Can we say organized religion is a positive force in the world with headlines like this?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My experience is very positive. It's your opinion that the acts of the LDS Church are unloving. I see nothing but love in their teachings in this area.

You "see nothing but love" in trying to deny the right of marriage to people who aren't even Mormon?

You know, people whose experiences were very negative tend to be a whole lot more outspoken than those who leave without incident and maintain good relationships with their still-LDS family and friends.

Fair enough, but there's still a spectrum of experience from good to bad.

True, but there are some of us who are doing everything we can to let our positive actions outweigh those negative ones. Once again, just last Sunday, Mormons turned out by the hundreds to march with "Mormons Building Bridges" in support of the LGBT community in Salt Lake City's Pride Parade.

That seems like a positive first step, but trying for a balance of positive and negative that tilts somewhat toward positive is a far cry from Scott's "nothing but love".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I also understand that not all members of religions that have anti-gay sentiment are anti-gay themselves. Example, at some point recently the Catholic population went over the 50% mark for people IN FAVOR of gay marriage rights. This means MORE Catholics support gay marriage than are against it.

But still...it's like 40% of Catholics who are against equal rights for gay people, when it's more like 1% of the non-religious community.

It's also worth pointing out, though, that a significant percentage of the Catholics (or members of other anti-LGBT religious groups) who say that they support equal rights for gay people also help to pay for anti-LGBT activities by their church. I think the fact that they materially support measures aimed at depriving LGBT people of equal rights means that their support for equal rights is more mixed than the impression you'd get by asking them their position.

 

[idav]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-for-expressing-his-atheism-on-a6900056.html

10 Years prison and 2,000 lashes for being an atheist in Saudi Arabia.

"In 2014 the oil-rich kingdom, under the late Saudi King Abdullah, introduced a series of new laws which defined atheists as terrorists, according to a report released from Human Rights Watch. "

This is intended as a topic for serious debate: Can we make the case that organized religion is positive for society, or does it fail that test?

Honestly, even being theist, I feel like with all the gods to choose from that atheism is the safest bet or a very high likelihood of getting the whole thing wrong. I don't think type of belief should be an issue anyway but the chances of choosing wrong seem pretty good.

 

[Sees]

I think it mostly comes down to the level of exclusivism taught/believed for how negative it is capable of being. That seems the major factor looking at what sources spawn brainwashed footsoldiers or people willing to bloody other folks over victimless crimes. It can be secular and have pretty much the same effect. Whatever gives you ideological enemies to oppose and hypes up the threat of thinking, seeing, believing differently. If you challenge the castle walls exclusivist ideologies put up then you can expect some form of aggression/agitation, however mild. The official talking heads of said exclusivist ideology will encourage people to protect those imaginary walls leading to ridiculous laws, attacks, massacres, etc.

 

[psychoslice]

Some people in the world today are still in the dark-ages.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

A bottle holds whatever liquid you put inside it. Doesn't mean drinking whatever you find it is a good idea.
Religion changes with time just like everything in this material universe.
Which is Krishna incarnates in each yuga to show the changes to be made with each yuga.
Rama is believed to have killed a man who was of a sudra caste but tried to attain the heavens by trying ways of Brahmins.
Ages later Krishna arrived on this earth and did duties of Brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas, Sudras and even an Outcaste.
Organized religion isn't a positive force in my opinion because it hinders self thinking and independence. Which is why,from atheism to polytheism to monomism, Hindu traditions has it all.
I cannot speak of other religions.
And if traditions end up hurting another living being and the future generations to come for selfish desires, those traditions even if given by Narayana needs to go.

 

[Laika]

Did you see my post on positives and negatives? The negatives are real and get codified into laws that discriminate against non-believers (of whatever that society's religion happens to be). Law extends beyond simple hypocrisy: it has very real consequences in people's lives. I don't think we can dismiss this issue by essentially saying "no one's perfect". These are systemic problems that can and do occur within any religion.

The issue isn't that "no-ones perfect" but that why we aspire to standards of perfection at all when it is almost as destructive as the very evils we condemn (e.g. Using the death penalty on a murderer: wtf would that achieve?)

We have simply inherited a secular conception of ethics from Christianity in which we still aspire to the divine of perfect goodness, or perfect knowledge, or assume absolute power to right the wrongs in the world. In practice that is an untenable position. The law only exists as long as people both have the power and the willingness to enforce it. Is an action a crime when the person gets away with it? In practice, no because the law has had no effect.

A law or moral system which people do not or cannot follow does not produce its intended consequences and isnt worth having.

We can condemn "religion" by identifying the vaguest relationship between it, it's moral content and the actions of its adherents but what does it do when we cannot eliminate the religion or to even attempt it would be worse than the abuses "religion" commits? You can Condemn every religion and it still changes nothing.

 

[Ingledsva]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-for-expressing-his-atheism-on-a6900056.html

10 Years prison and 2,000 lashes for being an atheist in Saudi Arabia.

"In 2014 the oil-rich kingdom, under the late Saudi King Abdullah, introduced a series of new laws which defined atheists as terrorists, according to a report released from Human Rights Watch. "

This is intended as a topic for serious debate: Can we make the case that organized religion is positive for society, or does it fail that test?

Over-all - I think organized religion has been a negative for humanity, and continues to be so.

*

 

[Augustus]

We have simply inherited a secular conception of ethics from Christianity

Not to mention a salvation narrative that replaces god with 'reason'.

Most Western anti theists really are very Christian, even though they fail to see it.

 

[Ken Ewald]

The issue isn't that "no-ones perfect" but that why we aspire to standards of perfection at all when it is almost as destructive as the very evils we condemn (e.g. Using the death penalty on a murderer: wtf would that achieve?)

We have simply inherited a secular conception of ethics from Christianity in which we still aspire to the divine of perfect goodness, or perfect knowledge, or assume absolute power to right the wrongs in the world. In practice that is an untenable position. The law only exists as long as people both have the power and the willingness to enforce it. Is an action a crime when the person gets away with it? In practice, no because the law has had no effect.

A law or moral system which people do not or cannot follow does not produce its intended consequences and isnt worth having.

We can condemn "religion" by identifying the vaguest relationship between it, it's moral content and the actions of its adherents but what does it do when we cannot eliminate the religion or to even attempt it would be worse than the abuses "religion" commits? You can Condemn every religion and it still changes nothing.

So quit having children.

 

[Ingledsva]

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...e-man-kills-14-of-his-family-commits-suicide/

Indian man kills 14 of his family members then himself.

"Hasnain Warekar, 35, employed at a financial services firm in Navi Mumbai, had allegedly slit the throats of his family members, including his wife, parents, sisters, and seven children, apart from his own three-month-old daughter, before hanging himself."

Can we make the case that Indians are mass-murderers and prone to suicide of does it fail that test?

The article says he tried something similar four years ago (sedated them but apparently couldn't kill them then) with medications given to him by a local "BABA."

Why is a "BABA" giving him large amounts of sedation drugs?

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Not to mention a salvation narrative that replaces god with 'reason'.

Most Western anti theists really are very Christian, even though they fail to see it.

How could they not have some of these characteristics bred in, or taught by society, with the bull the churches forced on people early on?

In the American colonies people were tortured for not attending church, and you could be killed.

*

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Yes you may, however the Abrahamic's make up a significant portion of the religious landscape, so you'll have to be understanding that when people think of religion, in large part these are the religions people think of off the bat.

People don't know what the heck an agnostic polytheist thinks about things. Not that your opinions don't count, but you can't expect when people think of religion that they will put your religion on equal footing with the Big Three or Four that dominate the religious landscape.

It's like saying it's unfair to say "NFL football helmets have logos on the side" simply because of the Browns and one side of the Steelers. You would be technically correct of course, but when people think of football helmets, they think of team logos on the side.

It's not just about me. My position as a revivalist pagan is kind of an uncommon one, but there are plenty of huge religions that aren't homophobic, plenty that don't believe in eternal damnation etc. And I don't think minority views should be passed over and ignored in the discourse. This is something that bothered me even when I was an atheist.

The issue isn't that "no-ones perfect" but that why we aspire to standards of perfection at all when it is almost as destructive as the very evils we condemn (e.g. Using the death penalty on a murderer: wtf would that achieve?)

"Murder is illegal and death is the penalty/Who justifies the homicide when he dies?"

 

[Tumah]

The article says he tried something similar four years ago (sedated them but apparently couldn't kill them then) with medications given to him by a local "BABA."

Why is a "BABA" giving him large amounts of sedation drugs?

*

Haha, I have no idea. I was wondering the same thing myself. Maybe he said he needed it for his elephant?

"5 oz of pentobarbital? Dear Brahman, that's enough to sedate 14 people!!"
"What sedate 14 people?? Nooo....its for my... elephant! Yes, me elephant. He doesn't sleep well at night"
"Well ok then! That will be 14,000 rupees please."

 

[psychoslice]

For me personally, organized religion has become a cancer to most of society.

 

[Ken Ewald]

For me personally, organized religion has become a cancer to most of society.

Agreed. Come out of her my people.

 

[rusra02]

I believe there is one true religion that brings truth and hope, and innumerable false religions that bring lies and spiritual darkness to their adherents. I believe these religions will suffer the penalty described in Revelation 18:21-24; "And a strong angel lifted up a stone like a great millstone and hurled it into the sea, saying: “Thus with a swift pitch will Babylon the great city be hurled down, and she will never be found again....No light of a lamp will ever shine in you again, and no voice of a bridegroom and of a bride will ever be heard in you again; for your merchants were the top-ranking men of the earth, and by your spiritistic practices all the nations were misled. Yes, in her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The law only exists as long as people both have the power and the willingness to enforce it. Is an action a crime when the person gets away with it? In practice, no because the law has had no effect.

That's not really true.

A law that sits on the books unenforced still has the potential to be enforced. It also serves as a signal of the standards of the society. This can create a chilling effect: even if the police (or whoever enforces the law) wouldn't enforce it, the average person may not know that and may avoid doing whatever the law prohibits just in case.

And even if nobody here and now plans on enforcing the law, just having it on the books creates the potential for people somewhere else or in the future to enforce it.

That's one of the big issues with a lot of modern, "liberal" versions of religion: yes, none of their current adherents would, say, harm a witch, hurt gay people, or enslave their neighbouring nations, but they have no problem propagating a holy book that commands all these things to future people who will interpret the book for themselves. Some of those people will take those harmful passages more seriously than today's liberal believers do.

A truly liberal, loving believer would edit their holy books to remove the objectionable, harmful passages. OTOH, when they choose to propagate their holy books despite the harmful material in them, they're tacitly supporting the harmful material that they don't follow personally.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe there is one true religion that brings truth and hope, and innumerable false religions that bring lies and spiritual darkness to their adherents.

"All religions are bad... except mine. Mine is wonderful. The ones that are very similar to mine are made up of evil, soul-sucking lies, but mine - which is so similar to those others that many people can't tell the difference - is pure goodness and a beacon of light to the world."

 

[First Baseman]

It's also worth pointing out, though, that a significant percentage of the Catholics (or members of other anti-LGBT religious groups) who say that they support equal rights for gay people also help to pay for anti-LGBT activities by their church. I think the fact that they materially support measures aimed at depriving LGBT people of equal rights means that their support for equal rights is more mixed than the impression you'd get by asking them their position.

How about if we just say "equal rights for all people" instead of "equal rights for gay people"? People are people.

Denying marriage to gay people (as far as Catholics are concerned) isn't denying them their rights. They can draw up any sort of contract they want. But it isn't marriage as defined in the Holy Bible so the Catholic Church does not recognize it as such.

Marriage was always meant to be between one man and one woman as defined by Jesus. Gay people can have a union of whatever sort but it isn't marriage by definition in the eyes of the Church and scripture.