By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should organised religion be banned?

palou on 24 July 2016
Nautilus said:
palou said:

I personally would like to see nations replaced by administrative districts, that purposefully avoided national attachment. Like, split up and unite current countries into sections optimaly for organization purposes, and give the new regions numbers instead of names, for example, with a decent amount of power to international governments (who also should have the only standing armies.)

I personally consider patriotism absolutely toxic.

I imagine if fun would be allowed in this world XD

 

But no, simply because that wouldnt work.And that wouldnt work simply because of cultural differences.If you were to do that, you would need to somehow errase each nations culture and patriotism.Not only that is impossible, since culture also define who we are(personality), but the society(in general) would simply not agree with it and, surprise surprise, that would cause revolts and wars.

Plus, it would make the world a boring place.For good or worse, the difference betwenn how we see the world is how we have so many different and exciting things in the world.And while you may argue thats what causes conflicts in the world, it also makes it as interesting as it is today.

The goal of this (entirely theoretical) society would be to make culture (music, sports) seen as a common human heritage, and not something that distinguishes you from someone else - or, as often is the case, makes you better than someone else. 

Nationalism would be spread by making yourself associate with the greatest amount of people possible, in different contexts. Like, soccer clubs would engulf different areas than govermenatl districts, again distinct from the approximate ethnical distribution. Our differences should be seen as a fluid transition, not absolute.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Around the Network
binary solo on 24 July 2016

Countries which have laws ensuring the right of freedom of association can't ban any organisation and so it can't ban organised religion. How could you force such a ban? if more than 3 people of the same religion get together is that an illegal association and thus you would be arrested? Would you have to register everyone's religion so that you could know if a gathering was for the purposes of organising for religious reasons? Would religious publications be banned? This impinges on freedom of speech.

Essentially a ban would be counterproductive. It would cause religious people to feel oppressed and suppressed, which of course generates ill-will towards a society that seeks to restrict their right to free association and free expression. This would lead to underground organisation, which would be a violation of anti-organisation laws, which ipso facto makes these people criminals. This would lead to arrests and prosecutions, leading to even more entrenched feelings of suppression and persecutions, which would lead to plots to fight back against oppression and ultimately to acts of religious violence on a larger scale than has been seen. As an organisation that is unlawful by definition there would be no constraints around promoting aggressive action against things like abortion. Since you are already a criminal organisation there's no reason to appear to be not so extreme about things.

Religious oppression has always ultimately failed.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Nautilus on 24 July 2016
palou said:
Nautilus said:

I imagine if fun would be allowed in this world XD

 

But no, simply because that wouldnt work.And that wouldnt work simply because of cultural differences.If you were to do that, you would need to somehow errase each nations culture and patriotism.Not only that is impossible, since culture also define who we are(personality), but the society(in general) would simply not agree with it and, surprise surprise, that would cause revolts and wars.

Plus, it would make the world a boring place.For good or worse, the difference betwenn how we see the world is how we have so many different and exciting things in the world.And while you may argue thats what causes conflicts in the world, it also makes it as interesting as it is today.

The goal of this (entirely theoretical) society would be to make culture (music, sports) seen as a common human heritage, and not something that distinguishes you from someone else - or, as often is the case, makes you better than someone else. 

Nationalism would be spread by making yourself associate with the greatest amount of people possible, in different contexts. Like, soccer clubs would engulf different areas than govermenatl districts, again distinct from the approximate ethnical distribution. Our differences should be seen as a fluid transition, not absolute.

First, society wouldnt accept that.people like their culture, and wouldnt accept being force to adopt a culture that could be potentially completely different from them.Plus, culture is deeply rooted in nationalism, since many of each contries cultural values comes from the countries unique features, being the landscape, resources or any other stuff.

Plus it would make for a boring world in my opinion.Having a universal culture is very different from ahving many cultures in different countries.Not only it makes for a more interesting world, but the different points of view imrpoves the creativity of humankind.My opinion at least.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Nautilus on 24 July 2016
Ka-pi96 said:
Nautilus said:

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.

Not entirely. I know there are plenty of terrorist attacks that aren't influenced by religion. But there most certainly are some that are due to religion as well.

But I see what you mean. I still think stopping organised religion would be for the better, but banning it wouldn't accomplish that and stopping it isn't really possible.

As for the 2.5 billion christians and muslims, well how many of them actually go to churches/mosques though? I know in the western world at least that church attendance figures have decreased a fair bit from what they once were. heh, maybe it will just naturally come to an end eventually anyway.

Probably much less than we think.I for one am a christian because oif my mother, and while I like to think there is a god and all, I dont practice the religion.So yeah, I think the tendency is that religion will have its importance decrease, though not to the point of it being insignificant in my opinion.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Dunban67 on 24 July 2016

This may be the most ignorant thread (the original post) I have ever read- There are so many things wrong with the statement that it is contradictory and makes no sense



Around the Network
jigokutamago on 24 July 2016
Ka-pi96 said:
Peh said:
Which religions to you mean for example?

All of them.

You make a claim that takes a great of amount of research. In my own reasoning, I think that in order for banning a religion to be justified, you must weight all the bad from the group with all the good. You then need to do this for every single religous group.



Rab on 24 July 2016

It's not religion per say, it's people (many non-religious) using religion to pursue their aims of controlling something



Arminillo on 24 July 2016

Well, in the US there is a thing called the right to assemble. Basically it means you cant ban people from congregating. And i dont know about other religions, but the New Testament explicitly expresses the importantce of the church and a community of believers. So, unless you are down with changing the Constitution, nah.



Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda!!!!


Arminillo on 24 July 2016
Dunban67 said:
This may be the most ignorant thread (the original post) I have ever read- There are so many things wrong with the statement that it is contradictory and makes no sense


Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda!!!!


Thuglas on 24 July 2016

Most religion (the way they are practiced today) does not create evil acts, but rather evil people use it as an excuse for their actions.


If you think banning religion would stop terrorism and war then you are very naive.