancer patients in my presence to pray,that god is the one that heals and not medicine. In advanced countries these guys would lose their license so fast. Not in Nigeria. Go and report to MDCN and see.Do I go on? You know I'm not lying

You're still missing the critical point through a mix of anecdotal evidence and intellectual dishonesty.

Not only are your stories unverifiable, but you also cannot maintain a consistent claim about their prevalence. You initially called this practice "rife" . When challenged, you retreated to "not very common". Now in your reply to DrAda, you have reverted to calling it "rife" again. This glaring contradiction shows you're using emotionally charged language not to describe reality, but to prop up a failing argument.

Now, you're conflating supportive statements with malpractice. A consultant telling a Christian cancer patient "God is the one who heals" while continuing their full medical protocol is not telling them to " abandon medicine". It is a form of psychological and spiritual support integrated into care worldwide. You're deliberately stripping these statements of their contexts to make them sound like instructions to stop treatments.

Your other evidence remains personal and unverifiable. "A patient told me", "another colleague" in my presence" , these are stories, not data. They prove noting about systemic practice or national policy

Furthermore, you are arguing against a straw man. No one, including@DrAda, claims Nigeria's medical oversight is perfect. The point is that isolated cases of unprofessional conduct exist in every country and are handled by regulatory bodies, not by blaming an entire religion. Your claim that the MDCN is completely ineffective and biased is a cynical generalisation you use to avoid your duty to report factual malpractice. Not reporting it is also malpractice which makes you complicit in the matter.

Honestly, this entire tangent is a deflection and you know it. Your original thesis was that not surpressing religion clauses national underdevelopment. You have failed to provide a shred of evidence for that. Instead, you have latched onto vague doctor stories because you simply cannot prove your main claim.

If you have evidence of malpractice, act on it. If not stop using unverified stories to support a failed ideological argument.


Here are your contradictions. First, your initial statement

jaephoenix:
As a doctor,if I tell a patient that he should have faith in god and ignore his meds,I could lose in license in the UK. But in Nigeria, it's rife.

Later you retreated to "though not very common" when challenged.

jaephoenix:
I'm a doctor,trust me. My colleagues take this religious shit serious. Though not very common but they do it.

But in your reply to DrAda, you have reverted to it's "rife" again.

This evidence is taken from this same page. Anyone following, just need to read from the beginning to confirm..I have also screenshot it

DrAda:
Thank you for taking the time to address and correct the misinformation that is rife on this platform.

Please kindly disregard the claim that it is standard practice for doctors to advise patients to rely on religion in place of appropriate clinical care. This is entirely wrong.

Any healthcare professional who promotes such dangerous practice is acting unethically and should be sued and reported to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) for appropriate disciplinary action.

Personally, I counsel my patients to beware and always verify the claims of miracle vendors.

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide this clear and professional clarification. Your authoritative input is greatly appreciated and will help ensure accurate responsible discussion on this important matter.

jaephoenix:
I don't need to convince you cos I can't convince you. What you'll do is ask any doctor if Nigerian doctors tell patients to do spiritual stuff. One even went on Instagram saying that childbirth is spiritual and he fights spiritual battles. Its no use reporting to MDCN. There's more Christians there who'll discard the complaint

You're correct about one thing: you cannot convince me. And it's not because I am close minded, but because you have failed to support your original claim and now arguing with strategic ambiguity.

Your argument that religion must be suppressed for development is a popular but historically illiterate talking point among a certain fringe, militant atheists. It confuses correlation with causation and deliberately ignores overwhelming evidence.

If your theory were true, we would expect atheist and secular states to be universally developed, but they are not. North Korea and the former Soviet bloc are telling examples.

If your theory were true, we would expect religious nations to be universally poor,but they are not. The United states, Poland, Italy, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are all developed nations where religion is culturally central and often constitutionally recognised.

If your theory were true, development would be impossible without prior religious suppression. History, however, shows the opposite: development through education, science, and strong institutions often leads to increased secularisation , not the other way around.

What you are likely misinterpreting, either willfully or ignorantly, is a universal, ethical practice in palliative and critical care. Medical professionals worldwide may integrate spiritual or psychological support to help patients cope with trauma or terminal illness. This is not " they ask them to pray Instead of medicine", it is ", medicine for the whole person". It is a far cry from your sensational claim of your colleagues telling malaria patients to abandon treatment. No Nigerian doctor anywhere does that.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide one credible, causal link between "not surpressing religion" and "national demise". You have failed each time. Instead you continue to offer ambiguous anecdotes, self contradictions, and deflections. You have moved from ,. " they tell their patients to abandon medicine for prayers" to the vague, harmless phrase, "they ask them to do spiritual stuff" which can be interpreted to mean anything.

Worse still, you first claimed this practice was "rife", then retreated to saying it is "not very common". This contradiction is fatal. If the behaviour is not "very common" , according to you, it cannot possibly explain a national ", demise". By your own admission, most Christian doctors do not engage in it, so why blame Christianity or a religious text for the personal failing of a few? .

Furthermore, you have just revealed the depth of your bias with one final telling statement. You claim there is "no use reporting to MDCN" because " there are more Christians there" who would "discard the complaint"

This is an unsubstantiated and cynical slander against an entire professional regulatory body. For someone who claims to be a medical professional, this statement is astonishingly unprofessional and defeatist. To be honest, it makes it very difficult for anyone to believe you are actually a doctor. You sound less like an insider concerned with ethics and more like an
outsider cynically smearing a profession he demonstrably knows very little about .

The MDCN , like any credible medical board worldwide, is bound by professional ethics and legal standards, not religious affiliation. To suggest they would universally cover up malpractice is not only insulting, but also a baseless excuse to avoid providing the evidence you lack.

If you truly believe a colleague is endangering lives, you have an ethical and professional duty to report it, regardless of who sits on the council. Your refusal to do so, while publicly making the accusation, proves this was never about ethics or evidence, but merely a rhetorical ploy to smear a profession and support a week argument.



The debate is now circular and the sole reason is because you have not proven your point.

Let me state it one final time; Nigeria's challenges are rooted in governance, infrastructure, and economic policy. Scapegoating religion is a convenient, simplistic fantasy that lets the truly responsible, corrupt elites and broken systems, off the hook.

When you are ready to discuss the actual levers of progress, we can continue. Until then, you're merely promoting a prejudiced ideology disguised as analysis. I am no longer interested in reading it.


Modified:
@DrAda, I would appreciate your professional opinion on a concerning claim made in this discussion. The individual I'm debating has asserted that it is a common, or at least not uncommon, practice among Nigerian doctors to advise patients to abandon their medications in favour of prayers alone. When challenged, he modified the claim, stating it was "not very common", but still happening among his colleagues.

More alarmingly, when advised that such malpractice should be reported to the MDCN, he just dismissed the idea in his latest reply, claiming the council is dominated by Christians who would ignore any complaint. As a matter of public health and professional ethics, this is a serious allegation.

Given your standing, I would value your perspective. Could you comment on the ethical and professional implications of such claims, and perhaps pose the necessary questions to him to clarify this matter.

Thank you.

MaxInDHouse:
You are now going to the extreme!


According to that verse no human can live safely without guidance from God that's why the wise man said:

Trust the Lord completely, and don’t depend on your own knowledge. With every step you take, think about what he wants, and he will help you go the right way. Proverbs 3:5-6

A follower of Christ Jesus word says:

We know that we belong to God, but the Evil One controls the whole world. 1John 5:19

This means that there is no one who is completely free from control it's either the person subjects himself to control from God or follow the worldly trends which belongs to Satan according to Jesus no one can sit on the fence:

You can enter true life only through the narrow gate. The gate to hell is very wide, and there is plenty of room on the road that leads there. Many people go that way. But the gate that opens the way to true life is narrow. And the road that leads there is hard to follow. Only a few people find it. Matthew 7:13-14

The guy you are discussing with may not know it deeply as i'm explaining now but the truth remains that something must control a man.
Why?
Because we live in the human society where we try to blend with common trends so only those who are subjecting themselves to God's will can escape Satan's snare! 1Peter 5:8

I suggest you use the word, "guidance" not "control". Using "control" not only makes you sound like QuinQ, but it also renders your argument invalid.

