Have Religions Outlived its Usefulness in The USA

[Buttercup]

Religions have served a very important function to mankind's civilizational journey. Without it,many civilization would of never survived. Now we find ourselves at a crossroad.
The World has never seen a nation like ours before. We are a nation of multicultures where every race, religion, and nationality resides. Have we reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to religions? Are religions actually hindering our development as a nation? Would we be better off without them?
I'm not suggesting that we ban religions, that would be disastrous to our moral compass not to mention the economy. What I am suggesting is that we act like the secular country that we should be. The government should stop subsidies to religion. Stop the tax deductions for donations, the tax free status of churches, and making laws that are influenced by religions. Religions have become economic and political powerhouses in this country through non believers inadvertent assistance. I could go on and on but what do you think?

I read this short article tonight and thought I'd swoop in and drop-kick a link into this thread to aid (hopefully) in your discussion. You're welcome.

Public Sees Religion

 

[Tabb]

I read this short article tonight and thought I'd swoop in and drop-kick a link into this thread to aid (hopefully) in your discussion. You're welcome.

Public Sees Religion

Interesting the reaction to the poll.

 

[Quintessence]

The World has never seen a nation like ours before. We are a nation of multicultures where every race, religion, and nationality resides. Have we reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to religions? Are religions actually hindering our development as a nation? Would we be better off without them?

Which religions? And, more importantly, which ideas espoused by particular religions, and is it really the religion that is the issue or something else that underlies the psychology of peoples and cultures? It is not particularly useful to speak in general terms about something so diverse.

 

[Tabb]

Which religions? And, more importantly, which ideas espoused by particular religions, and is it really the religion that is the issue or something else that underlies the psychology of peoples and cultures? It is not particularly useful to speak in general terms about something so diverse.

I'm not debating the details of beliefs in this thread. What I'm addressing is the relationship of religion to government. So it really does't matter which religion we're talking about. The relationship a religion and a government has can be detrimental to both in the long run. Christianity has morphed over the years because of governments undue influence. We see it played out live today in how religious influences can make governments make bad decisions.

The point being made is about that relationship and not religion itself. If you read further in my opening statement, you would see that I absolutely am not calling for a ban on religions. I also point out that they serve a purpose to society.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not debating the details of beliefs in this thread. What I'm addressing is the relationship of religion to government. So it really does't matter which religion we're talking about. The relationship a religion and a government has can be detrimental to both in the long run. Christianity has morphed over the years because of governments undue influence. We see it played out live today in how religious influences can make governments make bad decisions.

But doesn't the potential relationship between religions and governments depend very much on the nature of said religions and governments? And also of the filter through which people inevitably interpret their given religion, giving it a distinct flavor that is characteristic of the individual?

Honestly, given that both religions and governments are facets of culture, disentangling them for analysis is probably not possible. Even if a government official claims to be "secular" they are still going to be influenced by their way of life. We can speculate, but pinning down clear trends one way or another is something I'm skeptical of. At most you could pin down what people think the trend is, such as what PEW research does, but this doesn't speak to what is actually happening in a more objective fashion. I ask about getting specific because it seems to me that certain kinds of religion and a certain understanding of religiosity is waning. Others are rising to take its place, many of which aren't labeled as "religion" because the ideas people have about religion in this country are... limited, to say the least.

he point being made is about that relationship and not religion itself. If you read further in my opening statement, you would see that I absolutely am not calling for a ban on religions. I also point out that they serve a purpose to society.

I understand. Nor was I suggesting that is what you were proposing. I am suggesting that it is important to avoid painting religions with a broad brush and make statements so general that they are inevitably going to be incorrect.

 

[Sir Doom]

I'm impressed and almost honored that you took the time to take apart my opening statement. I think you can do that with almost anyone's writings.

Its true. I can.

I think you however over thought this and miss the whole point of the thread.

I confess that I do have a hard time understanding what vision for the future you are really aiming for. I understand you don't want to ban religion, but it seems like you want to take away everything they do for the public at the same time.

