Is religion harmful to society?

[Pyrotex]

...The government doesn't pay taxes either, but instead of guilt to get the masses to participate, its tax tithe uses the force of law. The original US constitution didn't include an income tax.

That's true, it did not. Funds to support the federal government were expected to come from the States, who individually DID tax their citizens.

Because it was in God we trust.

Wrong. The Founding Fathers established a secular constitutional government based on the writings of Adam Smith and Rousseau. They did not anticipate the federal government needing much money, beyond their own salaries, and expected the States to contribute whatever was necessary. Even during the War of Independence, this proved to be a BIG problem, as General Washington often had no funds to buy guns, ammo or even food for his troops. The phrase "In God We Trust" did not come about until the Cold War after World War II.

The church tithe tax was an unofficial 10%.

Actually, the New Testament never, never, NEVER, EVER decreed a "tithe" for Christians. Tithing was something that the ancient Hebrews were commanded to do.

The [federal] income [tax] first appeared during the Civil War and finally stuck in 1913. That tithe is connected to atheism due to separation of church and state, correct.

That final statement is just too bizarre to even be "wrong". The income tax was never "connected" to atheism in any way. Did you mean to say something else?

[freeztar]

I found a couple links that may be of interest...

 

While federal law gives great leeway to recognized religions to collect money without paying taxes, there are some clear limitations. A religion’s income and assets cannot be used to benefit church insiders beyond their normal compensation, and must be used for charitable, educational or religious purposes rather than to enrich individuals.

 

So when Benny Hinn, leader of World Healing Center Church in Texas, gives himself a salary of more than $500,000 a year, buys a $10-million seaside mansion and vacations at church expense in jet-setter hot spots, Grassley has a right to ask a few questions. MinistryWatch.com, an independent religious watchdog group, reported those financial excesses (and more) by Hinn, whose church got a failing grade for financial transparency. Two other ministries on Grassley’s list also received an F from MinistryWatch.com: Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Texas and Creflo Dollar Ministries in Georgia.

 

The issue is not only one of legality but also fairness. Every tax dollar a ministry improperly avoids paying is a dollar added to everyone else’s tax bill. And the amounts are huge. In the four years leading up to its victory 1993 over the IRS, Scientology reported revenues of $1.1-billion, which have undoubtedly grown since then.

A church accounting: Joyce Meyer’s $23,000 toilet, Scientology, and more…

 

1. When will a court review church accounting irregularities? Some of the alleged accounting and reporting irregularities in this case are not uncommon. For example, many churches have been accused of failing to comply with social security and other federal and state tax laws; failing to properly account for funds raised for a specific purpose; or failing to provide accurate financial reports to donors. Can concerned members have a civil court intervene and "correct" such irregularities if they are not happy with their church's response? This is an important question that few courts have addressed.

 

The court in this case acknowledged that the first amendment guaranty of religious freedom greatly restricts the authority of the civil courts to resolve internal church disputes, including those involving alleged accounting or reporting irregularities. However, the court concluded that the first amendment would not bar the civil courts from resolving such disputes if they could do so on the basis of clear, objective accounting and reporting criteria requiring no inquiry into religious doctrine-assuming that a church in fact had adopted them. A civil court could enforce such rules since it "would not have a role in deciding what principles apply to the church; the court merely would be asked to apply, without ecclesiastical judgment or intrusion, a previously prescribed, authoritative, nondiscretionary, and clear, policy."

Church Liability For Accounting Irregularities

 

It seems to me that it is in a church's best interest not to adopt an accounting policy. I'm still confused as to why the courts can't order all churches to adopt a clear accounting policy. I wonder how the courts would treat a secular non-profit org in this respect?

[litespeed]

BACK ON THE LARGER SUBJECT - Is Religion Harmful To society

 

This requires a plus and minus calculation that is simply impossible to calculate in this country. Clearly, the Islamic Maniacs who did 9/11 weigh heavily in this calculation. By comparison, I findl little fault with the Salvation Army or the Society of Friends.

 

A statistical evaluation would need two things, one of them objective, the other subjective. The fist thing is simply a list of religious entities and or individuals that effect this nation in the name of their reliegious beliefs. The size of that list alone would probably make an impossibility of assigning meaningful pluss and minus ratings to each one.

 

One happy result of this quandry is the simple fact it seems impossible to make the calculation. IMHO that means it just ain't that bad or good, one way or the other. We CAN, however, idenfify 'outliers' that are not that difficult to evaluate. How many would balance the Salvation Army on the balance negative, or Islamic Maniacs on the balance possitive?