Positive guidance, regardless of its source, is not the same as "coerce control". Guidance consists of suggestions or instructions for acting in our own and others best interests. Coerce control, on the other hand, removes agency and autonomy.

If you equate the two, you are effectively saying God is a dictator who strips us of free will to control us like zombies. There is no evidence this is the case. In fact, evidence points to the opposite: deeply religious people sometimes live troubled lives, while many non-religious people live well-structured, ethical and happy lives without submitting to any god.

This is the puzzle you must unravel, not by citing more Bible verses, but by engaging with observable reality.

Please explain this: How can millions of people who do not follow your religion live happily, act ethically, and contribute positively to society?.

If , as 1 John 5:19 states, "the Evil one controls the whole world" and if Satan's nature is purely destructive ( John 10:10), then how is any good produced by those under his control? . Your church theology creates a contradiction that scripture alone cannot resolve.

I will acknowledge this; you understand the biblical perspective better than QuinQ, as seen in your more doctrinal reply. But please do not confuse divine guidance with coercive control. Why would God give humans free will only to forcefully override it? Upon reflection, that makes no sense.


My central question remains unanswered: What observable, non-biblical evidence supports the idea that coerce control ( something must control a man) is a universal necessity?

Until you can provide that evidence, your position remains a doctrinal belief, not a demonstrable truth. You are describing a worldwide you hold because the Bible presents it, not because you can point to independent verification that the world actually operates on a strict " God or Satan" control mechanism. Belief is not evidence.

MaxInDHouse:
‭Jeremiah 10:23

Lord, I know that people’s lives are not their own; it is not for them to direct their steps.‭ NIV‬

O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. KJV

I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step. NWT

God supposed to direct us on right and wrong {Genesis 2:17} otherwise we will complicate issues for ourselves just as you can see it happening today.

So if it's not God's word that's controlling someone surely Satan will take over! Matthew 12:43-45

I appreciate the scriptural references you have provided, but they do not support the original claim I questioned. In fact, they illustrate a complete misreading.

Jeremiah 10.23 is about guidance, not coercive control, "something must control a man". The prophet is expressing humility and a request for divine guidance. "Lord, I know I cannot navigate this alone, please direct my path". This is the plea of a believer within a relationship, asking for wisdom, not declaring a universal truth that all humans are mindless Zombies who must be externally controlled.

To equate a request for guidance with the necessity of coerce control is to confuse partnership with a prison.

Mathew 12. 43-45 is a metaphor about habit, not a literal law of spiritual occupancy.The human mind is not a literal house.

The parable is a powerful metaphor for the human psyche. It describes how an empty passive mind, one that merely "cleans house" without filling it with positive purpose, is vulnerable to failing back into old, destructive patterns ( the seven other spirits). It is lesson about the danger of spiritual or moral emptiness, not a literal description of demonic possession. To use it as proof that a non-believer's mind will be " taken over by Satan is to ignore its literary form and psychological insight.

So, none of the passage supports the original sweeping claim, "something must control a man". a state of being acted upon. What you have provided are verses about seeking guidance and the dangers of an empty life.

Guidance is something one can accept or reject. Coerce control removes agency. QuinQ spoke of the latter. You have provided examples of the former.

What we observe in the world are billions of individuals who do not practice Christianity, yet live well-structured, ethical and productive lives, contributing positively to their societies and families. According to the logic you've presented these people must be under the control of the destructive force described in the Bible. This leads to an absurd conclusion, that the kindness, scientific innovation, justice, and love demonstrated by non-believers are the products of Satan that by biblical definition, "comes only to steal and kill and destroy". This is not a coherent or credible explanation for observable human goodness.