All I was getting at was is it time to re look at how we think of religion in this country.

We the people? Or we the government? Because the things you are talking about (tax code, etc) have very little to do with 'thinking about religion'. Again, I don't really understand what you are aiming for here. If you are talking about changing hearts and minds in this country visa vi religion, I have to reiterate you are in for a tremendous uphill climb. A vast majority of people in this country are religious, and a vast majority of those people are Christian. That's not going to change by removing a tax break or subsidy. In fact, if you've ever managed to sit through the average sermon these days, you'd be likely to hear something about how this country is being taken over by 'satan' due to trivialities such as this. There is a huge movement of people who believe the 'end times' are near and these sorts of policy shifts only serve to strengthen that conviction. Its a wash, essentially. Have you not noticed the overwhelming bipartisanship that's grown over the last decade or so? What do you think is responsible for that? The Bible didn't get a rewrite or anything. Policy has changed. The USA becomes more progressive. The natural response from fundamentalists is fear and aggression. Its just not as simple as you'd like to make it is what I'm trying to say.

I do believe I stated that to ban religion would be disastrous and I pointed out an actual need for a lot of its aspects.

I acknowledge that. Which is why I said it sounded like you've answered your own question. To me, it seems like everything you would be willing to do to 'combat' religion (for lack of a better term) is already being done, and is well within your power to participate in. This thread is a fine example. Exercise your civic rights. Change what you feel needs to be changed. Beyond that... lots of luck.

My point had more to do with how governments treat and use religion.

Again, I'm just confused as to what your vision of the future entails. I can't understand what it is that you really want to change about how things are besides the specific things you've mentioned already which I responded to in the last post. Not sure where to go from here.

If we are a true Secular nation, the government cannot use religion against its citizens.

Can you give me an example of this, please?

We complain about Non Secularism in Muslim countries and its harm but somehow its OK for us because its Christianity.

First of all... I don't complain about that so let's not say 'we'. Second, I wouldn't give Christianity any special consideration on this, either. I am not citizen of Saudi or Iran or Pakistan or any other Muslim nation. Its not my place to tell them what sort of government they should have. Its their place. As far as this nation goes, I'm pretty certain that Christianity just happens to be the majority religion. Every tax break we give a church we give a mosque or a synagogue as well. That's how it should be. There just happens to be more Christian churches because (dun, dun, duuuuuuuuuun) there are a lot more Christians here.

My whole point is that there is no place for religion in good government.

I think you are wrong. There is a place for it. Its place is in the will of the people, exactly where it resides currently. There is no way to remove it without removing the rights of the people.

 

[Tabb]

But doesn't the potential relationship between religions and governments depend very much on the nature of said religions and governments? And also of the filter through which people inevitably interpret their given religion, giving it a distinct flavor that is characteristic of the individual?

Honestly, given that both religions and governments are facets of culture, disentangling them for analysis is probably not possible. Even if a government official claims to be "secular" they are still going to be influenced by their way of life. We can speculate, but pinning down clear trends one way or another is something I'm skeptical of. At most you could pin down what people think the trend is, such as what PEW research does, but this doesn't speak to what is actually happening in a more objective fashion. I ask about getting specific because it seems to me that certain kinds of religion and a certain understanding of religiosity is waning. Others are rising to take its place, many of which aren't labeled as "religion" because the ideas people have about religion in this country are... limited, to say the least.



I understand. Nor was I suggesting that is what you were proposing. I am suggesting that it is important to avoid painting religions with a broad brush and make statements so general that they are inevitably going to be incorrect.

I don't know how anyone can live in the US and not see the heavy hand of Christianity on public policy and the abuse of tax laws in the US. Christianity in America is a religion whose culture has a Anglo base whose customs and beliefs find itself conflicting with those of non white, non Christian( Anglo version ), non English, and etc. I think the policy should be even handed to all religions but I pointing to Christianity for obvious reasons It leads to an atmosphere of intolerance of those that are not White , Anglo, and Christian. For years it lead a segment of society to believe in its superiority because of these views. These views were government sanctioned and to this day there are laws on the books that are relevant to these views. Government should be For all the people.

