Is religion harmful to society?

[Boerseun]

Ahhh, the joy of long-winded answers. (lol)

Southtown, this post addresses neither the topic at hand, nor the content of Pyrotex's post.

Please refrain from these non-sensical one-liners.

[Southtown]

Ok... Sorry, thought it was relevant. I was wrong.

[Pyrotex]

The topic is the question, "Is religion harmful to society?" Now, I understand that many folks have a soft spot in their heart for religion, but I would like to point out that what they REALLY have is a soft spot in their heart for the particular make, model and brand of religion that they are emotionally involved with right now.

 

It is way too easy to argue from the assumption that one's personal make, model and brand of religion is representative of religion in general.

 

Not so. I have a good friend, Algie, that is a lay minister in his church. He has even performed a wedding. And his church goes by the same name as the one I grew up in. I tried to tell him about "my" church, and he just shook his head. It wasn't possible. So, I took him to a congregation not far away, out in an economically depressed rural region.

 

When we came out of there, he was shell-shocked. He had no idea such "cult-like" extremists existed in the "christian" religion. It was fanatical and hateful. We had to be careful not to let on that we weren't "members" of this small but widely scattered christian sect. It was clearly not a healthy thing to do.

 

What corrupted these folks into Taliban-like reactionaries? If it was just that one congregation, you could say it was a local, isolated, personality-cult, perhaps. But though the congregations are small, they exist all over eastern Texas and all the way to Georgia, and up into Tennesse and Kentucky. They exist in all 50 states, though they're hard to find outside of the South.

 

So, it isn't just a Jim Jones thing. It isn't an "isolation" thing, because the members are just as free to come and go as you are. It is a religious doctrine thing. It is religion at its most distilled and concentrated. I was lucky to survive my childhood religion. So was my youngest brother. But our middle brother surrendered to the pull of it, and now will not talk to either of us. He believes that God wants him to "shun" us until we also surrender to the pull of it, and "come back to God".

 

I woke up in the middle of the night back in March, near his birthday, and wept for him.

 

Don't make the mistake of thinking that your personal religion defines "religion".

It doesn't.

It doesn't even come close.

[Moontanman]

I know several people who are totally convinced that their little religious cult is the only real Christian religion and that if everyone would simply submit to their take on Christianity that the world would be a better place. Many of them are more than willing for the US to spread the word (their word) via force. Interestingly none of them go to the same little cult church and each would disagree quite seriously with the others.

[CraigD]

religion is against abortion. but when a 10 year old girl got raiped in brazil by her father, she got pregnant from him. so the religios leaders had no choice but to admit that abortion helped. othervice she will be having her father baby wich is worse. and may be even died during the birth.

I believe riper is misreporting one of two recent stories involving dangerous underage pregnancies in Brazil. Riper, it’s a good idea – and a site rule – to source your statements of fact, mainly because it prevents this sort of mistake. These stories can easily be sourced to (arguably) credible web sources such as this 3/5/2009 FoxNews article.

 

In both cases, religious leaders, most prominently Roman Catholic Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, did not admit that abortion was preferable to high-risk full-term pregnancies in 9 and 11 year old girls. In the case of the 9-year-old, Sobrinho excommunicated (expelled from their church) her mother and the doctor who aborted her twin fetuses in their 15th month of gestation. As of the article’s date, an 11-year old is reported to be 7 months pregnant by her stepfather, with no plans to abort, even though her pregnancy was discovered in January.

 

Although Sobrinho’s position doesn’t appear to have been criticizes by his superiors in the Catholic church, he was criticized for stating it so publicly, and did resign 7/1/2009 from his position in the Church (source: CNS STORY: Pope accepts resignation of Brazilian who spoke about girl's abortion).

 

IMHO, cases such as these, and many others, illustrate that a particular religion, Roman Catholicism, is mortally dangerous to the health of many people. Although this church’s position is at least consistent, unlike some churches, opposing not only abortion, but war and capital punishment, it still can block the prevention of injury and death, so stands in direct opposition to the ideals of medicine.

[Southtown]

IMO, intolerance is not exclusive to believers, nor is it inherent.

[Moontanman]

IMO, intolerance is not exclusive to believers, nor is it inherent.

