Is religion harmful to society?

[Moontanman]

Moon - You wrote: "...in the early history of Christianity they were in complete control of everyone and everything.'' You also wrote of inquisitions etc etc.

 

First , the inquisitions were not part of early Christianity. My post was specific to your erroneous characterization of 'Eary Christianity". Which characterization is false on its face. Further, the inquisitions were contemporaneous to the Reforamation. Again, on its face, the inquisition is disqualified to satisfy your statement "... they were in complete control of everyone and everything."

 

But I suggest we limit the upcomming discussion to the EARLY Christianity that you specified was in complete control. Specifically, list a date when this first became true, in your estimation.

 

I stand corrected the inquisitions were more recent, to me it just makes it even more disturbing. anyone who was baptized in the catholic church was subject to the Inquisition, everyone else was prosecuted in the regular courts, none the less people were indeed terrorized into conforming to religious law. violating this law was not tolerated. It was a very sad time and it was composed of four eras of Inquisition, the Christian church was very much in control during this time, some Inquisitions were more strict that others but none the less religious law was the law of the land and you violated at your own peril. I call this complete control very much like the if not in excess of the control Muslims endure today.

 

Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Historians[who?] distinguish between four different manifestations of the Inquisition:

 

the Medieval Inquisition (1184- 1230s)

the Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834)

the Portuguese Inquisition (1536-1821)

the Roman Inquisition (1542- ~1860 )

[Pyrotex]

History shows that the "phase" of Enforcement, where legal or physical means are employed to enforce a population into a set of beliefs and/or ritual obedience, usually accompanied by an "inquisition" to root out the imposters, is NOT common to all religions, nor to all sects within a major religion group.

 

Christianity and Islam had them or have them now. An Enforcement Phase is common among small sects, "village" religions, isolated sects or cults. But it would appear that except for the two mentioned, most large religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism (the variant practiced within recorded history), never attempted to FORCE obedience--at least not at the national or global level.

 

What is it about Chritianity and Islam that enable this militant groupthink both at the local (village, cult) level AND at the national / global level???

[Moontanman]

History shows that the "phase" of Enforcement, where legal or physical means are employed to enforce a population into a set of beliefs and/or ritual obedience, usually accompanied by an "inquisition" to root out the imposters, is NOT common to all religions, nor to all sects within a major religion group.

 

Christianity and Islam had them or have them now. An Enforcement Phase is common among small sects, "village" religions, isolated sects or cults. But it would appear that except for the two mentioned, most large religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism (the variant practiced within recorded history), never attempted to FORCE obedience--at least not at the national or global level.

 

What is it about Chritianity and Islam that enable this militant groupthink both at the local (village, cult) level AND at the national / global level???

 

I think it's very possible you have it backward, possibly it's this militant group think that allows these religions to grow and take over huge areas and populations. It's what allows these religions to survive not in spite of but because of the militant group think. It's a basic part of these religions. :D

 

Onward Christian soldiers, onward to the fight! :)

[Thunderbird]

Civil law and religious dogma developed simultaneously and subsequently became entangled.

 

Ironically Christianity came about to personalize the religious experience. In my view this signaled a break from the Hebrew doctrines of the old testament of God as the creator of laws to a chosen people.

In the same vein these laws could only be interpreted by a select few leaders that had special authority by God. In those days the average man was expected to get his messages though intermediaries.

 

Jesus promoted the individual by teaching about personal development though a relationship with a creator God, that put more of the emphases on forgiveness of sin, sacrifice and inclusion of anyone, especially the poor and disenfranchised and even gentiles, so of course the church authorities had him killed.

The Church has survived several reformations since then prompted by “heretics” such as Tindall, Martin Luther, etc. In my view again they did this to acknowledge that originally Christianity's conception marked the time when Man’s endeavors could now include a personal religious experience, rather than just following blindly another that claimed special authority over their fellows.

