Discussion Maybe we should ban religion all together

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,268
6,100
136
Again lumping all "religious" people together!
Religious people or Christians do not depend on non-believers or agnostics or secularists to maintain some sort of order and peace! That is wishful thinking on your part or at worse it is you saying you need me, thinking on your part!
I know of plenty of religious people and Christians who do not get caught up in the thinking that somehow because they are religious or call themselves Christian they believe as well they should that they are no better or worse than you are and they behave accordingly!
We are talking about a small fringe element of the religious or Christians who actually believe they are better...…..to lump all religious or Christians together is just plain wrong! As it is to lump all atheist and secularists and agnostics together!
Yes, but you miss the point I was making - its that 'fringe element' who are the ones who have more children than anyone else (and who do most to prevent anyone 'defecting' from the group). "Moderate" religious believers aren't growing in numbers the same way.

It's also that 'fringe' element who are the ones who most noisily complain about secularism and gleefully predict the non-believers will die out. They seems to imagine that once that happens the religious future will only feature _their_ particular religion.

The real conflict isn't between different religions, or shouldn't be, it should be between the head-banging crazy people and those who value peace.
 
Last edited:

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,268
6,100
136
Communism killed more people in 100 years than all the major religions did in 2000.
Nationalism's probably killed more than either. Indeed, everywhere communism or fascism has taken power, it's usually been a consequence of, and reaction to, nationalism and/or imperialism.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
23,101
23,719
136
Nationalism's probably killed more than either. Indeed, everywhere communism or fascism has taken power, it's usually been a consequence of, and reaction to, nationalism and/or imperialism.


Theists like to pretend that communist regimes like Stalinist Russia were religion free, but that just highlights their proclivity to cherry pick history. Stalin wanted people worshiping him, and had no problem bringing in the Orthodox church to help with waning morale when things got really bad.

I tend to agree on the nationalism root. It will use religion as a vehicle, corrupting it in the process, and that vehicle runs on blood. One of the main reasons I advocate a firm separation between church and state is that is ensures the sanctity and credibility of both. Together, no one is happy except the fundies and the government starts to go downhill. That leads to 'God loves my country more' stuff and that's trouble no matter the nationality.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
34,797
6,501
126
-snip-

So a prestige Catholic school ends up producing the plotters and operators of an Islamic national coup. In fact the 2nd in command of the coup was one of the top 10 students in the entire country for his age group.

Go figure.
I'm reminded of an episode when I was in high school in Los Angeles. There was one student a sort of smart aleck intellectual who seriously tried to instigate a take over of the student government using parliamentary tactics. The plan was to commandeer using Roberts Rules of Order. He had it all worked out. I guess no one knew about this but a small kind of clique who knew him, male kids for the most part, or maybe totally, who were intellectuals and kind of on the periphery socially. It never got off the ground, as I recall. But he was serious. I suppose the school administration just stepped in and put the kabosh on it. However, there were no guns, no explosives, no weapons involved whatsoever. Even so, I think the motivations were similar to what drives people to launch a coup attempt. The guy's last name escapes me right now. It's there in my mind somewhere but for some reason I almost always draw a blank when I try to think of it!
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,268
6,100
136
Theists like to pretend that communist regimes like Stalinist Russia were religion free, but that just highlights their proclivity to cherry pick history. Stalin wanted people worshiping him, and had no problem bringing in the Orthodox church to help with waning morale when things got really bad.

I tend to agree on the nationalism root. It will use religion as a vehicle, corrupting it in the process, and that vehicle runs on blood. One of the main reasons I advocate a firm separation between church and state is that is ensures the sanctity and credibility of both. Together, no one is happy except the fundies and the government starts to go downhill. That leads to 'God loves my country more' stuff and that's trouble no matter the nationality.

I don't disagree with that, though my point was more that when you look at how fascist or communist regimes have come to power, you almost invariably see they came about after dislocation or chaos caused by imperialism. The Vietnamese, for example, ended up embracing communism in good part because the communists were the only force to consistently oppose French imperialism. Communism in China gained great prestige from opposing Japanese imperialism (in a way that the KMT did not), and of course the Bolsheviks took power in Russia largely as a concequence of WW1. Likeiwse with the Nazis coming to power in Germany.