Therefore, my question to you and QuinQ is; Where is the observable evidence that humans cannot be Seif-governing agents, and that coercive control is a universal necessity?

SIRTee15:
Society controls u. U do what's expected of u not what u want to do.
U work to make money, u don't go about picking other people's money.
U don't start beating people just because u hate them otherwise u end up in jail.

It's worse in western country. The control is beyond ordinary.

U can't even discipline your child the way u want, govt tells u how to discipline your child.
U can lose your house to your wife in case of divorce and govt will force u to pay the mortgage even when you don't live in it anymore.
U can't say what u want on social media, u could be banned or even jailed. Yes, u heard me- jailed.

U are not even allow to type kill on social media, it's now unalive.
anti-Semitism is not tolerated and recently they have added Islamophobe. Insulting the prophet of Muslims can send u to jail in UK.
In the US, A woman u slept with once 9 months ago can put your name as the Father of her newborn baby without ur knowledge or permission; and the govt will force I to pay child support until that child is 18 yrs.
Even if the DNA proves u not the Father, it changes nothing. Govt will still force u to pay child support even with DNA evidence.

There's no freewill anywhere. U are being controlled - ita a matter of choosing who to control u, society or Christ.

I am not convinced that the sort of "control" you have detailed is the same as QuinQ"s.

In any case, what you have referred as "society controlling the individual" is a complete mischaracterisation.

Firstly, control requires consent and interpretation. Nobody can control you without a degree of your consent. If you live under rules you consider objectionable, you have the choice to relocate, protest, or work to change them. More importantly, as humans, we are always in control of our responses. How we react to external circumstances depends on our interpretation of the situation. Interpreting social rules as "coerce control" ignores this core human agency.


Secondly, societal laws are a cooperative project, not an imposed control. Society is not controling me without my consent when I choose to obey laws that I am also responsible for creating or upholding, directly or indirectly. These laws exist to protect the rights I myself enjoy. Since I would not be happy if someone stole my property. It is not "control" to lead by example and respect the property of others. This is mutual respect codified as "Love your neighbour as you love yourself".

Furthermore, it is not control if I choose to obey laws that encourage treating my partner with respect, thereby avoiding a divorce with painful legal consequences.

It is not control if I choose to obey laws that restrain me from disciplining my child abusively, preventing lifelong trauma I would later regret.

It is not control if I obey laws that encourage me to take responsibility for the potential consequences of my own actions, such as the child that may result from a sexual encounter. If a child is born, and paternity is questioned, a temporary obligation to provide care pending a DNA test is not societal tyranny or coerce control. It is a prudent and ethical safeguard. It ensures an innocent child is not abandoned in limbo. If the child turns out to be mine after DNA test, I will have acted responsibly from the start. If not, I will have committed no crime by providing temporary care and may have done a profound social good for an innocent life. This is not what control is , but the mature burden of consequence.

Finally, it is not control if social media laws remind me to act responsibly, protecting others from harm as I wish to be protected.

I am not the only person in society. Acting without consideration for others is not freedom or exercising freewill. It is unconscious, selfish behaviour that ultimately backfires. Consciously choosing to uphold rules that create order and safety is the height of being in control, not evidence of being controlled. You have confused protection for oppression or control..


What is even worse is that your final conclusion renders your entire argument invalid.

You claimed that "There is no freewill anywhere........ It's matter of choosing who to control u, society or Christ". If there is no free will,. " choosing" is impossible. Your own rhetoric requires the very agency your premise denies. This contradiction alone collapses the logical structure of your argument. You cannot demand people exercise a choice you claim does not exist.

And again, your proposed "choice" solves nothing. But let's assume you mean we do have this one stark choice, your entire argument fails to answer the most obvious question:

If I choose Christ, how does that change any of the societal realities you listed?.

Does it nullify U.S divorce law or child support orders? No.

Does it grant a legal exemption to post threats or hate speech online? .No.