[charles brough]

CB

 

First, I have little to quible about with you. However, you wrote: " Only a liberalized, non-Fundamentalist belief in Christian doctrine is compatable with our Secular beliefs." I live in an area with lots of fundamentalists, although snake handlers continue in short supply everywhere.

 

I assure you, however, these fundamentalists have a firm belief in Constitutional Government as it was written more then 200 years ago. I agree they will not find a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, and they will generally insist the Second Ammendment applies to individuals (recently upheald by the US Supreme Court on appeal from the District of Columbia).

 

However, you will not find much talk of theocracy.

`Sure. If they weren't patriotic, they would be at each other's throats. Their patriotism binds them into the nation, but you have overlooked the main doctrine of secular humanism, that is science.

Their Bible is inconsistent with science. And you are aware, are you not, that science is thousands of years more accurate than Christianity but is still theory, not "abstract truth?" It is part of our secular ideology, the part they have most trouble with.

 

charles

the Atheistic Science Institute - home page   

[charles brough]

History shows that the "phase" of Enforcement, where legal or physical means are employed to enforce a population into a set of beliefs and/or ritual obedience, usually accompanied by an "inquisition" to root out the imposters, is NOT common to all religions, nor to all sects within a major religion group.

 

Christianity and Islam had them or have them now. An Enforcement Phase is common among small sects, "village" religions, isolated sects or cults. But it would appear that except for the two mentioned, most large religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism (the variant practiced within recorded history), never attempted to FORCE obedience--at least not at the national or global level.

 

What is it about Chritianity and Islam that enable this militant group think both at the local (village, cult) level AND at the national / global level???

The fact that they both evolved from Judaism plays a part. But even so, it is normal for the mainstream religions. I cannot say that India was an exception during the early centuries of brutal conquest from 1500 to 500 BC, but I suspect it was equally intolerant. The Rigveda is certainly not a tolerant document.

 

You mention Buddhism. It was a secular philosophy that turned into an ideology after the end of the great secular age of the civilization. It spread through Asia as a secular belief system and secularized the old ancestor-worship religion of China. Only religions are intolerant. As a religion, Boshevism in Russia was an intolerant religion that "liquidated" non-believers. East Asian Marxism has been secularized by Western doctrines of "nationism," (the national state), and "socialism" (that is, Mercantilism instead of communism), so it is less intolerant.

 

charles

the Atheistic Science Institute - home page   

[charles brough]

I think it's very possible you have it backward, possibly it's this militant group think that allows these religions to grow and take over huge areas and populations. It's what allows these religions to survive not in spite of but because of the militant group think. It's a basic part of these religions.

 

Onward Christian soldiers, onward to the fight!

 

ABSOLUTELY! They may even outlast us with our Secular Humanism . . .

[InfiniteNow]

Well, according to this really ugly disturbing fundamentalist theology, it would seem that the rejection of magical sky pixies is harmful to society. :naughty:

 

 

 

YouTube - Why God Isn't Allowed In Schools http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxwbYnE8iJ8

 

 

 

Pharyngula: God, the petulant, petty whiner

The conceit is that someone writes a letter to god, asking why he let violence occur in the schools, and he replies…and gee, god sure sounds like a snide pissant. The omnipotent, omniscient lord of the cosmos couldn't do a thing because those liberals put a restraining order on him. Right. Crazed madmen run through a public school murdering children, and good ol' Jehovah channels Cartman and says, "Whoa, let 'em bleed to death — some of the kids don't pray to me, and the principal doesn't begin the school day with a public obeisance. Screw you guys, I'm going home."

[JMJones0424]

Well, I can't answer for all the schools in America, perhaps god doesn't like liberals. But it's obvious in the case of the school in Tabor, Alberta, Canada. Everyone knows that god hates Canadians. Canadians are godless heathens. They can't even succeed in hockey, which Satan helped them develop in order to appreciate the cold so that they would feel all the more uncomfortable while roasting for eternity.