 

Oh I agree whole heartedly Southtown, intolerance is everywhere. I personally am rather intolerant of insipid true believers constantly haranguing me to tell me everything would be great if I or the schools or the local, state, or federal government would just believe in Jesus or God or who ever the religious flavor of the true believer is. I have noticed one thing I see as important, I don't recall any atheists blowing up buildings or taking hostages or killing anyone to make their point. Believers are dangerous, they think that God has empowered them to change the world and the people who suffer while they are converting everyone are justifiable to the greater good. I don't recall any atheists being quite that forceful....

[Southtown]

Believers are dangerous, they think that God has empowered them to change the world and the people who suffer while they are converting everyone are justifiable to the greater good. I don't recall any atheists being quite that forceful....

Nor do I. But I still refuse to believe that intolerance is inherent to all believers, nor can I, given my experience.

[Pyrotex]

Nor do I. But I still refuse to believe that intolerance is inherent to all believers, nor can I, given my experience.

Southy,

I believe we do ourselves an injustice when we assume (consciously or otherwise) that any given attribute (say, intolerance) must either apply to ALL segments of religion, or we cannot say it applies to religion at all.

 

What benefit there may be in having this discussion, cannot be found by taking this all-or-nothing approach, IMHO.

 

Yes, intolerance does not appear to be a major attribute of some churches, some religious people, some religious doctrines, or even some religious organizations.

 

But that does not mean that we must therefore conclude that intolerance plays no significant role in religion.

 

My uncle Pete (my favorite uncle) was NOT intolerant, from the years 1960 to 1970, as far as I could observe. However, the church he attended during those years was quite intolerant of blacks, catholics and jews, as far as I could observe.

 

I think what we're trying to establish here is that intolerance is often a strong attribute in many churches, many religious organizations, many doctrines, many religions -- far more so than one would expect of a randomly selected group of people, or group of organizations.

 

One can observe (easily) that most "fundementalist" religions take great pains to clearly distinguish between themselves, the "righteous", and the others, the "unrighteous" -- and to socially separate themselves in some way from the others. This they justify by claiming that the others are morally flawed in some way. This is the first step toward "demonizing" the others, an ever-increasing spiral of exclusion, name-calling, degradation and self-justification.

 

It's easy to see this in many fundementalist christian churches (and yacht clubs). But you don't see this so much in soccer clubs, bridge clubs, gardening clubs, charity organizations, college english departments, human resource departments, etc, etc.

[Southtown]

Southy,

I believe we do ourselves an injustice when we assume (consciously or otherwise) that any given attribute (say, intolerance) must either apply to ALL segments of religion, or we cannot say it applies to religion at all.

I think we're both saying the same thing. But the OP question kind of requires that caveat.

 

What benefit there may be in having this discussion, cannot be found by taking this all-or-nothing approach, IMHO.

Exactly.

 

Yes, intolerance does not appear to be a major attribute of some churches, some religious people, some religious doctrines, or even some religious organizations.

 

But that does not mean that we must therefore conclude that intolerance plays no significant role in religion.

Did you mean "...that religion plays no significant role in intolerance?" If so, I can concede that. But I must add that since religion isn't the only player, we also do ourselves an injustice by singling it out. Consider gangs and racism, intolerance seems to be a side effect of most micro-cultures. The only antidote to intolerance then is having the meekness to accept those who are different than us, which I consider to be a biblical outlook.

 

My uncle Pete (my favorite uncle) was NOT intolerant, from the years 1960 to 1970, as far as I could observe. However, the church he attended during those years was quite intolerant of blacks, catholics and jews, as far as I could observe.

Well, the black thing was not uncommon in those days, but is unbiblical nonetheless, assuming they had a bible at that church. Also, I recall simply "judge not," or "turn the other cheek." (Ro.2,Lu.6) Not to mention the Jewish hatred is totally unbiblical. The Sadducees and Pharisees were not guilty of being Jewish by Jesus, but of not being Jewish enough. This has nothing to do with religion vs. religion, but has to do with hypocrites who say one thing and do another, not unlike the bible-thumping racists that you described. So it would seem to me that deliberate misuse of religions/denoms/cults/clubs/gangs is harmful to society. I think the modern term for "hypocrite" is "politician."

 

I think what we're trying to establish here is that intolerance is often a strong attribute in many churches, many religious organizations, many doctrines, many religions -- far more so than one would expect of a randomly selected group of people, or group of organizations.

Yeah, well, establish away.