I mean, it's not the _only_ causal factor, but when nations feel humiliated by the actions of foreign powers, bad things tend to happen (see also Putin's rise).

On the whole I think religion is a runner-up when it comes to causing chaos and conflict. It's something people resort to when everything else is going wrong (it rarely helps matters, but it does't seem to me that it's usually the start of the problem).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Roxy1

Junior Member
Jul 21, 2022
1
0
6
I don't think that's necessary. As of today, everything is separate. Believe what you want, believe what you don't want. The truth is that the problem is different. More and more people--there are millions of them around the world--believe, in their own words, that life definitely ends with death and that there is no God, no eternal life, and no divine purpose. Despite all their pessimism, it seems that these beliefs are becoming increasingly widespread. In some countries, it has become more fashionable than ever to declare oneself an atheist. And when you visit spiritual sites like https://firstchurchlove.com, you see how much people don't care about this.
 
Last edited:

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
23,101
23,719
136
I don't think that's necessary. As of today, everything is separate. Believe what you want, believe what you don't want.
Hey congrats on emerging from your very long coma. Have fun catching up on at least the last 6 years of events. I wouldn't blame you for skipping over 2020.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,384
11,535
136
No, we shouldn't ban religion. That's not just stupid, it's illiberal. Govt should never be given control over matters of personal opinion, organized or not. However, organized religion must never be allowed to control govt, for the same reason that organized religion always seeks to control personal opinion and, if allowed to, would use govt to that end.
Anyone who has ever actually read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists on the "wall of separation" knows (or should know) that the purpose of that wall is to protect our freedom of thought and opinion, whether expressed or personally held.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
 
Last edited:

Lezunto

Senior member
Oct 24, 2020
964
857
106
Banning beliefs because of the actions of one or even a small number of violent adherents is not the way to go.

You'll tend to encourage an increase in such aberrant behavior protesting the ban.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaskalas

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
34,797
6,501
126
Might violate 1A but at a minimum take away their tax exempt status
Yeah that. Banning religion, though, sounds totalitarian. Keeping it out of schools and government (separation of church and state) is a great idea, it keeps governments from endorsing. Right now the Catholic Church has a toe in the door jam of the SCOTUS (well, it's worse than that but I'm tired and the words won't come), and it's a major problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
31,697
5,684
126
Maybe we should just ban religion all together. There has been more killing and grief caused by belief in the one true god and protecting him than by almost all others.
That would be like banning humans. Not sure we are separable from our mind's modus operandi.

Religion the greatest con invented by man. It's only purpose is to control the weak-minded.
All minds operate on faith. In something. Some faiths are just fancier than others. Some even strive for an objective truth. Yet no matter how hard we try, it still comes down to trust. Faith in something or someone beside yourself. And that never seems to last. The hubris of mankind is the greatest con. To think they know god. Or the truth for that matter. When no one's basic programing is ever looking for the truth.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,384
11,535
136
Banning beliefs because of the actions of one or even a small number of violent adherents is not the way to go.

You'll tend to encourage an increase in such aberrant behavior protesting the ban.
Yeah, but remember a few years ago when a guy got elected President because he said he would ban a certain religion because of the violent actions of a small number of its adherents?
Now of course, we eventually found out that he wasn't serious about that, but enough people wanted him to be that it put him in the White House.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,268
6,100
136
As this thread's been necroed, would add that it seems to me that people don't, at heart, find religion all that convincing. Because they seem to resort to it only when everything else has failed. It's like the last refuge of the desperate.

Islamism only came to the fore in the middle-east, for example, when both Pan-Arab nationalism and socialism had failed to deliver. Christian fundamentalism seems to gain strength in the US when capitalism fails to deliver what it promised.

There seems little point 'banning' something that people only turn to as an absolute last resort in any case.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY