If there's a legitimate place for religion / churches in our society... What do you believe their First duty/obligation is?


I'll tell my idea after other posts...

I think their role is to be the opiate of the people.
It keeps the lower and middle class docile ("Don't worry, you'll get to be rich in the next life and you'll get to live forever!").

I wish their primary duty could be to offer a mechanism for social support and charity WITHOUT the made up BS (magical thinking) and control tactics ("God said so!).

There are many people in the world who have so little going for them that religion is all they've got.

I wish the resources spent on religion in the world could instead be invested in education.

I think a good religion is just a group of like-minded people who want to improve their lives, improve the world and find answers to life's questions. Unfortunately, all these perfectly legitimate goals are often hijacked by people who want ritual, control, the right to tell others what to do and who want to make money. I see nothing wrong with religion/spirituality when it's good but too often it's used as a weapon instead of a positive force for change.

+1 Well said. :-) Nice to have the freedom for each to decide.

I am thankful for wise words, honest opinions, shared pain and hope given. Today I was able to share some of these threads with so less pain than when I first came here earlier this year.

Thank you all for sharing your journeys with us, I share them with DH and it helps us to let go of some of the pain and shame of having been too trusting and blind. It is good that we do not feel so alone for having visited you here.

Best wishes to you. ♥

CA girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think a good religion is just a group of
> like-minded people who want to improve their
> lives, improve the world and find answers to
> life's questions.

That is an interesting statement. Bigots are like minded people that want to improve their lives, they often want to make the world a better place by taking away the rights or lives of groups of people they do not like and they can also be looking for life's questions.

Just something to think about.

I like what you've written.

Didn't CA Girl kind of say that in her next sentence?

Agreed,and Dagny, religion has often been a force for change.Look up Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce and Quakers and their role in ending slavery. They were hardly docile people doped into submission by the "opiate of the masses."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 01:32AM by bona dea.

Also look up Crusades (Yes, it is a religious thing), Inquisitions (Yes, it is a religious thing), Reverend Jim Jones, pastor Sean Harris (how parents should treat gays), Heaven's Gate, The movie "so the Bible tells me so", Woman's leadership roles in the Catholic Church...

It is funny how people some people only talk about the positive change and not the negative change caused by religion when they talk about religion being a source for change.

It can be a mixed bag and I have never said otherwise,but some people such as you,only see the bad.

You never said otherwise, but you also did not give the BAD side of religion in your post, a lie of omission.

And I am sorry, the good does not make up for the bad. None of the "good" region has done bakes up for the deaths cause directly by religion or fighting over religious ideas. How many deaths were cause in the fighting during the Reformation?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 01:48AM by MJ.

Sigh.

So, tell me, bona, what good in religion makes of for all the deaths caused by religion, in the name of GOD? Or to make it easy, how about just the deaths during the reformation, which was only Christians killing Christians over what it means to be Christian?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 01:55AM by MJ.

Sigh again. You could ask the same about any group,nation etc because people kill people and they always have-with or without religion.They should get blame for the bad they do and credit for the good.

So please do not hyjack the thread and make it about things other than the question asked by the OP.

Many people are claiming that religion is to teach right and wrong, you know MORALS.

So, how can anyone claim that religion has any standing as a place to teach right and wrong when one looks at the staggering number of Christians killing other Christians over what it means to be Christian during the Reformation?

BTW, I do not see such a history of murder IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 02:09AM by MJ.

There was Stalin and there was Pol Pot and don't give me the crap that they didn't commit genocide in the name of atheism. It wasn't the only factor,but it was a factor. Besides,religious atrocities have been exaggerated by the likes of Harris and Dawkins. As for teaching morality,by your definition,only perfect people and institutions can teach morality. I guess no one gets to teach it since everyone is imperfect. Sigh.

What was done was NOT done in THE NAME OF ATHEISM the way the deaths in the Reformation was done IN THE NAME OF GOD.

If we want to hold religion accountable for all the sins of the religious, we can go there as well.

So, again I ask, where are the great atrocities, similar to the Reformation, where so much killing was done IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM??



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 02:45AM by MJ.

Communist China, which has declared itself an atheist republic, has imprisoned, tortured, and murdered many people for the simple fact that they have chosen to follow a religion. Mao Zedong, the founder of the Communist state, executed countless people because he perceived their religious views as a threat. The Chinese continue to illegally occupy the once-sovereign nation of Tibet, where they sent thousands of Buddhists to work in labor camps. The Dalai Lama has lived in exile for years, for fear of his life.

