Looking at history from the beginning of written records,

[MineralMan]

it is clear to me that religion, organized religion in particular, has been more of a force for ill than for good. From the Israelites laying waste to those in their surroundings who were not Israelites to today's Islamic extremists who wield terror as their primary tool, what we see is one religion fighting another or the non-religious throughout recorded history.

How many wars were fought over religion? How many indigenous peoples and cultures suffered genocide at the hands of those who invaded their lands in the name of religion? How many Muslims died during the Crusades? How many Jews were killed in the concentration camp ovens by people who quoted Martin Luther as partial justification? Wars, even between denominations of Christianity, have taken uncountable lives over the centuries.

How many were enslaved, transported, and subjected to cruel treatment in various parts of the world, including in our own nation, by people quoting religious scriptures in justification? How many were persecuted and sometimes murdered for loving people of the same sex? How many women died in childbirth due to a prohibition on contraception by the largest segment of the Christian faith? How many children have been tortured, killed or sexually abused by "holy" men who held religious power over them and who acted with impunity? How many are still suffering in that way, unseen, unnoticed, and unable to resist?

That is not to say that there are not kind, generous, tolerant people who are religious. Of course there are. But, all of those combined could not stop the horrors that have been perpetrated in the name of, and encouraged by, organized religions. Religion is power, and power overwhelms those who do not have it, often leading to destruction and death.

That is not to say that all religious people and organizations do those horrible, deplorable things. But many do. Many have done. Some continue to do them. And in the name of their invisible deity, which has no evidence of even existing. Religion has allowed, and still allows, the very basest, cruelest and most obscene aspects of human nature to operate. Not all religious believers behave that way, but enough do to make the world an unsafe and dangerous place.

There is no denial that such horrors have occurred. There cannot be. We have all the records of those events. It is a shame. It is unconscionable. I cannot, in any way, excuse such behavior in the name of religion. Those who can excuse it or who do not make efforts to put an end to it are also culpable. I reject religion on those grounds. It is of no benefit to human society. Just the opposite.

Rant off.

[exboyfil]

1. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot

Three examples of non-religious ideologies that led to mass murder.

Religion also serves as a surrogate for someone's culture.

I think where religion becomes a problem is when it gets entangled with the power of the state. The early Christian church was not so much a problem, but once it became top dog things changed.

Freedom of conscious is a fundamental right of our country, and I think that is a very good thing.

[MineralMan]

2. Yes, and so?

All were tyrants and dictators, not humanists. See, I'm recommending humanism as the alternative not tyranny. A tyrannical philosophy is just as toxic as religion has proven to be. Tyranny is not the alternative to religion. It is simply a parallel to it.

As for freedom, you're welcome to believe whatever you are able to believe. Just leave me out of it, please, and everyone else, as well. Keep it personal, OK? Your religious rights end at the tip of your own nose.

[Pope George Ringo II]

3. Cancer and heart disease both kill people.

The existence of one does not make the other into a non-bad thing.

[MineralMan]

4. Whataboutism, pure and simple.

A failure of logic.

Besides, there are people of science working hard to find ways to prevent deaths from those causes. We're working on it.

[Pope George Ringo II]

5. I'm still hoping for a cure for religion.

We need one.

[MineralMan]

6. Science has been working on that, too.

And it's evidence-based, to boot.

(Aside: "to boot" originates from the Old English bōt - ‘advantage, remedy" which is also the root word for "better" )

Etymology is one of my favorite things.

[trotsky]

7. So, religion is no worse than totalitarian regimes?

Well that's a pretty damn low bar. Heh.

[guillaumeb]

8. And your opinion is simply that.

It is clear to me that the biggest force for ill is......wait for it...….humans.

[MineralMan]

9. Did I pretend otherwise?

See my signature line. Read it.

If you can dispute my statements, please do so.

[guillaumeb]

10. So if we could eliminate humans,

and every source of division and difference, all would be perfect.