Today we have an unhealthy alliance of the wealthy and religious organization that depend on their largesses for their survival. Religious organizations in return are supporting the wealthy positions on political matters. Religions have a major impact on foreign policy and social issues. I can go on and on on these points. Some of them are obvious while others are not so obvious.

I know that in the natural course of things its unavoidable that culture and religion will and should affect public policy. However there needs to be a conscious effort against undue influence. By changing Tax policy and just having a Secular goal for government would be a good start. The talk about declaring America a Christian Nation needs to be halted.

 

[jtartar]

Religions have served a very important function to mankind's civilizational journey. Without it,many civilization would of never survived. Now we find ourselves at a crossroad.
The World has never seen a nation like ours before. We are a nation of multicultures where every race, religion, and nationality resides. Have we reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to religions? Are religions actually hindering our development as a nation? Would we be better off without them?
I'm not suggesting that we ban religions, that would be disastrous to our moral compass not to mention the economy. What I am suggesting is that we act like the secular country that we should be. The government should stop subsidies to religion. Stop the tax deductions for donations, the tax free status of churches, and making laws that are influenced by religions. Religions have become economic and political powerhouses in this country through non believers inadvertent assistance. I could go on and on but what do you think?

Tabb,
I believe you have gotten things in reverse!! It is because this nation is getting further from God, that we have become the most immoral nation on earth, also the most blood thirsty nation on earth.
As more and more people become secularized, they get further and further from The Almighty God, whose personal name is Jehovah. This might be alright if you are desiring to be judged as unworthy of life, and want to spend an eternity in the Lake of Fire, Rev 20:14,15, 21:8.
If you do not love life, and you want no part in living forever in a paradise earth, just keep following the world of today, that is ruled over by Satan, 2Cor 4:3,4, 1John 2:15-17, James 4:4. God does not want to destroy anyone, but people who do not want to live peacefully with God and neighbor, must be removed from earth, Matt 22:34-40, Rom 13:8-10, 2Pet 3:7, 9,10.
The thing to remember; God's laws are not burdensome, 1 John 5:3, but they are a hedge for our protection, if we listen and act on the words of God we can have everything our hearts desire, but in That New Earth, Rev 21:1-4, Ps 145:16.

 

[Tabb]

Tabb,
I believe you have gotten things in reverse!! It is because this nation is getting further from God, that we have become the most immoral nation on earth, also the most blood thirsty nation on earth.
As more and more people become secularized, they get further and further from The Almighty God, whose personal name is Jehovah. This might be alright if you are desiring to be judged as unworthy of life, and want to spend an eternity in the Lake of Fire, Rev 20:14,15, 21:8.
If you do not love life, and you want no part in living forever in a paradise earth, just keep following the world of today, that is ruled over by Satan, 2Cor 4:3,4, 1John 2:15-17, James 4:4. God does not want to destroy anyone, but people who do not want to live peacefully with God and neighbor, must be removed from earth, Matt 22:34-40, Rom 13:8-10, 2Pet 3:7, 9,10.
The thing to remember; God's laws are not burdensome, 1 John 5:3, but they are a hedge for our protection, if we listen and act on the words of God we can have everything our hearts desire, but in That New Earth, Rev 21:1-4, Ps 145:16.

I guess we where being moral when we used the free African labor in the form of slavery in this country for centuries. Which was fully sactioned by Christianity. Perhaps we were being moral when we denied women the right to vote. How about all the Jim Crow laws that promoted racial segregation. Maybe when we took the land from Native Americans after slaughtering most of them we were doing Gods work.

I'm sorry if moving away from God means we stop commiting these horrible acts than its about time.

 

[Tabb]

Its true. I can.