 

One can observe (easily) that most "fundementalist" [sic] religions take great pains to clearly distinguish between themselves, the "righteous", and the others, the "unrighteous" -- and to socially separate themselves in some way from the others. This they justify by claiming that the others are morally flawed in some way. This is the first step toward "demonizing" the others, an ever-increasing spiral of exclusion, name-calling, degradation and self-justification.

So then is this "first step" the culprit? Separating one's self ideologically? Or is it the subsequent intolerance? By the way, is this what passes for "established?"

 

It's easy to see this in many fundementalist [sic] christian churches (and yacht clubs). But you don't see this so much in soccer clubs, bridge clubs, gardening clubs, charity organizations, college english departments, human resource departments, etc, etc.

I see it everywhere my friend. Starts in school, hanging around in "clicks," and later work... I don't frequent many clubs, but I imagine a certain introductory stage called "breaking the ice" amongst members, probably optional.

[Boerseun]

This thread raises the question "Is religion harmful to society?"

 

Would we call "society" the population of earth in its entirety, or the members of any particular faith, or the members of any particular denomination thereof, or just the members of one particular sect that agrees on everything?

 

For the sake of the argument, let's simplify it and just talk about the Christian/Islam/Judaism faiths here. Forget about the rest. Keep in mind that:

 

1) The abovementioned faiths are mutually exclusive. Their documents (upon which their existence and interpretation of reality is based) explicitly excludes the other two from "paradise", they will go straight to hell because they're on a wrong track. In seeing adherents of the other faiths as somewhat less deserving of God's good graces, it becomes all right to discriminate against them in life. God is on your side, after all.

 

2) In following your scripture to the letter, you have the task of evangelicising members of other beliefs, to convince them of your particular version of the truth. This, together with point 1, breeds conflict. If you're so cock-sure of your belief, why would you stand someone from another belief to come tell you that you've got the proverbial cat by the tail? Why not just sock him a good one and send him packing? He is, after all, somewhat less than perfectly human, after all. You are in God's good books, and the rest can go to hell.

 

3) All three beliefs require you to abandon rational thought. You are required to believe in totally impossible things like humans surviving trips in whale stomachs, the sun standing still, women turning into pillars of salt, the Red Sea parting with the wave of a wand, etc. (Believers will have you know that these are all metaphors, not to be taken seriously. But in that, they already display their ignorance of their professed faith, in that the very final chapter of Revelations tell you that this entire Book is the truth, and if you were to screw with it in any way, you're doomed. You can't pretend to be a Christian and then go selectively about the document upon which your faith is based. Same with the Q'uran. A very good argument can be made that those suicide bombers are much better Muslims than their peaceful kin who goes about their interpretation of the Q'uran more selectively).

Also, you really cannot say "let's NOT stone the homos and hookers" and pretend to be a Christian. Think about it.

 

In order to make "society" work, be it "society" of any kind as explained in the first paragraph, adherents to all these faiths have to modify their believes to make it more socially palatable. And its been so watered down and changed and modified than any believing attendant to a regular Friday Mosque meet, a Saturday Synagogue session or a Sunday Church service are all destined to hell, in any case. All three are ignoring the basic instructions of their faiths, which is to convert those not of the same belief, and if that fails, to either enslave them or put them to the sword - okay, the Jews are much more peaceful in that regard, but the point stays the same. But as times changed, so, too, did religions change (from the bottom up, ignoring the Scriptures that came from the top). With the inevitable question being raised: Why the hell bother?

 

Religions can be good in that they provide for the poor. But provision for the poor could be much better done if we take out the middleman (religion), and if that was the prime concern. I provide to the poor because I feel empathy to their situation, not because a gun loaded with hellfire and brimstone is held against my head. My approach, however, cannot lead to such headlines as what was posted on News24 this morning:

'Lord told me' to abuse girl

 

"Belief" in any kind demands the abandonment of rational thought.

 

And that cannot be good for any kind of society, and creates the slippery slope upon which the David Koresh's of this world slip and slide to a fully self-justified and self-righteous disaster of epic proportions.

 

Think about the Children's Crusade, for that matter. And then go to church on Sunday and tell your pastor/priest/whatever that you have finally come to your senses, and you will shed off the cloak of ignorance and take up your responsibility as a human being who have only this life to live and only this one chance in which to be good and kind to your fellow man, because ultimately, religion is a failure of logic, a failure of ethics, a divider of epic proportions, a gigantic meme feeding on itself for thousands of years, and, in the final analysis, total and utter bullshit.

 

We live for such a short time that Sunday mornings are much better spent in your family's company. There is no time to waste on dangerous fairytales.

[Pyrotex]

Yes.

 

At the core of any "religion" you will find a mandate to abandon rational thought, to a greater or lesser extent. The "religion" may require you to believe (or express belief) in one or more fairytales, or to reject one or more conclusions derived from scientific investigation, or to reject the process of science itself.

 

In my opinion, one could make a very strong case that this abandonment of rational thought is harmful to the individual. If this harm is inflicted on a large number of individuals, then it can be said to also be "harmful to society".

[Turtle]

Religions have existed in the world for ages. Humanity has its share of variations of Gods and Supreme Beings, yet have these religions hindered and been harmful to society? To the well-being of the world? Perhaps even technological advancement and understanding? Or has it helped? ;)

 

Faith-healing manslaughter trial with jury now | Local News | kgw.com | News for Portland Oregon and SW Washington

 

Faith-healing manslaughter trial with jury now

 

The manslaughter and criminal mistreatment charges against Carl Brent and Raylene Worthington were given to the jury late in the day Wednesday. It had only minutes behind closed doors before going home for the night.

 

The couple's daughter Ava died at 15 months on a Sunday evening in March 2008.

 

The case is the first since the Legislature passed a law in 1999 that bars defenses based on religious practices in most abuse cases.

 

It was a response to deaths among members of churches such as the independent congregation the Worthingtons belong to' date=' the Followers of Christ. ...[/quote']

 

these folks are denying in court that they knew how sick the child was, but in any case they would never have taken her to a doctor as their religion forbids it. so yeah; i'd say that a hindurance and detriment to society in this day & age. :confused:

[RevOfAllRevs]

I am reffering to the effects that religions, such as Christianity, have on societies ability to progress further in technology, politics, and ethics. Some would agree that religion has done nothing but hold back the potential of man and forced them to moral and good because of fear of damnation. Shouldn't people be good and decent because it's for the overall benefit of the whole society?

 

I think without religion we wouldn't have the 'social glue' to sustain the great civilizations of the world. Lets have a very brief look beginning with some of the most ancient civilizations to the contemporary social constructs we call civilizations. We can begin with what most scholars think is the first civilization* on earth, the Sumerian Ziggurat at Ur.

 

The ziggurat was part of a temple complex that served as an administrative center for the city, and it was also thought to be the place on earth where the moon god Nanna, the patron deity of Ur, had chosen to dwell. I would argue that without religion the temple nor the city would of existed. Or if the city existed it would not nearly as extravagant as the religion enhanced version was. Next we have the Egyptians and the greatest expression of religious power and influence ever conceived, the pyramids and their vast ‘accruements and support infrastructure’ that went to ensure the god king have a fine afterlife, and to ensure their good grace with the Gods. In both cases I would claim that religion gave a beneficial social structure and a goal for the early peoples. It gave them a reason to work, and to gather in one place, which fostered other necessities of social and other types of engineering to ensure the viability of that civilization.

 

This long term stability, sometimes lasting over a thousand years, allowed early man to survive as a nation of people all united with the same Gods etc.

 

Religion brought them (us) out of the Neolithic Age. I could go on and produce a time line of religions accomplishments like the Sistine Chapel and its many other accomplishments of art science and socially beneficial gifts to man. Listing those accomplishments would take a few pages of font. So mercifully I will cease for now. Some one mentioned Netwon, yes he was a great alchemist and Godly man. We need more like him in the modern age!

 

; }?

 

 

; }>

[InfiniteNow]

You're putting the cart before the horse. Society came before religion, not the other way around.

[Pyrotex]

One may be correct in concluding that religions were an enabling tool for organizing neolithic societies.

 

However, WE are not neolithic societies any longer!

 

Just because Bronze Age witch doctors were better than no medical aid at all -- that DOES NOT mean that we should take our diseases and broken bones to witch doctors today!

[Miranda]

To answer this question, we have to assume that we all are in agreement on what is 'best' for a society, as if we can have a prescription for how to make perfection out of human social interaction. However, I find such an assumption to be a bit of a leap and begs the question that we can know what is best for society, which is an issue that is contested itself. There's no universal agreement on the 'right' morals, ethics, social practices, etc. We should first determine what we mean by the 'best' practice of a given social parameter (such as politics, science, etc.) before assuming whether a religion has effect on it.