Same in the former USSR. The Soviet state wanted to quelch any and ALL religious ideas. Lenin executed 100,000 Orthodox priests, bishops and nuns during the first 5 years of Bolshevik rule. People who spoke up in defense of their religion were imprisoned, tortured, sent to mental hospitals, or sent off to labor camps in Siberia...oftentimes, a death sentence.

Oh, yeah, and more recently, you have those gems named Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un, who have sent dissenters (including non-atheists) to "re-education camps".

So nobody died in the name of atheist ideologies?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 03:00AM by godtoldmetorun.

"Communist China, which has declared itself an atheist republic" Yes, it was Communist China declaring itself atheist in the name of the state, not Atheist China declaring itself Communist in the name of Atheism. Everything regarding Atheism was dictated by the state, in the name of the state, not the other way around.

I am not saying that religious were not persecuted, I am asking what the stated motive was.

Please find one place where the imprisonment of religious was stated as being IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM and not in the name of the revolution or the state.

As you stated, atheism was imposed on the country by COMMUNIST, and if you research, imposing atheism was a COMMUNIST value, not the other way around. So, atheism was not the cause or the motivation, it was a tool used by Communist to further communist, ideals.

Sorry, but atrocities committed by a person or a state that happens to be atheists is NOT the same as doing thing IN THE NAME OF GOD.

Nice try, but still a fail.

And if you want to come back, please show where the leaders of china said atrocities were done explicitly in the name of atheism, not just by an atheist state,



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 03:31AM by MJ.

Communism is an atheist ideology. Atheism is the backbone of Communism. Marx's Communist Manifesto was a statement of how the people need to be freed of the chains that bound them: that is, not only the unfair labor practices they were subjected to, but also the "opiate" of religion.

Communism is an ideology based on another ideology: atheism. To kill for Communism is to also kill for atheism...even though not all atheists are Communists. But to be a true Communist, you must be an atheist. Any allowance of religious freedom or practice would move you into the Socialist box. (Hitler was an occultist, and his politics reflected it)

And of course not all atheists are Communists...and not all Communists are hateful. Not all Baptists are hateful people who hold up signs at funerals saying "Thank God for Dead Soldiers". Not all Muslims agree that it's okay to fly planes into buildings. And as for the Inquisition, most Catholics at the time probably disagreed with the goings-on of the church, but couldn't say so because they didn't want to be burned at the stake.

So yeah. My argument still holds.

You know, this website is meant to be a recovery site for ex-Mormons...or for nevermos who are affected directly or indirectly by Mormonism. The nevermos who come here are usually very respectful.

You are very clearly not. Even though I have seen some insightful posts from you, I have never seen a damn thing that would be considered supportive.

If it's true that you have never been a Mormon, I'm not quite sure what your function is on this site, except to stir up crap with people who have been through things that you truly know nothing about.

That said, I have nothing else to say to you, except that...if you don't need to recover from Mormonism, than you need to find yourself a new hobby.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God, NOTHING MORE. Thus, Communism can not be an atheist ideologue. One can be an atheist and believe in other ideologies, like communism, but communism is the ideology, not atheism.

Though you claim that atheism is the backbone of Communism, it isn't even mentioned here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

You would think that the so called backbone of Communism would at least have been mentioned.

Time to stop lying for the lord.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 10:52AM by MJ.

Who are you to decide who is "worthy" to post here?
That's quite an us vs. them chip you still have on your shoulder.

And the forum is "recovery from Mormonism". Not everyone that needs to recover from Mormonism were members of the LDS. Many people deeply hurt by the LDS are not Mormon. Anyone that knows my story knows that I investigated TSCC for 3 years. Harm happened then and harm has happened thanks to TSCC's continuing war on gays.

To stoop to that sort of dismissive argument just shows the weakness of argument godtoldmetorun has.

Religion is good as long as they let you come and go as you please and don't try and hold you hostage if you chose the leave.

You are saying that religions that teach parents to beat the gay our of their kids are good so long as they let people come and go as they wish?

Sorry, there is more to being good than letting people come and go.

Don't bother, bona dea. I lurked on this site for a long time before I started posting. I've seen MJ argue relentlessly with people over petty things, and even saw him cuss people out just because they hold a view different than him.

Shame. He posts some insightful things sometimes.

Some people never get over the scars of Mormonism...so they just inflict the pain it caused them on every innocent bystander whose different ideas may be a threat.

Hey, I know some people who do that...I think I've heard them called TBMs...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 02:14AM by godtoldmetorun.

I know and the funny thing is that MJ was never a Mormon or a member of any religion that I know of.He has even argued with people who were agreeing with him. Lol

Oh, look,Bona has found another ad hominem partner so she can bash the messenger to avoid dealing with the message. Typical of those that can not address the message.

Only a complete idiot would think that only members of the Mormon Church were harmed by TSCC. Reasonable people know that many non-members were harmed and thus have a legitimate right to be here.

Do show an example of where I have argued with someone I agreed with. Attacking with vague accusations is ugly, mean spirited and rude.

Nice hijack, making this about attacking MJ rather than discussing the issue raised by the OP



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 05:01AM by MJ.

How about dealing with my insightful posts about the religion's place in society instead of bashing me?

BTW, It was bona that hijacked the thread, but you have not addressed the topic of the thread at all. Both of you are ignoring the topic to bash me.

I have addressed what the OP as said, but you have not. Don't get on your high horse about hijacking o' guilty one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 02:40AM by MJ.

I'm going w/ MJ on this. I am also an atheist.

While it's true, religious institutions have done a lot of good, they've also done a crap load of bad. Religion isn't necessary to do good. Plenty of secular organizations do plenty of good. As religion also has (and continues to do bad) we have to weigh if the totality of the good with the totality of the bad and also determine if there is any other way to do the good without any of the bad (or at least a lot less.)

I think there is. And so I say religion is pointless and should go.

Also, I think there's a big problem in relying on religion as an organization to distribute charity based on it's history of condemning/persecuting minority groups. The charity isn't distributed evenly and to a large degree it allows the truly responsible organization (government) to shirk its responsibility.

I'm not going to address the "opiate of the masses" statement. There's a lot of different opiates out there and unless we're willing to route out them all, religions doesn't need to be the sole focus of routing efforts.

Those people were "a force to change" problems that were mostly perpetuated by religion in the first place.

I think the First Duty of religion is to teach/reinforce the difference between Right & Wrong, drawing as clear a line between them as possible.

if this is the measure, TSCC has Miserably Failed.

There is no need for religion in order to teach right from wrong.

All the sins committed in the name of god by religion proves that religion is not the Moral standard.

I think their role is to help people to experience the inter-connectedness of all things. We are all connected to each other and if we'd act like we know that, there'd be fewer problems. This interconnectedness in not dependent on belief in a supreme power or one God or many Gods or any God at all etc. It is a belief about us as humans and how we connect to the rest of the universe.

I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around, "If there's a legitimate place for religion / churches in our society."

I tend to see religion now as just a tradition for some people. They were raised with it and they go on to teach it to their children.

I see it as a personal thing for an individual. I see a religious organization as being a self-serving organization. Most of them are now simply out to make money.

Their duty and obligation? My first thought is that they really should be out to help their fellow man and their communities, but anyone can do that whether they're religious, or not.

But again, it's a religion. It's about worship. It's about ritual. It's about ceremony. It's about controlling the behaviour of its members.

In that case, I'd say that religion doesn't owe anyone anything. It has no duty or obligation. It's just an organization that someone belongs to and individually they feel obligated to follow the rules of whatever tribe they belong to.

(Edit was just to correct a few typos I spotted).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 09:44AM by Greyfort.

To answer the OP...



It's LOVE.



Only love says pray for those who hate you. Forgive the ones that kill your children. Only through love will the world change.

All the wars that are started in the name of religion are man-made; seeking power and rule. Any scripture that is used is manipulated for their own agenda.

I know it's sounds foolish but love is really what it comes down to.

Very good statement!

Yeah, the OT is all about forgiveness and love.

So is Mathew 10 33-36 Yeah, that's religious love.

Some posters on this thread present us with a genuine mystery. If only religion makes us bigots -- what makes SOME atheists -- who loudly (perhaps The-Lady-Doth-Protest-Too-Much too loudly) HATE religions -- such bigots? We can't blame religion for their slanted take on things nor their entitled rudeness to others. So who -- or what -- can we blame?