I confess that I do have a hard time understanding what vision for the future you are really aiming for. I understand you don't want to ban religion, but it seems like you want to take away everything they do for the public at the same time.



We the people? Or we the government? Because the things you are talking about (tax code, etc) have very little to do with 'thinking about religion'. Again, I don't really understand what you are aiming for here. If you are talking about changing hearts and minds in this country visa vi religion, I have to reiterate you are in for a tremendous uphill climb. A vast majority of people in this country are religious, and a vast majority of those people are Christian. That's not going to change by removing a tax break or subsidy. In fact, if you've ever managed to sit through the average sermon these days, you'd be likely to hear something about how this country is being taken over by 'satan' due to trivialities such as this. There is a huge movement of people who believe the 'end times' are near and these sorts of policy shifts only serve to strengthen that conviction. Its a wash, essentially. Have you not noticed the overwhelming bipartisanship that's grown over the last decade or so? What do you think is responsible for that? The Bible didn't get a rewrite or anything. Policy has changed. The USA becomes more progressive. The natural response from fundamentalists is fear and aggression. Its just not as simple as you'd like to make it is what I'm trying to say.



I acknowledge that. Which is why I said it sounded like you've answered your own question. To me, it seems like everything you would be willing to do to 'combat' religion (for lack of a better term) is already being done, and is well within your power to participate in. This thread is a fine example. Exercise your civic rights. Change what you feel needs to be changed. Beyond that... lots of luck.



Again, I'm just confused as to what your vision of the future entails. I can't understand what it is that you really want to change about how things are besides the specific things you've mentioned already which I responded to in the last post. Not sure where to go from here.



Can you give me an example of this, please?



First of all... I don't complain about that so let's not say 'we'. Second, I wouldn't give Christianity any special consideration on this, either. I am not citizen of Saudi or Iran or Pakistan or any other Muslim nation. Its not my place to tell them what sort of government they should have. Its their place. As far as this nation goes, I'm pretty certain that Christianity just happens to be the majority religion. Every tax break we give a church we give a mosque or a synagogue as well. That's how it should be. There just happens to be more Christian churches because (dun, dun, duuuuuuuuuun) there are a lot more Christians here.



I think you are wrong. There is a place for it. Its place is in the will of the people, exactly where it resides currently. There is no way to remove it without removing the rights of the people.

There has been mountains of change in the US. it comes about because of our diversity. Things like ending slavery, women and blacks getting the right to vote, interracial and same sex marriage, electing a Black President, legalization of pot, etc.. These are all things that people at one time thought would never happen. In America all things are possible.

One of the things you keep doing is looking to me to supply you with the how. I'm not trying to take on the mantle of a soothsayer and tell you how the change is going to happen. I'm just here as an observer whose been on this earth for 66 yrs and witnesses a lot of changes in my short life. The Christian political wall is crumbing. People are seeing through the pious views of religious leaders and seeing their frailty as men. People are beginning to look inward for guidance. The evidence of this is that this is a much different nation than it was 60 yrs ago. Technology is bringing this world much closer together and at the same time is giving us an opportunity to see ourselves really for the first time.

 

[Sir Doom]

There has been mountains of change in the US. it comes about because of our diversity. Things like ending slavery, women and blacks getting the right to vote, interracial and same sex marriage, electing a Black President, legalization of pot, etc.. These are all things that people at one time thought would never happen. In America all things are possible.

I'm pretty sure I was the one who said the USA is getting more progressive. Did you even read my post? Are you completely reversing your sentiments from earlier in the thread now? What is the point of this thread?

One of the things you keep doing is looking to me to supply you with the how. I'm not trying to take on the mantle of a soothsayer and tell you how the change is going to happen. I'm just here as an observer whose been on this earth for 66 yrs and witnesses a lot of changes in my short life.

I'm not asking you to predict the future. I'm asking you what you want it to be like regardless of how possible or difficult it may be to get there. You must have some idea of what you want, so what is it? Feel free to ignore that question again. This will likely be my second to last post in this thread. The last one will say something like, "You've ignored my questions again. Done with you."

Your court...

...the ball is in it.

The Christian political wall is crumbing. People are seeing through the pious views of religious leaders and seeing their frailty as men. People are beginning to look inward for guidance.

But not fast enough for you? Again, I fail to understand what this thread is all about. Are you just soap-boxing? Or do you actually want a debate?

The evidence of this is that this is a much different nation than it was 60 yrs ago. Technology is bringing this world much closer together and at the same time is giving us an opportunity to see ourselves really for the first time.

What exactly were we seeing before 'technology' happened? I don't even know why I bother...

 

[Tabb]

I'm pretty sure I was the one who said the USA is getting more progressive. Did you even read my post? Are you completely reversing your sentiments from earlier in the thread now? What is the point of this thread?



I'm not asking you to predict the future. I'm asking you what you want it to be like regardless of how possible or difficult it may be to get there. You must have some idea of what you want, so what is it? Feel free to ignore that question again. This will likely be my second to last post in this thread. The last one will say something like, "You've ignored my questions again. Done with you."

Your court...

...the ball is in it.



But not fast enough for you? Again, I fail to understand what this thread is all about. Are you just soap-boxing? Or do you actually want a debate?



What exactly were we seeing before 'technology' happened? I don't even know why I bother...

I can't with you. This thread purpose was to ponder the question have religions outlived it's usefulness in the US. It was not a thread making a declaration that they have or that we should move on past religions. Many changes have happened that organized religion was on the wrong side of. I'm not a provocateur of this change. I am merely an observer. You Sir keep quizzing as to when this is going to happen, how it's going to happen, and in what form. All I am saying is that it is happening and will continue to. If you disagree with that trend than that's the area we have to debate. You are trying to put me in the position of championing the direction things are going in America and I keep saying I'm an observer.

Maybe we don't have a reason to debate. I said I think it would be healthier for this nation to be my secularized you disagree . Thats okay, because I had no delusions that I was going to convince anybody to take my view. However the thought did serve its purpose because it provoked you and others to comment. I've learned from this discussion.

 

[Sir Doom]

I can't with you. This thread purpose was to ponder the question have religions outlived it's usefulness in the US. It was not a thread making a declaration that they have or that we should move on past religions. Many changes have happened that organized religion was on the wrong side of. I'm not a provocateur of this change. I am merely an observer. You Sir keep quizzing as to when this is going to happen, how it's going to happen, and in what form. All I am saying is that it is happening and will continue to. If you disagree with that trend than that's the area we have to debate. You are trying to put me in the position of championing the direction things are going in America and I keep saying I'm an observer.

Maybe we don't have a reason to debate. I said I think it would be healthier for this nation to be my secularized you disagree . Thats okay, because I had no delusions that I was going to convince anybody to take my view. However the thought did serve its purpose because it provoked you and others to comment. I've learned from this discussion.

I answered every one of your questions in my first response. You've failed to answer a single one of mine in 3 responses since. This is the debate forum. Think about that. Done with you and your 'observations'.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm of the opinion that any religion which does not actively promoted the equal treatment of all people regardless of religion, nationality, race, sexual orientation, gender is probably outdated.

Certainly our legal morality says this is true. Religions can evolve and they need to in order to have any relevancy to the ethical values of this country. Religions which do not promote this ethical value shouldn't be accepted.

 

[Tabb]

I answered every one of your questions in my first response. You've failed to answer a single one of mine in 3 responses since. This is the debate forum. Think about that. Done with you and your 'observations'.

I didn't see one legitimate question you asked. What you did was take a complete thought and broke it down into components and questioned each sentence. Demanding me to provide you with a complete vision of the future of Religion. I was addressing one thing and that was religion's relationship with government policy in the US. My point was that it was waning. The proof in that was the changes in the US despite organized religion's opposition. I then gave my opinion that it would continue to wane due to the growing diversity in the US.

That was it in a nut shell. I have no idea what you were getting at. Debating involves me giving by opinion than you presenting a counter argument. All you did was question each little sentence with no argument of your own. What questions you answered of mine I have no Idea. You had nothing to offer so I'm glad to see you go.

 

[Tabb]

I'm of the opinion that any religion which does not actively promoted the equal treatment of all people regardless of religion, nationality, race, sexual orientation, gender is probably outdated.

Certainly our legal morality says this is true. Religions can evolve and they need to in order to have any relevancy to the ethical values of this country. Religions which do not promote this ethical value shouldn't be accepted.

I think you are right on with your comment.

 

[Sir Doom]

I didn't see one legitimate question you asked.

Then you didn't read my posts or you have an incredibly self-serving definition of 'legitimate'.

What you did was take a complete thought and broke it down into components and questioned each sentence.

Yes. Is there something wrong with that?

Demanding me to provide you with a complete vision of the future of Religion.

I demanded no such thing. I asked you what your vision for the future was. That is, what you hoped to accomplish. I'm not asking you to predict the future, outline a plan or anything like that. I just want to know what you want. It is clear to me (at this point) that what you want is a place to vomit your half-thoughts without any rebuttal. I suggest you get a blog. They are free, after all. If you aren't interested in debate, I can't imagine why you'd pick the General Religious Debate forum to post this in. Considering the topic, I find it pretty far-fetched that you wouldn't expect some kind of rebuttal.

I was addressing one thing and that was religion's relationship with government policy in the US. My point was that it was waning. The proof in that was the changes in the US despite organized religion's opposition. I then gave my opinion that it would continue to wane due to the growing diversity in the US.

Yes, and then you asked specific questions pertaining to that topic which I answered one at a time. Something you seem to think is not allowed or unfair or something along those lines. I can't imagine why. Just kidding... I know exactly why.

That was it in a nut shell. I have no idea what you were getting at. Debating involves me giving by opinion than you presenting a counter argument. All you did was question each little sentence with no argument of your own.

My commentary on your statements stems specifically from a lack of knowledge. Specifically, I'm not sure what it is you want. Pretty sure I stated that from post two when you first refused to engage with me. By the way, most of my questions were rhetorical. If you aren't aware, that's a fairly effective tool in debate.

What questions you answered of mine I have no Idea.

LOL, easy enough. It was these questions:

Have we reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to religions?

To answer this, I require your opinion on what 'returns' you expect from religion in the first place in order to evaluate whether it is diminishing now.

Are religions actually hindering our development as a nation?

Development into what, exactly?

Would we be better off without them?

Absolutely not.

That was from my first post responding to your OP. Care to address them now? I somehow doubt it.

You had nothing to offer so I'm glad to see you go.

What you really mean to say is that I didn't readily agree with your sentiments, and also refused to leave it in the realm of vagueness that you prefer. Look at my first two answers. I need more information to answer your questions. You refused to supply it and instead try to pretend the questions aren't important. The last question hinges on the utterly subjective notion of 'better' which I'm more than capable of supplying without you. Hence the clear answer.

Are the answers to your questions important to you? If so, please supply the information I need in order to answer them. If not, then why did you ask them in the first place?

 

[Tabb]

Then you didn't read my posts or you have an incredibly self-serving definition of 'legitimate'.

Yes. Is there something wrong with that?

I demanded no such thing. I asked you what your vision for the future was. That is, what you hoped to accomplish. I'm not asking you to predict the future, outline a plan or anything like that. I just want to know what you want. It is clear to me (at this point) that what you want is a place to vomit your half-thoughts without any rebuttal. I suggest you get a blog. They are free, after all. If you aren't interested in debate, I can't imagine why you'd pick the General Religious Debate forum to post this in. Considering the topic, I find it pretty far-fetched that you wouldn't expect some kind of rebuttal.

