Ka-pi96 said:
Nautilus said:
Countries provide more than protection.They provide stability(when there is no war of course), quality of life, oportunities(government programs) and many other small perks.If countries were to be extinguished, and assuming that its laws goes with it, we would be in a state of anarchy.That would mean that if someone dosent like you, they could very well simply kill you and get away with it.And I mean, its not like "countries" would cease to exist.It would be much like in the Walking Dead:People would band together, form either tribes or small cities, which would be basically small nations, and atack and kill others for resources or simply to have more.It would just create a bigger problem in my opinion.
And you would just be treating the consequences, not the causes.Both with the country and religion topic.First, not only because if religion were abolished, it would survive nonetheless and would reorganize itself again(we have many examples through the history, such as cristianism back when it was founded.They were always hunted, but their numbers kept growing.The solution to that constant bloodshed was to make the religion official).Secondly, it wouldnt stop the terrorists atacks.The reason why there are wars or the atacks are because we are humans.We feel jealous of others, or we feel that we have more reason than others, and feel like we need to "show" them the real "path".If that problem is not fixed, banning things wont fix anything.
|
@1st bolded Yeah, that's kind of what I meant by protection. But a lot of the other stuff could also be considered financial protection in a way. Those with resources/money can and do take advantage of those without anyway but governments do at least lessen that gap and provide some protection to the poorer people.
@2nd bolded That's not really what I mean here. Persecuting people based on their religion obviously isn't going to work and would just make things worse. I mean stuff like shutting down churches/mosques etc and cutting their funding. Sure some people would probably still try to have private religious meetings which you wouldn't really be able to stop. But my point isn't really about stopping religion, it's more about stopping people having influential positions of power within religions and then being able to use/abuse that position.
And no it wouldn't stop terrorist attacks altogether, but if it merely means there's a few less then that's better than nothing isn't it?
|
In the short term?Maybe.But i dont it will change in the loing run.
As you said, people would go "underground" to have their religion sessions and all.So in the first moment, religion would lose some of its power, since it would be considered "illegal".But even then, the preachers of said religions would still influenciate the people that come for them.And just as woman rights movements or LGTB movement also got track over the years, something that society didnt aprove earlier, those same people that pratice the religions will engage in movements to have their rights back, and as someone said, putting Cristianism and islamism together, you have 2.5 billion persons, so it wouldnt be insignificant.Plus the funding dosent come from official channels or such.It comes from the people that practice the religion, so in that aspect they wouldnt lose much.
All in all, this would acomplish nothing in my opinion.Plus you state the reason that terrorists atacks happen are due to religion, and that is not completely the case(again, my opinion), but thats beyond the point of the thread.