[charles brough]

BACK ON THE LARGER SUBJECT - Is Religion Harmful To society

 

This requires a plus and minus calculation that is simply impossible to calculate in this country. Clearly, the Islamic Maniacs who did 9/11 weigh heavily in this calculation. By comparison, I findl little fault with the Salvation Army or the Society of Friends.

 

A statistical evaluation would need two things, one of them objective, the other subjective. The fist thing is simply a list of religious entities and or individuals that effect this nation in the name of their reliegious beliefs. The size of that list alone would probably make an impossibility of assigning meaningful pluss and minus ratings to each one.

 

One happy result of this quandry is the simple fact it seems impossible to make the calculation. IMHO that means it just ain't that bad or good, one way or the other. We CAN, however, idenfify 'outliers' that are not that difficult to evaluate. How many would balance the Salvation Army on the balance negative, or Islamic Maniacs on the balance possitive?

 

As you indicate, that won't work. Here is another way to look at it: what would happen if we all had no beliefs. Would we still be able to function in as a society? Would our science, morals, government all collapse into a vacuum?

It seems clear to me that we all have to have beliefs. Science is theory which is just more accurate belief. Our whole secular belief system is also more accurate than the old religions, but it is still belief.

 

So since we do have to have beliefs (ideology), would we be able to function at all if everyone had totally different beliefs? That, too, would make society impossible. We could not get along together.

 

We need a common belief system so we think in similar ways and seek similar goals. We also need that common belief system to not be based on "spirits."

[REASON]

We need a common belief system so we think in similar ways and seek similar goals. We also need that common belief system to not be based on "spirits."

 

Why not spirits? Please elaborate.

[charles brough]

Why not spirits? Please elaborate.

 

"Spirits" include the whole world of superstition. Everything in the supernatural and the spiritual is believed to be caused by "spirits." "God," "satan," "angels," "demons," and even Munckins and Santa Claus are all "spirits" If you do not believe there is such a thing, and I do not believe there is such a thing(!), then you do not believe in the spiritual, the supernatural, superstition, etc. You are a science-minded person and "spirits" do not compromise the way you think.

[HydrogenBond]

One way to answer the question" is religion harmful to culture?" is too look at cases where religion was taken away or minimized to see what happened. The biggest social experiment was the former Soviet Union, where atheists had a chance to remove religion. This had reasonable success, but it was not done in a peaceful way but involve using an atheist inquisition style and intimidation. It also seem to make them paranoid which may be an atheist side affect.

 

Based on all the argument I read, once religion was brought back into Poland and other cultures things should have gone down the tubes with everything much worse off. Didn't things improve for more people. One possible side affect was adding religion made it harder to control people.

[freeztar]

One possible side affect was adding religion made it harder to control people.

 

I disagree.

 

One of the most harmful things about religion is its control over the masses. The Crusades are a classic example. A more modern example would be "faith-based initiatives" coming out of the White House. Religion is able to bypass our supposed separation of church and state time and time again while the Judicial system has its hands tied. Religion is very good at controlling people.

[Galapagos]

One way to answer the question" is religion harmful to culture?" is too look at cases where religion was taken away or minimized to see what happened. The biggest social experiment was the former Soviet Union, where atheists had a chance to remove religion. This had reasonable success, but it was not done in a peaceful way but involve using an atheist inquisition style and intimidation.

Second time you have tried to sneak this canard into this thread Hbond, and this will be the second time it is shot down.

 

A few issues here:

-coercive or imposed atheism by vicious dictators is not the same as organic secularization taking place gradually over generations, as in countries such as Sweden or Denmark

 

-such dictators did not eliminate religion in their respective countries, as you can't just declare the private beliefs of others to have changed. people may have not admitted to religious belief/practice, but it was probably happening anyway. beyond the common sense aspect of this argument, we can look at the statistics of countries formally dominated by said dictatorships, and see that most of them now are highly religious nations relatively speaking

see table 1 here

 

-religion was often replaced in these dictatorships by a quasi-religious cult of personality. whatever was going on here, these nations were certainly not suffering from an overabundance of reason, nor were they crippled by being too demanding of evidence before forming beliefs. If anything, it seems like problems stemming from dogmatism and a lack of critical thinking.

 

 

As for nations that have actually secularized freely, they are some of the most healthy and prosperous societies in the world when contrasted with more religious ones:

Is Faith Good for Us

When looking at standard measures of societal health, we find that they fare remarkably well; highly religious nations fare rather poorly. The 2004 United Nations' Human Development Report, which ranks 177 countries on a "Human Development Index," measures such indicators of societal health as life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, and so on. According to this report, the five top nations were Norway , Sweden , Australia , Canada , and the Netherlands . All had notably high degrees of organic atheism. Furthermore, of the top twenty-five nations, all but Ireland and the United States were top-ranking nonbelieving nations with some of the highest percentages of organic atheism on earth. Conversely, the bottom fifty countries of the "Human Development Index" lacked statistically significant levels of organic atheism.

[...]

In sum, countries with high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies with nonexistent rates of organic atheism are among the most destitute. The former nations have among the lowest homicide rates, infant mortality rates, poverty rates, and illiteracy rates and among the highest levels of wealth, life expectancy, educational attainment, and gender equality in the world. The sole indicator of societal health in which religious countries scored higher than irreligious countries is suicide.

 

This is also the topic of Zuckerman's most recent book, which I am currently in the middle of:

Amazon.com: Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment: Phil Zuckerman: Books http://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797148

 

He carries this case much further in the book, utilizing both his own sociological research obtained while living in countries like Sweden and Denmark, and by recruiting a vast corpus of academic knowledge on sociology of religion(and this is reflected in the extensive bibliography and through citation). I've posted about this book before, but now that I am knee deep in it, I would have to say I highly recommend it to all interested parties.

[litespeed]

CB

 

However, some things commonly thought in the past to be superstition have been scientifically shown to be, perhaps otherwise. Do you believe ESP stuff is superstition? I have been following this subject as a curiosity for decades. I believe the results have been found statistically significant in supporting some of these things.

 

The statistical evidence is for a small effect, but the sample sizes have become huge over the decades. Often these tests use simple playing type cards. I think there are five shapes. One person looks at the shapes of succeding cards pulled from the deck, and the other subject quesses which ones they are..

 

Recently, I beleive a variaton on this method has also shown statistical significance. Specifically, the second subject quesses the shape PRIOR to the first subject pulling it from the deck.

 

None of this is important enough for me to spend any google time on it. However, Duke university has been doing this sort of thing since at least the 1960's

[litespeed]

CB - You wrote: "... would we be able to function at all if everyone had totally different beliefs? That, too, would make society impossible..."

 

Three things. First, it seems apparent to me that hardly anyone has the same beliefs as just about ANYBODY else. Of course each person ranks their beliefs internally, and often they more likely associate themselves on that basis. However, each individual will inevitably have differences with even these people. Accordingly, I think our current society is high evidence a diversity of beliefs does not cause a social impossiblity.

 

Second, some people have so highly ranked certain beliefs they actually FORM new societies that seem to work just fine, at least on a small scale where other belief systems can more easily be excluded. Mennonites, Quakers are such examples.

 

Third, some large societies have deliberately made attempts to mold entire peoples into a single set of high priority beliefs. I am unaware of any such society that has been successful [footnote one] for very long, if at all. No matter how many people they end up killing in the attempt.

 

Footnost one: I define success as achieving the goals specifically described by the leaders of these societies. National Socialism largely defined success as military victory. Islamic thocracies generally include homogeneous behavior enforced by religious police (Taliban) or Islamic Material and Political Dominion [iran}; total self sufficiency North Korea and Great Leap Forward, China.

[litespeed]

Elaboration on Footnote one: What is success

 

1) National Socialism inculcated the beilief in total war, fight to the death even in the face of total destruction.

 

2) Japan used the belief in Bushido to the exact same end.

 

3) Iran has religious police, but has had very limited success. Taliban Afghanistan had more success in this, but little else, especially concerning the issues in 4) below.

 

4) The ultimate objective of the Islamic Religion, and theoretically all Islamic States is total submission of the population to the Caliph "even if he is an abasyd with the head of a raisin", and total submission of all the world's people to the Caliph.

 

I do not think there has even been an all powerful Caliph for more then 1000 years. This, I believe, is simply because of the impossibility of enforcing universality of belief on an area as large as the third and forth caliphates

 

I am not talking about Islam and the conquered people who were not always even required to adopt Islam, but very specifically to the much smaller population of Islamic Rulers and occupiers. Once again showing universality of belief - obedience to the Caliph - has had little or no success of being even impossed in even these samller populations when separated by large distances, let alone promoting success for very long.