Yes, and then you asked specific questions pertaining to that topic which I answered one at a time. Something you seem to think is not allowed or unfair or something along those lines. I can't imagine why. Just kidding... I know exactly why.

My commentary on your statements stems specifically from a lack of knowledge. Specifically, I'm not sure what it is you want. Pretty sure I stated that from post two when you first refused to engage with me. By the way, most of my questions were rhetorical. If you aren't aware, that's a fairly effective tool in debate.

LOL, easy enough. It was these questions:
That was from my first post responding to your OP. Care to address them now? I somehow doubt it.

What you really mean to say is that I didn't readily agree with your sentiments, and also refused to leave it in the realm of vagueness that you prefer. Look at my first two answers. I need more information to answer your questions. You refused to supply it and instead try to pretend the questions aren't important. The last question hinges on the utterly subjective notion of 'better' which I'm more than capable of supplying without you. Hence the clear answer.

Are the answers to your questions important to you? If so, please supply the information I need in order to answer them. If not, then why did you ask them in the first place?

Ok Sir Doom perhaps we got off on the foot. I apologize for being curt and would really like to try this again. So that I do not get confused, could you just deal with one point at a time. I'm obviously incapable of dealing with so much at once.

 

[Sir Doom]

Ok Sir Doom perhaps we got off on the foot. I apologize for being curt and would really like to try this again. So that I do not get confused, could you just deal with one point at a time. I'm obviously incapable of dealing with so much at once.

Fine by me.

Your first question was:

Have we reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to religions?

My answer was:

To answer this, I require your opinion on what 'returns' you expect from religion in the first place in order to evaluate whether it is diminishing now.

To put it simply, your question implies that you believe religion, in the past, served a purpose in government. Further, it states that this purpose is increasingly diminished as time goes on. This is what diminishing returns means (as I assume you know).

Now, I am capable of blindly guessing what you suppose this purpose is or was and I can even assume that the benefit of religion to government that you are implying is identical to the benefits that I myself might see. But I find that such guesses are nothing but wasted effort. It would amount to little more than me putting words in your mouth which you could very easily deny by saying as much. So instead, I wish to defer to your opinion on the matter. Then, I can think about the role of religion today, compare it to the returns you expect, and answer your question within the framework you intended for the question in the first place instead of just getting bogged down in guess-and-check.

Now, what I suspected is that you don't believe religion ever really served a purpose at all. That, of course, is a guess. But that's exactly why I asked what I did. The fact that you have thus far refused to answer seemed to support this notion. I'll be happy to be wrong about that. You have only to answer the question. Then we can debate whether or not the returns are indeed diminished or are diminishing (as I hope you actually intend to debate). Then I suppose we can move on to question number two, where the situation is quite similar.

 

[Tabb]

Fine by me.

Your first question was:


My answer was:



To put it simply, your question implies that you believe religion, in the past, served a purpose in government. Further, it states that this purpose is increasingly diminished as time goes on. This is what diminishing returns means (as I assume you know).

Now, I am capable of blindly guessing what you suppose this purpose is or was and I can even assume that the benefit of religion to government that you are implying is identical to the benefits that I myself might see. But I find that such guesses are nothing but wasted effort. It would amount to little more than me putting words in your mouth which you could very easily deny by saying as much. So instead, I wish to defer to your opinion on the matter. Then, I can think about the role of religion today, compare it to the returns you expect, and answer your question within the framework you intended for the question in the first place instead of just getting bogged down in guess-and-check.

Now, what I suspected is that you don't believe religion ever really served a purpose at all. That, of course, is a guess. But that's exactly why I asked what I did. The fact that you have thus far refused to answer seemed to support this notion. I'll be happy to be wrong about that. You have only to answer the question. Then we can debate whether or not the returns are indeed diminished or are diminishing (as I hope you actually intend to debate). Then I suppose we can move on to question number two, where the situation is quite similar.

OK, that was meant to be a rhetorical question. It was meant to drive home the point of my thread.