[MineralMan]

11. Non-responsive.

I see you have nothing to contribute.

[guillaumeb]

12. What I contributed is a refutation of your "thesis".

So, I would say that you do not see.

[MineralMan]

13. In your own mind, you are convinced.

Good luck with that.

[guillaumeb]

14. Open your own to the concept.

Eliminate every source of division and difference. What would the world look like?

[MineralMan]

16. Save your advice for someone

who wants it. You have responded to nothing I wrote. You waste both of our times. My patience with you is at an end. Please find a new hobby.

[guillaumeb]

18. I responded, but the response illustrates the failing of the original post.

[MineralMan]

19. Bullshit!

[guillaumeb]

21. And #15?

Is that also avoided?

[MineralMan]

22. My answer was posted.

I have no responsibility to meet your expectations, Guy. Now will I, unless it suits me to do so.

[guillaumeb]

23. And I respect that answer.

[MineralMan]

25. I don't care what you respect, Guy. Not one bit.

I replied to another DUer, but you took it as your responsibility to question that response, or to imply that I did not respond. You do not respect my response. You only feign respect, as is your wont.

I reply to you as a courtesy only. You offer no substance in your original posts, and only snark and false reflections of your sui disant superiority in your responses to others here. It is impossible to take you seriously.

Look in your mirror, Sir.

[guillaumeb]

26. Ma reponse:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218297813


And my remarks to you reflected the difference between your response to the other poster, and to my equally valid response.

[MineralMan]

29. Regardez. Voici mon cul.

[guillaumeb]

30. Votre niveau?

Triste.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. My question is, would people have behaved better if there had never been any such thing as

organized religion? That's kind of a trick question because some kinds of organized religions would inevitably have developed as a way for people to try to understand the natural world at a time when there was no science or technological means to explain it. People would have wondered why there is rain, why does the sun come up, what happens to people when they die; and lacking a way to know these things would have concluded there was some other force that controlled these things. Thus gods with various attributes and powers were "invented," and the way they were dealt with became organized and ritualized because that's what people do.

Gods became associated with particular tribes or regions. Before Judaism became truly monotheistic, Yahweh wasn't the God, but merely the one particular god that protected the Israelites and which they, in turn, worshipped. The association of and worship of a god of a region or tribe was only an aspect of ongoing wars and power struggles among groups. People are animals, and like any other animal they will fight to acquire and protect the assets and territories they need for survival. And tribes believed they needed the help of their god to ensure they would prevail in their struggles against other tribes and their gods.

According to the theologian Karen Armstrong in her book The Great Transformation, the simultaneous development of the world's religions and philosophies (Confucianism and Taoism in China, Hinduism and Buddhism in India, Jewish monotheism in Israel, and philosophical rationalism in Greece) during the so-called axial age (about 900-200 BCE) is a direct result of and reaction to the violence and chaos, both physical and spiritual, of past civilizations. During that period the major religions, aware of the constant violence and wars occurring in their civilizations, intentionally developed philosophies and creeds emphasizing altruism and compassion, and all came up some version of the Golden Rule. One might argue, then, that the teachings of these religions actually might have resulted in less chaos and violence rather than more.

Of course, all that theoretical altruism didn't prevent wars in the long term because (a) people are still animals who instinctively strive for power in order to control assets and territories, and (b) the dominant religion of a country or territory became so intertwined with the governing power as to be an effective arm of the state, with the result that ostensibly religious wars weren't about doctrine at all, but about acquiring power over another territory. When the Catholic Church became the dominant religion before the Reformation, its wars and abuses were really about protecting the power of the Church and the monarchs associated with it. Heresy was viewed primarily as a challenge to the power of both the Church and the state - effectively a form of sedition.

Which is to say, I think, that to claim organized religion is a primary cause of war and violence is an oversimplification. Religion has been used as an excuse for doing terrible things, of course; but if there were no religion people would still do terrible things. They'd just use different excuses.

[MineralMan]

17. There is no way to answer your question.

We have 4000 years of history, most of which we understand poorly. We have done poorly, as well. I am at a loss to answer your questions.

[guillaumeb]

20. An excellent answer to the question.

Language, color, nationality, and many other differences are all used to divide.

[Pope George Ringo II]

24. Without religion, we'd have fewer terrible things, though.

At its core, religion feeds on the fear of death, and of the unknown. Nothing built on fear--especially fear of the unknown--is going to be a net positive in the long run. That horrifically flawed foundation is a major factor in all the abominations religion has perpetrated throughout history. Consider how often religion has prevented chaos by putting a pious warlord in a secure position,for example.

Admittedly, sometimes religion has been channelled into productive avenues and given us some positives. And some of those positives are actually quite impressive. But when you add up both sides of the equation, the overall balance is clearly not to our benefit.

[Jim__]

27. I think you're right. Someone did take a look at history to study religion's role in war.

Of course, they only looked at 73 major wars over the last 3,500 years, so I'm not sure how that compares to the beginning of written records. The HuffPost reported on this - including a link to the study - in 2011.

An excerpt:

...

To my knowledge there has only been one attempt to actually quantify religion’s role in war-making throughout human history. As part of a special they were airing on the subject, the BBC asked Dr. Greg Austin, a research Fellow in the Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, to investigate religion’s role in the history of war. Austin, with the help of colleagues Todd Kranock and Thom Oommen, conducted the War Audit, where they evaluated all the major conflicts over the past 3,500 years — 73 wars in all. The wars were rated on a 0-5 scale for religious motivation, with 5 indicating the highest religious motivation. So for example, The First and Second Punic Wars (264-241 and 218-201 BC respectively) rated a 0, while the Crusades (1097-1291) rated a 5. While conceding that subjectivity always plays some role in these sorts of assessments, Austin and colleagues, nevertheless, maintained that the general trend they observed was “beyond debate” (p. 12).

Brace yourselves, those for whom religion equals war. The majority of all wars (44/73 or 60 percent) had no religious motivation whatsoever — a zero rating. Only three wars — the Arab conquests of 632-732, the much ballyhooed Crusades, and the Reformation Wars of the 16th and 17th centuries - earned a 5, and were thus considered to be truly religious wars. Only seven wars earned a rating of 3 or more — less than 10 percent. Thus, the vast majority of all wars involved either no religious motivation or only a modest one. The authors concluded by noting that “there have been few genuinely religious wars in the last 100 years. The Israel/Arab wars were wars of nationalism and liberation of territory” (p. 16).

The authors of the War Audit claim that their work was not intended as “a piece of original academic analysis” (p. 1), but instead as something that would “stimulate discussion rather than provide the final word on the role of religion in violent conflict over time” (p. 15).

As a committed evolutionist, my pet theory is that ultimately most (maybe all) wars are about men fighting over resources critical to reproductive success (status, power, land, money, women, etc.). War requires large-scale coordination and motivation, and here is where religion can play a role — it is a powerful unifying and motivating force. But in the absence of religion, I think it is hopelessly naïve to believe that we’ll all just give up our ambitions, drop our rocks and hug. We’ll find some other reason to kill each other, if we’re convinced that there is gain to be had by doing so.

more ...

[cachukis]

28. Sedentism. Staying at home and protecting it. Agriculture. Grain storage. Seasons. Smarts. Followers

and leaders. Power. Natural course of events. We wouldn't have religion if it weren't meant to be.

Did it contribute to war? Inevitably.

It is hard to be a leader. Most won't even take it up.

Power needs followers and money. Promises , promises.

Think of Chaucer's Pardoner. Castrated himself for the dough. He knew that the Plague was a money maker. Salvation generates dollars.

Who wants to give up the dollars?

Liking the conversation. In the middle of a move. Sorry so many open ends. May be back.