 

5) Ditto USSR

[Moontanman]

Religion is basically using the concept of the supernatural to justify thinking that you can do the same thing over and over and expect a different result each time. I would think this concept has to be harmful to society at some level.

[charles brough]

One way to answer the question" is religion harmful to culture?" is too look at cases where religion was taken away or minimized to see what happened. The biggest social experiment was the former Soviet Union, where atheists had a chance to remove religion. This had reasonable success, but it was not done in a peaceful way but involve using an atheist inquisition style and intimidation. It also seem to make them paranoid which may be an atheist side affect.

 

Based on all the argument I read, once religion was brought back into Poland and other cultures things should have gone down the tubes with everything much worse off. Didn't things improve for more people. One possible side affect was adding religion made it harder to control people.

 

Can't you imagine an atheist religion? Religions serve a function no matter what their doctrines are and Lenin and others used Marx's teachings to start a religion that now occupies East Asia. Scholars even refer to it as a "secular religion."

It answers the same questions all religions answer but with old 19th century thinking.

[charles brough]

I disagree. One of the most harmful things about religion is its control over the masses. The Crusades are a classic example. A more modern example would be "faith-based initiatives" coming out of the White House. Religion is able to bypass our supposed separation of church and state time and time again while the Judicial system has its hands tied. Religion is very good at controlling people.

 

The Crusades exposed us to a more advanced civilization and thus brought an infusion of new science and culture. It also united Europe and led to the decline of feudalism. But now, Christinaity is too old and outdated, outgrown,

 

Why can't anyone here put themselves into history and understand that it is always changing and that that religions are rigid systems and it is we that change by becoming more scientific and therefore need to replace the old religions with new and better ones. We have always had religion in the entire history of the human race and will always need a belief system in the future. Even our secular humanism auxiliary system is failing. We cannot even impose it on Islam with military force, and it doesn't spread on its own.

[charles brough]

CB

. . . None of this is important enough for me to spend any google time on it. However, Duke university has been doing this sort of thing since at least the 1960's

 

Duke University is mired in that stuff. Randy the Magician saw into the tricks of the psychics who were fooling the professors. Research of any kind is precarious and the data is easily manpulated, either consciously (as for the drug companies) or subconsciously (because people love superstition)

[charles brough]

CB - You wrote: "... would we be able to function at all if everyone had totally different beliefs? That, too, would make society impossible..."

 

Three things. First, it seems apparent to me that hardly anyone has the same beliefs as just about ANYBODY else. Of course each person ranks their beliefs internally, and often they more likely associate themselves on that basis. However, each individual will inevitably have differences with even these people. Accordingly, I think our current society is high evidence a diversity of beliefs does not cause a social impossiblity.

 

Second, some people have so highly ranked certain beliefs they actually FORM new societies that seem to work just fine, at least on a small scale where other belief systems can more easily be excluded. Mennonites, Quakers are such examples.

 

Third, some large societies have deliberately made attempts to mold entire peoples into a single set of high priority beliefs. I am unaware of any such society that has been successful [footnote one] for very long, if at all. No matter how many people they end up killing in the attempt.

 

Footnost one: I define success as achieving the goals specifically described by the leaders of these societies. National Socialism largely defined success as military victory. Islamic thocracies generally include homogeneous behavior enforced by religious police (Taliban) or Islamic Material and Political Dominion [iran}; total self sufficiency North Korea and Great Leap Forward, China.

 

I can hardly believe it is necessary for me to explain to anyone that anyone could possibly think everyone had all the same beliefs! We have several continents of people who believe in secular ideals and that Jesus Christ was the good guy. There is another major part of the world that believes Mohammed was the good guy. A sub-continent that believes in a bunch of different gods. Going with all these different religions is a different perspective and way of thinking.

 

But it could be much worse. Each of them is also sub-divided into various cults. But at least, there are like four such main belief systems. If we all believed differently, there would be more than 6 billion such different belief systems. That is what I am naturally asking you to imagine.

 

Quakers and Mennonites . . . ! You can admire such old and outgrown sects or cults? We need a universal science system in order to deal with the immense problems our civilization is increasingly unable to handle in the world.

 

And third, no successful religion comes from someone imposing it. Successful religions that spread and endure for centuries arise because people need them and they succeed and last so long because they do. We are now in need of this to happen again so we can use it to replace all the old and now obsolete faiths that now so ominously divided us.