Does it permit you to physically abuse your child if you feel it's biblically justified? No. You would still be arrested.


Therefore, you are not presenting a choice between two functional controllers. You are asking me to follow all these societal laws and also submit mine internal worldwide to Christ. This is your trying to scam me. Society governs my actions in the public sphere through laws I have consented to. The religious alternative you propose governs beliefs and conscience.


Ultimately, I do not subscribe to your belief system, and so not under any obligation to make the choice you prefer. True autonomy lies not in rebelling against necessary social agreements, but in consciously participating in them while reserving the sovereignty of one's own mind.


Thank you

MaxInDHouse:
It's written in the Bible!😟

Which part of the Bible teaches that an external system must control a person, and what is the reasoning given there?
And how do you respond to the observation that many humans live structural, ethical lives without subscribing to the Bible .

jaephoenix:
No such laws exist in Lagos,at least to the best of my knowledge. Churches do road parades beside hospital ICUs without restrictions. Even in Ikeja GRA mosques use loudspeakers. Same for my areas.

Your claim that "no such laws exist in Lagos" is simply a statement of your personal ignorance, not fact. Regulations on noise pollution exist in Lagos state and are enforced in specific zones. That you see loudspeakers used elsewhere proves only that not all areas are restricted zones, not that the laws don't exist. This talk is irrelevant. The main point stands: such regulations , whether in Nigeria or the UK, are about public order, not religious suppression, If the intent were to suppress religion, only religious gatherings would be targeted. The fact that these laws apply equally to nightclubs, political rallies, and street parties proves their secular adminstrative purpose.

I'm a doctor,trust me. My colleagues take this religious shit serious. Though not very common but they do it.

You're now contradicting yourself. At first, you stated this practice was "rife" . Now, you admit it is "not very common' .

So, which is it? A widespread, systemic problem ( rife)or an uncommon, individual failing ( not very common)You cannot have it both ways. This double-speak reveals that you are generalising from unverified, personal anecdotes to support a pre-existimg bias..

If it is "not very common" then you are describing the personal unethical conduct of a few individuals. This is a failure of professional oversight and personal ethics, not evidence that "religion" is causing national underdevelopment. It is wrong to blame an entire belief system for the misconduct of a handful of people who also happen to be believers.

If it is "rife" , then you are making an extraordinary serious allegations about the Nigerian medical establishment which you are a part of. The burden of proof is on you. where is the evidence? Where are the official reports, the hospital inquires, the media investigations ?

The truth of the matter is that you have no proof for either clam. You are using vague contradictory, and unsubstantiated stories to smear an entire profession and, by extension to support your flawed thesis about religion.

Furthermore, if you are a doctor and are aware of colleagues engaging in such malpractice, and you are not reporting them to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria, then you are ethically complicit in the very misconduct you are complaining about

About prayers in US Congress and the US motto,u r getting me wrong. I said no president has said that they will depend on prayer instead of fighting. Trump is a war monger and resorts to belligerent means and not prayers. Read properly. Even US is not a Christian country, though their motto says otherwise.

You're still missing the point, and now misrepresenting mine .

I never claimed any president,. Nigerian or American, said they would "depend on prayer instead of fighting" I said that references to faith by leaders, whether Trump, Netanyahu , Tinubu or a Nigerian official, are symbolic expressions of culture, identity, or morale. They are not, and have never been presented as , substitute for policy or action.

Finally, to be precise, I never said the US is a "Christian country". I said it is a predominantly religious nation, a demographic and cultural fact. Its development stems from its secular institutions, innovative economy, and rule of law, not from the presence or absence of religious rhetoric.

So please stop conflating symbolic speech with systems failure The failure is not in the gesture, but in the lack of effective follow-up action, a failure of governance and institutions, not a failure caused by either the Bible or the Quran.

Please be honest. So you mean you haven't seen the federal and state governments organize prayers for national security? Which western countries do that?

You asked for honesty. Have I not seen governments in Nigeria organise prayers for national security"? Yes I have.

Have I also seen them in the same context, announce security budgets, military deployments, and policy initiatives?. Also yes,. Your implication that prayer replaces all actions is a straw man. Show me one official policy document that states; "We will cease all military and security actions against bandits and kidnappers, and rely solely on prayer". You cannot because it does not exist..

You're no longer arguing in good faith but deflecting to irrelevances about loudspeakers in the UK , personal stories about doctors and presidential rhetorics which are never a substitute for action anywhere in the world. The reason is to avoid confronting the collapse of your original premise that religion is the cause of Nigeria's underdevelopment or "demise" as you described it .

Nigeria will quicken its development when its leaders invest in education, build accountable institutions and reduce poverty. Whether a leader quotes scripture or not is irrelevant if the state is functional. Our problem is that the state is not functional, and that failure cannot be blamed on a holy book.

QuinQ:
But that's the BIG deception - that you would have been free without Christianity. That's the huge LIE because something must control a man - if it's not Christianity it'd be something else!
In other words it is a question of choosing your "poison"

Please where did you get it from that " something must control a man" ?

jaephoenix:
Yes,suppressing religion grows a country. Lemme explain

Explain what again? This is the same thing you began with. Yet, in your initial explanation, you failed entirely to establish a causal link between the so called "suppression of religion" and Nigeria's challenges. Now, after agreeing with the validity of my counterarguments regarding education and poverty, you're returning to your starting point as if we never had the discussion. Very well. Let's see if you can succeed this time where you failed before

In the UK, preaching in certain areas are prohibited. Same with use of loud speakers. You have seen videos of Nigerians who were arrested for constituting nuisance via public preaching.

The prohibition of preaching in "certain areas" and the restriction of " loudspeakers" in the UK is not "religious suppression" or "restriction" . It is public nuisance regulation. Such laws are common in many nations including some major cities in Nigeria.

I know this firsthand because I have lived in Ghana where similar regulations on preaching and loudspeakers in residential areas exist. These policies are not designed to suppress religion anywhere in the world. A government that actively suppresses religion closes places of worship, bans religious texts, or persecute believers ,as seen in North Korea or the former Soviet Union.



For someone like you that has been campaigning against religion , it's surprising you have a casual understanding of it. You cannot ban religious beliefs or " restrict" it by regulating its outer expression. Beliefs exists in the mind of the individual not in public rituals like going to church or affirming God publicly. There are millions of believers in the UK who practice their faith privately, without ever attending a public gathering. The only way a government can genuinely diminish the influence of religion is not by force, but by outcompeting it with better ideas, through education, critical thinking and opportunity, something I already suggested but which you have ignored.

Your example, which applies equally to bars, nightclubs, and any loud public gathering in the UK and Europe, proves these societies manage public order, not that they grew wealthy by "removing faith."

It is therefore illogical to claim that an educated society like the UK, which understands that faith is an internal, personal matter, is "restricting religion" through public order policies you have misinterpreted. You are confusing correlation with causation.

As a doctor,if I tell a patient that he should have faith in god and ignore his meds,I could lose in license in the UK. But in Nigeria, it's rife. You see,UK and many western countries practice religious freedom but it is restricted or controlled from the example I gave.

It is not true that Nigerian doctors habitually tell patients to ignore medicine for prayer. This is a sweeping generalization that is not supported by data. Even if isolated cases occur, they are failures of professional oversight and education, not evidence that religion has crippled national development. In the UK, such conduct would be punished because of strong institutions and regulatory systems the very institutions Nigeria lacks due to underinvestment in education and governance, not because of religion.

And no,there is nowhere they tell you to trust their security to god. If there is,please show me. Any president that says that is impeached.
US motto says 'In god we trust' but yet it's a secular country and not Christian. Have you asked yourself why?
Do you see US or UK holding prayers in senate or urging citizens to pray when they face any invasions? Instead they act. Israel sef is more atheistic than the UK or US. They have more gays. They have gay minister, which is unheard of in the US

Your claim that no Western leader says "trust security to God" is not true. The U.S motto is "In God we trust", sessions of the U.S Congress open with prayer, and Western leaders routinely invoke faith, not as a policy of inaction, but as cultural or symbolic expression. When a Nigerian leader reference God. It is similarly for cultural reasons to boost the morale of the rank and file in the fight against insurgency, not a substitute for policy. Your attempt to link rhetorical statements to national underdevelopment is a false equivalence. Development comes from action infrastructure, and institutions, not from whether a leader mentions prayer.

It is naive to take the public statements of Nigerian leaders who reference faith as literal policy directives. Such statements are symbolic gestures of cultural identity or morale, not blueprints for governance. The real failure in Nigeria is not the symbolism, but the lack of concrete follow -through, a failure of governance, not of belief.

Your deflection to Isreal and "gay ministers" is irrelevant. You want to claim that atheism or social liberalism correlates with development. This is another non-sequitur. There are highly developed deeply religious nations like the United States, Italy, Poland, and less developed secular ones. There are also developed nations with restrictive social policies. A country's development is driven by economic policy, education, innovation, and strong institutions, not by a nation's stance on theology or sexuality. Russia restricts LGBTQ rights but is developed in many sectors.

If "suppressing religion" truly cause development, then officially atheist states like North Korea or the former Soviet bloc would be paradise of progress, but they are not. They prove that suppressing ideas without educating minds only creates new forms of control and stagnation

Until you can provide the causal link between underdevelopment and religion, your argument remains an expression of personal bias, not a viable analysis of Nigeria's challenges.

jaephoenix:
You're right. Critical thinking skills are important for nation growth and unhindered religion is the outcome. However, suppressing religion is a good point, and removing it totally from the state is paramount. You won't see developed countries tell its citizens that security comes from any god
But you're right anways

I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the importance of critical thinking. However, your conclusion that "suppressing religion" and "removing it totally from the state is paramount" is not only a non-sequitur but a dangerous and simplistic prescription. It ignores the fact that Nigeria is a democratic nation where religious rights and freedoms are entrenched in the constitution. If such rights are removed, the country ceases to be a democratic society.

You are still attacking the symptom, not the cause. The state's energy should be channeled into providing quality education and eradicating poverty, not the futile and authoritarian task of policing belief.

Moreover,it is impractical and harmful to suppress religion. Religion is deeply tied to culture, identity, and the country's economy. Attempting to eradicate it in the manner you suggest would create immense social strife . The goal should be a society where people are free to believe what they want, as long as they do not try to force it on anyone else and function as constructive citizens.

And again, your premise is factually incorrect. You claim, "You won't see developed countries tell its citizens that security comes from any god". This is simply not true. Many developed nations, like the US, UK, and Germany, have robust religious freedoms, and their leaders openly reference it when the occasion calls for it. Their development did not come from suppressing religion but from building strong secular institutions that protect all citizens, regardless of belief. In fact, the American constitution is an intrinsically religious document; it references faith with the phrase,. "In God we Trust".

I welcome your agreement with my diagnosis, but I do not accept your prescribed cure because it is not only wrong but also counterproductive. Build the schools, not the thought police. Empower the people with knowledge, and you will not need to suppress their beliefs, they will be equipped to navigate them responsibly. The irony in all of this is that in Nigeria today, it is the churches and mosques that are doing what the government is supposed to do: building standard schools from elementary to university levels so citizens can have a quality education, yet you want them removed completely.

jaephoenix:
Let me explain why trust in pastors is part of our demise as a nation.
Accountability is a major force in developed countries,and it checkmates corruption. Of course no country is corruption free but it's relatively less in those countries. The bible says you should ask and it shall be given,whether good governance,new car or good health. Just pray. Same bible also says we should obey those in leadership and pray for them. Notice it didn't say we should castigate or hold them accountable.Religion and it's drivers like pastors take this accountability away from the government and places it on god. That's why we say religion is a manipulative tool by the government, who work hand in hand with the religious leaders. Prime example is some top pastors. They tell you to pray for leaders everyday

The major flaw in your argument is that you are confusing the effect for the cause,and the "manipulative tool" for the mechanism.

