Is Religion A Force For Good In The World?

[Belisarius]

My experience of religion during my earlier years was entirely about mental and social control. I was brought up in an Irish Catholic family where nearly every aspect of day-to-day life was influenced by the church, from schooling by sadistic nuns to the racism that existed in my family and meant that my parents excluded my Asian friends from the house, nominally because they weren't Christians.

The Catholic Church is driven almost entirely by the urge to control the sexual instincts of the population in general, and to reinforce its own social and political status. The institution ("sacrament") of confession is one of the most effective long-term mind control methods ever created.

I've discovered that the non-religious people (for example the young people who educate my disabled daughter) are those who are most considerate and kind. Obviously religious people can be, and some of them even are, very humane and kind. But the majority in my experience are obsessively driven by the desire to punish those who are not like them.

That comment clearly does not apply to you, TL8, nor to a very good friend of mine here in Barcelona, a parish priest called Pare Manel whose good work for the community has always been punished by his church superiors.

 

[Tommy]

The answer to the title question is Yes, and No.

It really depends on the individual, and how they use religion.

Yes, many people misuse religion to justify atrocities, such as the crusades and other wars. The Klu Klux Klan used religion to justify racial persecution. The Republican party used religion (in the form of the anti-gay movement) to garner political support. Terrorists use religion to justify killing civilians. The list goes on.

On the other hand, many food panties and "thrift" stores are run by churches. I don't have kids myself, but I have "nephews", and I own three different sizes of "child seats" for my car. All three were purchased from the local church-operated resale store for less than $5.00 each (and all three are in perfect working condition). Much of the furniture I've owned (and a truckload of books) have also come from stores like that (think St. Vincent Du Paul stores).

Like just about anything else, religion isn't intrinsically good or bad - it's all in how you use it.

 

[Hmuda]

And how does it go against common sense. Most of our laws are based along the ten commandments, and they are a lot older than the concept of laws that we have today.

Sorry, but I can't let this slip by...

Let's just go point by point, all the way through the 12 points (yes, 12, not 10). Not 100% accurate quotes, but you get the idea.

1: I am your lord, God.
How is this a commandment? How is it even relevant in today's western law?

2: You shall have no other gods before me.
Ok, this is a commandment. But again, how is it relevant? It's a religious edict that has no bearing in any civil law whatsoever.

3: Make no idols.
Running out of them fast. A cross, a David star, the crescent moon, a Buddha statue, etc. Since when do we put people in jail for having those?

4: Do not use my name in vain.
Again, how is it relevant? We live in the 21st century where blasphemy is no longer punished by stoning (well, not everywhere anyways...)

5: Keep the Sabbath holy.
When was the last time anyone was stoned to death for working on the Sabbath? That's right, in the desert tribes of the iron age.

6: Honor your parents.
Even if they are drunken, drug abusing child molesters? Respect have to be earned, it's not a birthright. The judge will be the first to laugh if any parents would try to sue their kids for bad-mouthing them. And he will be the first to sentence them to life in prison if they take said kid to the edge of town and stone him to death.

7: You shall not kill.
Finally something relevant. But first of all, it's just common sense. Second, there are circumstances that will make killing legal. Wars or self-defense for example.

8: Do not commit adultery.
2 out of 8 so far. And still, it's just related to being truthful to your spose. It's been ages since the last stoning of unfaithful people (again, this barbarism is still practiced in certain parts of the world, but western civilization moved beyond that). Not to mention it's only related to law if the people involved want to go to court to file a divorce, any other times, it's a completely personal matter.

9: You shall not steal.
Finally, something relevant and undisputable. But again, it's common sense and does not require some god to tell us it's bad.

10: Do not bear false witness.
Always tell the truth? If a nazi death squad knocks on my door and asks me if I hide jews in the basement and if I happen to do, I'll say no. Lying in general is not punishalbe by law. Sure, not telling the truth in court under oath is a serious offense, but nobody will drag a kid in front of a judge for saying he didn't eat the cookies.

11+12: Do not covet.
Coveting is what keeps capitalism going. If my neighbor have a nice car, I'll want it and work hard to get one myself. Same goes for his wife. If I can seduce her and convince her to divorce her husband, there are no laws to prevent me from doing so.
It's basicly a thought-crime, and we moved way beyond legislating what people can and cannot think.


So all in all, out of 12, only 3 are relevant and even those are more down to common sense and not to some divine inspiration.


So people, please do not pretend the ten commandments have any bearing on today's western laws.

 

[bujin]

Most of our laws are based along the ten commandments

Which laws?

The first four, which deal with worshipping only one god and not making idols? And not "taking the Lord's name in vain"?

If the latter was the case, there would be more people in prison than there are out of it. And if the former were true, surely the law courts would be punishing Hindus on a daily basis. But no, we live in a society of mixed religions.

"Keeping the Sabbath holy"? Who does that anymore?

Murder, adultery, theft, lying, etc...? We don't get those laws from the Ten Commandments.

Moses apparently had these laws from God after the Jews' exodus from Egypt, perhaps 1000 BCE. Egyptian civilisation already had laws in place to deal with that sort of thing for many centuries by the time Moses got there.

The idea that any society could survive on chaos, with no dealing of murder and theft is just bonkers! Society needs law and order, and the Egyptians and Chinese had society a LONG time before these Ten Commandments were supposedly issued.

 

[Tommy]

8: Do not commit adultery.
2 out of 8 so far. And still, it's just related to being truthful to your spose. It's been ages since the last stoning of unfaithful people (again, this barbarism is still practiced in certain parts of the world, but western civilization moved beyond that). Not to mention it's only related to law if the people involved want to go to court to file a divorce, any other times, it's a completely personal matter.

Actually, it goes even farther than that. First, you need to understand the biblical definition of adultery. "Adultery" is the act of having sex with someone who is married to another.

Let's say that I, an unmarried male, have "relations" with a married female. I am committing adultery - she is NOT. Her "sin" is "Taking the Lord's name in Vain" - since she took a vow, in God's name, to forsake all others. She can't be charged with a crime - but it can be cause for divorce, and affect the settlement.

I, the actual "adulturer", cannot be charged with a crime, nor can any civil action be taken against me. By Western law, I cannot be penalized in any way.

 

[Hmuda]

Actually, it goes even farther than that. First, you need to understand the biblical definition of adultery. "Adultery" is the act of having sex with someone who is married to another.

Let's say that I, an unmarried male, have "relations" with a married female. I am committing adultery - she is NOT. Her "sin" is "Taking the Lord's name in Vain" - since she took a vow, in God's name, to forsake all others. She can't be charged with a crime - but it can be cause for divorce, and affect the settlement.

I, the actual "adulturer", cannot be charged with a crime, nor can any civil action be taken against me. By Western law, I cannot be penalized in any way.

Thanks for clarifying that one.

 

[tl8]

I did only say based. I probably should have used, "probably based". As I was not there, I can't prove that other than from inferred information(as the church was a power house back then). I did not say that all are relevant nor that all are present today. Some are also impractical.

I also do not think that people were reading the bible when they actually wrote our (mainly the British) modern laws.

Saying that all modern laws are based of the ten commandments is bull. Say some are based on the ten commandments is at least IMHO, plausible.

Finally, I like Christmas.

 

[Hmuda]

I did only say based. I did not say that all are relevant nor that all are present today. Some are also impractical.

I also do not think that people were reading the bible when they actually wrote the laws (anyone care to enlighten when that was? I think it was towards the end of the dark ages (When the church was the law and why I think they would have used the bible as a template))

Saying that all modern laws are based of the ten commandments is bull. Say some are based on the ten commandments is at least IMHO, plausible.

Finally, I like Christmas.

That's the thing. They are not based on the ten commandments. They are based on common sense.

The only three actual commandments that have any relevance to today's law are completely circumstancial.

Also there are laws that go against said religious edicts. For example, in western societies, there is a little thing called 'religious freedom'. Saying that you can worship whatever you want is not only not based on the ten comandments, but clearly contradicts it.

So again, please, do not pretend some iron-age religious rules have any bearing on our laws, becasue they don't.

IIRC most of our laws come out of the enlightenment, when religiosity took a back seat for more...well...enlightened ideas.

 

[Dambuster]

It seems I've had quite a different experience with religion from many people here.

I've been brought up in a Christian (Church of England) family, and have gone to a CofE church all my life. I can say without any reservations that the people I've met through that church are the kindest and most caring people I know of.

So given my experiences, here's my opinion: I think religion is a very strong force for good, but only when not misused. Like many things, if misused it can quickly become the opposite. But consider this: if you think there is a benevolent God watching you, and watching your actions, and if you think that that God will one day judge you based on what you've done with your life - then IMO that's a very strong encouragement to behave morally in your day-to-day life.

 

[T.Neo]

Of course some iron-age religious rules have bearing on our laws. Or rather- the history of western law.

Because christianity- and the ten commandments, by inclusion, have been so important in European history, it is unthinkable that they would not have been influential in the shaping of the laws we have today.

People should understand what the ten commandments- and other religious laws or rules- are, before they start criticising them. Of course, the ten commendments were written in the iron age. Back then, they would have made a good deal more sense. Just like religious dietary laws- when an animal is regarded as "unclean", that's because it (could) harbour pathogens that would make consuming it unsafe. Or at least, it was percieved to harbour such pathogens.

3: Make no idols.
Running out of them fast. A cross, a David star, the crescent moon, a Buddha statue, etc. Since when do we put people in jail for having those?

Crosses, stars of David and crescent moons are supposed to be religious symbols, not idols (though they sometimes come across as somewhat idol-like). I don't really know the meaning for the prevalence of Buddha statues in Buddhism, but the ten commandments don't really apply to it since it isn't even an abrahamic religion.

Unless, of course, that is from the point of view of religious opression...

4: Do not use my name in vain.
Again, how is it relevant? We live in the 21st century where blasphemy is no longer punished by stoning (well, not everywhere anyways...)

Well... swearing isn't nice, and can offend some people (and all people if you purposely or inadvertantly use it to insult them), but that is as far as it goes...

