Wil we ever abolish religion?

Also, I don't think Westboro violates what I'm talking about. Not talking about expressions of hate. The signs would say, "go kill..." in the active form to do that. But the preaching about it is the main thing. How people spread it, is what I would be after.

Quote: rxwine

Also, I don't think Westboro violates what I'm talking about. Not talking about expressions of hate. The signs would say, "go kill..." in the active form to do that. But the preaching about it is the main thing. How people spread it, is what I would be after.

The most obscene part of that picture is the age of the participants. Get 'em young.

As to the original question, I don't see religion ever going away, because its ultimate function is to give comfort and answers where there can be none.

"Why did Daddy die?" "What happens to my conscious self after death?" "How can 250000 die in a tsunami?". Lots of others, especially before scientific reasons are discovered for phenomena. Religion brings peace and hope to some where reason leaves bleak reality of the randomness of nature and health as the only answer. Choosing reason is a hard road that many here have accepted, either through rational thought or emotional rejection of faith (or some combination). I'm one of them for the most part, but I think there is value in allowing for the possibility of a Higher Power, and by living within a moral code that holds for most in my community.

One of the great temptations and failings of religions comes again and again from its leaders. They become rich and powerful, perhaps initially as a consequence of responsible leadership (though some religions are started specifically to gain power over others), but begin to fail their flock when they create or encourage a gulf of knowledge or growth between the leadership and their followers. If they come up with a faith-based explanation for something unknown in their time, it can be a comfort that allows others to move on. If a fact-based reason for that same phenomenon is found and proved, to then stick to the faith-based explanation becomes lying and manipulating of their followers and leads to the type of schisms we now see between scientists and faith leaders, and generally a lessening in trust of the faith leaders.

Knowledge has to be a window into faith, not a roadblock. Too often it's made into a test of faith rather than an opportunity for growth of the religion.

Quote: beachbumbabs

One of the great temptations and failings of religions comes again and again from its leaders.

The same can be said of any single group that has ever existed. Religions, Democracies, Communists, unions, the NFL, the Chairman of the local Bridge club, the Director of Little League... no matter how small, where there is power there is abuse.

What an odd thing.

Quote: Face

Stone the gays, kill the infidel, et al. are all Scripture. To demand they stop is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and would take 30some states to go along with you to change. Not to mention a metric ton of "slippery slope" argument you'd have to pile through first.

The courts haven't hesitated much imposing reasonable and sometimes unreasonable limits on free speech. For example, publishing lies about someone constitutes libel. Making false claims is fraud. Lying to the police or lying on the witness stand are felonies.

There are some restrictions on the free exercise of religion, but not as many. The only one I can think of is the ban on polygamy which exists in most places. The mere existence of Scientology as a religion tells you the courts and legislatures are reluctant to restrain it.

Still, some restrictions are necessary. For example, Christian Scientists should not be allowed to deny their children medical care. Jehovah's Witnesses should not be able to deny their children a blood transfusion if one is necessary.

There will always be religion whether you call it religion or not. History will always repeat itself as well, so anything is possible either way and stability is always temporary. Our world homogeneity might be considered a religion as well. I can't stand it and seems the world was better with individuality and free thinkers.

Quote:

American Atheist Writer Has Been Hacked to Death in Bangladesh

Quote:

Hardline Islamists in the country have long called for the slaying of writers critical of Islam.

http://time.com/3725527/atheist-writer-killed-bangladesh-avijit-roy-mukto-mona/

Quote: Nareed

Jehovah's Witnesses should not be able to deny their children a blood transfusion if one is necessary.

Because a belief in the Dark and Evil Arts of Medicine is the ultimate state religion? How about teaching their children that it is proper to refuse a transfusion? If you consult a Saint, God will heal you; If you consult a physician, Medicine will heal you. Pretty much the same thing.

In the lecture series on espionage and covert operations I'm listening to, of all places, the professor made an interesting remark that devotion to an ideology became a substitute for religious fervor.

This fits in with my notion that religious wars (ie Christian on Christian wars) are ideological wars. From my research on the early centuries of the church, it's clear the many splinters were caused mostly by differences of opinion regarding several points of dogma or doctrine, and some even by the type of ritual (like having icons).

Now, ideology is a valid philosophical tool in politics. A kind of expression or list of one's positions as derived from one's ethical and moral principles. But there are also ideologies which begin with belief rather than principle. In fact, the latter are far more prevalent, which is why politicians are, quite literally, often unprincipled individuals.

This is really interesting. I'll post more later.

Religion, and more specifically Christianity, incorporates the two elements I mentioned as basis for ideology: ethical-moral principles and belief.

Does one dominate the other? If so, is this a constant?

I think it's clear belief dominated over the early church splits. Consider the Monophysite "heresy." Monophysites consider Jesus to be divine, period. To have one nature (Monophyste, or monophystes is Greek for "one nature"), rather than the two most other Christians believe, and which were set down in law at the Council of Nicaea in the time of Constantine.

Now, 1) the question required convening a church council, which is a major event; 2) Monophysitism persisted for centuries despite the Nicaea ruling; 3) such differences of opinion often led to violent confrontations.

Clearly belief reigned supreme, if perhaps not unchallenged, on both sides.

We see the supremacy of belief in latter times. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the various major and minor persecutions of Jews, Gypsies, Muslims, Christians(!) and a few others even throughout time.

I would say belief dominates to this day, at least in some denominations (shouldn't we call them "heresies"?) I hear a great many people say "You must accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior" as the reason sine-qua-non to attain "salvation." This absolutely places belief above all else.

BTW, on to another related topic, the quoted line above makes as much sense to me as "You must purple dinosaur telephone tablet shoe village east." But that's just me. Apparently it makes sense enough to kill for, to other people.

More later.