[Pyrotex]

Well, I can't answer for all the schools in America, perhaps god doesn't like liberals. ...

We may never know for sure, but take a look at that Jesus Christ guy. He was certainly one of the most liberal, forgiving and tolerant people I ever read about. And look what happened to him!!!!

[InfiniteNow]

Is religion harmful to society?

 

 

Gosh, no. Why ever would someone ask such a silly question? :umno:

 

 

Afghan leader accused of bid to 'legalise rape'

 

Afghan leader accused of bid to 'legalise rape' - Asia, World - The Independent

 

Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, has signed a law which "legalises" rape, women's groups and the United Nations warn. Critics claim the president helped rush the bill through parliament in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.

 

In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent.

 

"It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century," fumed Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation. "It is totally against women's rights. This law makes women more vulnerable."

 

The law regulates personal matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and sexual relations among Afghanistan's minority Shia community. "It's about votes," Ms Karokhail added. "Karzai is in a hurry to appease the Shia because the elections are on the way."

 

The provisions are reminiscent of the hardline Taliban regime, which banned women from leaving their homes without a male relative. But in a sign of Afghanistan's faltering steps towards gender equality, politicians who opposed it have been threatened.

 

"There are moderate views among the Shia, but unfortunately our MPs, the people who draft the laws, rely on extremists," Ms Karokhail said.

 

The bill lay dormant for more than a year, but in February it was rushed through parliament as President Karzai sought allies in a constitutional row over the upcoming election. Senator Humeira Namati claimed it wasn't even read out in the Upper House, let alone debated, before it was passed to the Supreme Court. "They accused me of being an unbeliever," she said.

 

Details of the law emerged after Mr Karzai was endorsed by Afghanistan's Supreme Court to stay in power until elections scheduled in August. Some MPs claimed President Karzai was under pressure from Iran, which maintains a close relationship with Afghanistan's Shias. The most controversial parts of the law deal explicitly with sexual relations. Article 132 requires women to obey their husband's sexual demands and stipulates that a man can expect to have sex with his wife at least "once every four nights" when travelling, unless they are ill. The law also gives men preferential inheritance rights, easier access to divorce, and priority in court.

 

A report by the United Nations Development Fund for Women, Unifem, warned: "Article 132 legalises the rape of a wife by her husband".

[Pyrotex]

It is rather obvious that not ALL religions are dangerous to society.

But often enough, a particular religion is in fact very dangerous to society.

And there seems to be a pattern.

Religions that are "liberal" (in the old dictionary meaning) and tolerant are very RARELY of any danger to society.

Sometimes (not always) they even appear to be good for society.

 

Religions that are "fundementalist" are frequently dangerous to society -- and the degree of danger often goes hand-in-hand with the extent of their intolerance, and the extent to which they hold that their religious laws have precedence over civil law and cultural norms.

 

The 'oddball' Baptist Church down the street from me openly promotes unregulated gun ownership. The only member of that congregation that I know is an unrepentant wife-beater, and a member of a small 'militia' with an undisclosed purpose. He was the only person to express contempt over my Obama bumper sticker, and I suspect that he had something to do with the disappearance of Obama signs in my neighborhood last year.

 

Do I consider them a 'danger' to society? You bet I do. Only the presence of a strong legal infra-structure (the long arm of the law) keeps them benign. And they're *CHRISTIANS*, for heaven's sake!

 

And yet, two blocks in the other direction is a similar church living and preaching out of the very same Bible, and they are pretty harmless and make good neighbors.

 

But religion, in the general sense, provides a means for the socially dysfunctional, the angry, the resentful, the hateful and the vindicative to band together, and religion provides them protection and "cover", and it gives them justification for their desire to reach out and smite the heathen.

[charles brough]

I wonder how people can talk about this issue without knowing what "society" is. A practical concept is that it is those areas of the Earth bonded by a mainstream religion. Thus, you have a Muslim society, a Hindu one and a society that is (or was) based on Christianity. There is also a East Asian Marxist society based upon the Marxist "secular" religion.