6: Honor your parents.
Even if they are drunken, drug abusing child molesters? Respect have to be earned, it's not a birthright. The judge will be the first to laugh if any parents would try to sue their kids for bad-mouthing them. And he will be the first to sentence them to life in prison if they take said kid to the edge of town and stone him to death.

Of course, and sadly "You must automatically respect me above all else" is a highly annoying opinion that many people seem to adhere to.

Generally though, elders should be respected- but only if they deserve it.

7: You shall not kill.
Finally something relevant. But first of all, it's just common sense. Second, there are circumstances that will make killing legal. Wars or self-defense for example.

Just because it is legal does not mean the ethical ramifications of taking a life disappear, even in a situation like war...

9: You shall not steal.
Finally, something relevant and undisputable. But again, it's common sense and does not require some god to tell us it's bad.

I don't know about that... in the iron age world, it might be fine to steal from certain people if your beliefs dictated it was ok. Nontheless, it's common sense that such a position would be highly disruptive...

11+12: Do not covet.
Coveting is what keeps capitalism going. If my neighbor have a nice car, I'll want it and work hard to get one myself. Same goes for his wife. If I can seduce her and convince her to divorce her husband, there are no laws to prevent me from doing so.
It's basicly a thought-crime, and we moved way beyond legislating what people can and cannot think.

Who says capitalism is a universal force for good? :lol:

And there is no law to prevent you from seducing your neighbor's wife and convincing her to divorce him, but that does not mean it is not a bad thing to do. Thinking about it is one thing, but actually doing it is another. It is damaging emotionally and psychologically, highly so if children are involved...

 

[Belisarius]

Further to that: in countries which have never had a Judeo-christian tradition, nearly identical laws exist about theft, violence, murder, etc.
Obviously the details vary from one country to another, but there is nowhere in the world where killing someone is actually legal, for example (though of course there are exceptions and passes such as self-defence, service in the armed forces, etc, and in many places the law might be ignored totally, but it's still there, and expresses the same prohibitions).

 

[Hmuda]

@T._Neo: I know what you're talking about, but the discussion was about present day law and not morality.

I concur that at least some of them have moral merit to them if applied correctly, but have not relevance to laws per se.

 

[Urwumpe]

Maybe I was a bit strong to call him a liar, but the implication of the video is clearly that God took 250,000 victims in Japan because they're sinners.
The emphasis on hell is something I lived with all my early life in a very traditional society. It's the dark negative side of all the churches I've ever known. It has created terrible fears and psychosis in certain members of my family.

No, you have not been too strong. In the good old times of Jesus, he would have roundhouse kicked such a false prophet out of his temple. :facepalm:

 

[ZombiezuRFER]

Morality, goodness, and badness, are too subjective (read: entirely subjective) to have something called good. Morality determines "good" and "bad" actions, but it can only go so far as one person. Beyond that it all blurs. Every "evil" overlord wanted to do something good for themselves, as did every "good" overlord. The "evil" one, if something like emperor Palpatine or etc, had to run a nation in a way determined good by its inhabitants, just like every "good" one. Morality is just so totally subjective (lets not even start on alien psychology here) that it is impossible to pin down such a meaning upon an action or object or condition without it ONLY being an opinion.

This extends to both sides of religion, the truly religious and the atheist.

 

[Belisarius]

Disagree with that. The golden rule formulated by various philosophers over history including Jesus, Buddha and Kant forms an excellent basis for distinguishing right and wrong, though it doesn't cover every single case.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule"]The Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[ZombiezuRFER]

Disagree with that. The golden rule formulated by various philosophers over history including Jesus, Buddha and Kant forms an excellent basis for distinguishing right and wrong, though it doesn't cover every single case.

The Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It really isnt so ethical as it is a warning of revenge and saying that those who like others shall be liked. It is not morality. Imagine we have a masochist. Hilarity ensues.

 

[Arrowstar]

No, you have not been too strong. In the good old times of Jesus, he would have roundhouse kicked such a false prophet out of his temple. :facepalm:

I know they both had beards (or at least facial hair), but perhaps you're mistaking Christ with Chuck Norris? :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

I know they both had beards (or at least facial hair), but perhaps you're mistaking Christ with Chuck Norris? :lol:

Who knows... we can be at least sure that Chuck Norris was never Jesus. Its impossible to nail Chuck Norris on a cross.

 

[T.Neo]

lets not even start on alien psychology here

I would be careful about idealising aliens as having the psychology of starfish; they could have a lot of psychological differences to humans, but if they are even vaguely similar (i.e. an alligator is "vaguely similar" here :uhh to us, evolutionary forces will shape similar emotions... so they could be psychologically convergent- in a similar way to them having legs or eyes, even if they had some differences- like the psychological differences between humans and other advanced (mammals and intelligent birds) life... differences that we can nontheless understand.

 

[ZombiezuRFER]

Who knows... we can be at least sure that Chuck Norris was never Jesus. Its impossible to nail Chuck Norris on a cross.

And it is impossible to deny Raptor Jesus' inherent awesomeness.