You diagnose our perceived stagnation relative to developed nations, a perception that overlooks the tangible progress made over the past decades, and based on a selective , superficial reading of Christian scripture, attributes it to a certain Christian mindset, while ignoring the fact Nigeria is not a solely Christian nation. Your implied solution is to remove this "manipulative tool" ( religion) to kick-start progress or make Nigerians demand accountability from their leaders.

This logic of yours is completely flawed. If you want to put out a fire, you don't blow at the smoke.

The true cause is not the tool of manipulation, but the condition of the people being manipulated. What creates this vulnerability is not a holy book, Bible or Qur'an, but a critical faculty left undeveloped by lack of access to good quality education and entrenched poverty.

Nigeria is the rated has the poverty capital of the world, with the highest number of out-of-school children, many of whom may never learn to read or write. This is the root cause. An uneducated populace grappling with survival is vulnerable to control regardless of the ideology used.

If you ban religion, but leave the people uneducated and powerless, the ruling class will simply replace it with another, often insidious, tool. Look at North Korea, it has banned religion, yet the population is ruthlessly manipulated by state sponsored propaganda and personality cult. In this instance, the tool changed or was removed, the mechanism of control did not.

This is precisely why access to quality education is strategically denied by those in power, whether corrupt politicians, extremist leaders, or controlling sects.

Boko Haram understands this perfectly. They are literally. "against Western education" because enlightenment threatens their control.

The Jehovah Witnesses discourage higher education ( like studying medicine or law) under the guise of it being unnecessary for the "new world" . The unspoken reason is the fear of losing members who become rational independent thinkers capable of questioning authority.

Therefore, the problem was never religion itself. The problem is, and has always been, a ruling class that perpetuates a lack of critical education to maintain a pliable populace.. Yes, Religion can be one vehicle for this, but it is not the engine. The engine is deliberate disempowerment .

You are focusing on the smoke ( a religious interpretation) and blaming it for the burning building, while ignoring the raging fire, a system that produces uneducated, desperate citizens. Ignore the smoke and put out the fire and the building will be saved.

Akinpedia:
Good day, Great Nairalanders.



My Question to You: Is this total trust in religious leaders the reason why we aren't progressing as a nation? Or is the Pastor simply filling a gap that the Government and Professionals left wide open?

Let’s take some time to discuss this topic in more detail and explore all the relevant aspects thoroughly.

Trust in pastors or religion is not the primary reason for our nation's lack of progress.

The major factors for the country's underdevelopment are the widespread lack of access to quality education and endemic poverty.

Europeans did not progress by banning religion. Their approach was to open wide the doors to quality education for all citizens, thereby training their critical thinking skills. The results of that investment are what they enjoy today. Historically, it was often the church, particularly the Catholic church that led the way in educating people and encouraging their contribution to societal development.

We can do the same here. However, our government officials are products of the same society where many have not been taught how to think critically. Consequently, they often do not know what to do beyond using public office for personal gain.

Also, we should be aware that only a small minority engage in the behaviour you described, ignoring medical advice or avoiding legal counsel. If most Nigerians did this, lawyers would go hungry, doctors would lack patients,and hospitals would be deserted.


Many Churches are actively contributing to Nigeria's development in certain critical areas like healthcare and education. They have built and run quality schools open to both their members and the general public. They have also established hospitals,staffed them with qualified doctors,and provided scholarships for students to study fields like medicine and law, directly investing in the nation's human capital.

Therefore, the situation is not quite as you have portrayed it. In fact, these days, only a few believers place complete trust in pastors. Most are wary of them because of past experiences. Some no longer attend church due to encounters with pastors who duped them with fake prophecies. Those who still attend after such an ordeal usually say the pastor is not the reason they go to church, but rather their faith in God.