 

If those are not what we are talking about, what is the "society" that IS being talked about here?

 

Lacking any other alternative definition, it seems to me that religion cannot be "harmful" to society since it is the very foundation of it and since it could not exist without the religion!

 

What I think others might be thinking is that "society" is to them our civilization, in other words, the "Global Community of Nations" which are bonded together by our secular belief system. In that case, religions are still indespensable in holding the civilization's parts together, but it is equally important for its religious parts or societies to accept and follow the doctrines of Secular Humanism. That is, it is important for people to be liberal followers of their faith. Those who are militant believers are those who reject our secular system and, hence, our whole civilization.

[InfiniteNow]

Lacking any other alternative definition, it seems to me that religion cannot be "harmful" to society since it is the very foundation of it and since it could not exist without the religion!

That's quite a leap in logic. You have simply asserted that "religion is the very foundation of society," and further that "society could not exist without religion," but you have done nothing to support those assertions in anyway whatsoever. It is, in fact, our evolved tendency for shared reproductive success and pack behavior that is much more central to the concept of our society's "foundation." This point has been repeatedly supported and amply demonstrated throughout this site and others. I would be glad to assist in any specific questions you may have, but the simple fact is that religion is an emergent property of this evolved tendency for social grouping, not the other way around.

 

 

In that case, religions are still indespensable in holding the civilization's parts together

Yet another hollow, specious, and empty claim. You may as well be asserting that purple unicorns are indispensable to the treatment of diabetes.

[Pyrotex]

I wonder how people can talk about this issue without knowing what "society" is. A practical concept is that it is those areas of the Earth bonded by a mainstream religion.... Those who are militant believers are those who reject our secular system and, hence, our whole civilization.

Charles,

it is simplistically and trivially EASY to talk about this issue without some specific definition of "society".

The default definition, IMHO, would be something like, "the sum of the cultural, legal, economic and social infra-structures of any given region" -or- "a group of people whose everyday lives are governed by a similar set of civil, legal, economic, cultural and moral expectations and behaviors".

 

Many "societies" do NOT depend on religion to any great extent.

They can be found all over Europe and Asia.

Many of the societies encountered by Europeans in the 16th Century on their voyages of discovery, were NOT based upon religion to any great extent. Until, of course, the missionaries had a 'go' at them.

 

I agree with your last statement. Militant "believers" generally DO reject our secular systems (which YOU haven't defined! :lightning I wonder how people can talk about this issue without knowing what "secular system" is.) :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

 

However, their rejection of the secular system is Aided, Abetted, Protected, and Justified ...

... BY THEIR RELIGION.

 

Without their religion, they would just be bandits and gangs.

[charles brough]

That's quite a leap in logic. You have simply asserted that "religion is the very foundation of society," and further that "society could not exist without religion," but you have done nothing to support those assertions in anyway whatsoever. It is, in fact, our evolved tendency for shared reproductive success and pack behavior that is much more central to the concept of our society's "foundation." This point has been repeatedly supported and amply demonstrated throughout this site and others. I would be glad to assist in any specific questions you may have, but the simple fact is that religion is an emergent property of this evolved tendency for social grouping, not the other way around.

 

Yes, as you say, we are a "pack animal." We evolved through millions of years as a small group primate. Even into Homo Sapiens, we evolved operated as small hunting/gathering groups. At no time until we developed religions did we exist in larger groups. The social theory consensus you speak of does not at all take this into account. This explanation clarifies the reason we have always had religions. They have served a function, but this line of LOGIC is unfriendly to both our religious and secular ideologies and, so, is avoided.

 

If you have any evidence or data that does not support this, please let me know. "I would be glad to assist in any questions you might have . . ."

[freeztar]

At no time until we developed religions did we exist in larger groups.

 

Can you please support this statement, Charles?