It is easy enough to trace out unfairness on this thread. Some poster(s) accused bona dea of "sins of omission" for not including details of historic injustices of religions -- but they themselves committed the same "sin" by not including religions' historic ties to justice. Why should her "sin" be worse than theirs? (And why should either be a "sin"? Board posts need to be as thorough as an academic tome?) And then let's note the irony that SOME atheists are themselves being unjust in the name of atheism while denying that happens! That is a mixed message worthy of a Mormon sacrament talk. Do as I say, not as I do, eh?

Just to set a few things straight -- religions are responsible for 7% of wars. I doubt that people who have no concern for the remaining 93% of wars have any serious interest in the damage done by war, justice, humanity, or the inhumanity of man against man. They are obviously only using those vast concepts to beat their favorite whipping boy, religions. If you can just shine on evil -- because it is not done by religions -- I'm sorry -- but doesn't that make you can evil person? (Stat is from the definitive recent work on war, the Encyclopedia of War http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781444338232)

But to return to the thread to its proper purpose -- I have no idea really. To me that is like asking -- what is the first duty of civilization -- and really -- I don't know. Religions -- and civilization for that matter -- are such complicated phenomenon. I think early religions started giving people stories and symbols, rituals and concepts to contain their wonder at the human condition, a way to communicate with each other -- and ultimately with history, although I doubt that was the plan -- about what was important to them. I am thinking of the cave paintings at Lascaux and what they wanted to say. For some reason, the contemporary atheist movement seems dedicated to ignoring that art and religion were one in the earliest days -- and I think that time is the best period for grasping what religions hope to tackle.

I think it might be fair to say that the message of Lascaux is "This. Is. AWESOME!" And by this, they meant being human, being alive. There is so much power and wonder in those horses and bison. We realize they were sacred -- and that was the beginning, I suppose, of religion. They said We Are Here with their handprints. They realized -- sans science -- that the continuation of the species depended on fertility -- and worshiped it accordingly.

I like very much the sentence I am seeing above: "This interconnectedness in not dependent on belief in a supreme power or one God or many Gods or any God at all etc. It is a belief about us as humans and how we connect to the rest of the universe." I believe the "gods" and "goddess" were just a way of talking about abstract concepts -- and they were not just the beginnings of literature and drama -- they were the literature and drama of their time. I don't know how much we know about whether their creators took them literally. Or to what degree. Or whether they were even thinking about all this with our concepts of "literal" and "true."

I think that religions CAN give people a way of marking important events -- a way of welcoming babies into the world, acknowledging new ties such as marriage, and ways to bury our dead. I think religions CAN give people ideas about good and bad -- and there is just deal of historic evidence those ideas are not always self-destructive to the greater good. I think religions CAN give people a way to experience wonder and connectedness. It CAN give a form to inexpressible feelings and profound thoughts.

Of course we are living through a time when religions are not the only source of all that. I don't think religions have the corner on any of the markets of being human.

But the way it plays out in real life, religions are too vast, too diverse to have any one assignment. They create community. They are forums for our ideas about the human condition. And maybe we see this more clearly as religions become just ONE WAY of creating community, just ONE FORUM for ideas about being human.

*** Thank you for sharing this!

It is still an interesting read. About as interesting and factual as reading FAIR.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 11:36AM by MJ.

I hate religion because of what religion has done to me and my family simply because I am gay, no other reason. Religious have, out of hate, attacked my family for being atheist, for no other reason. I used to be an atheist supporter of religion UNTIL there were way too many religious attacks made against me in the name of religion for my beliefs and immutable characteristics. I had done NOTHING to the religious to justify their hate of me, religion has done plenty to me cause me to hate them. Get it?

Some of us are BALANCING Bona's sins of commission by pointing out the other side. Also, the good does not off set the bad. Do I have to balance the statement "John Wilkes booth was an assassin" by saying he was also a great actor? No, it would not be a sin of omission to leave that out. But to say he was a great actor and leave out that he was an assassin is another story. It would not matter how much good Booth did, he is still a murderous assassin.

I have asked bona to show what good that religion does to offset the bad it has done, I could ask the same for Booth or an other murderer. I ask again what good has religion done to offset all the murders done in the name of religion or God???

On this board you will likely get a lot of people to believe your fallacious crap, but it is still fallacious.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 11:16AM by MJ.

Religion is what people turn to, outside scientific fact, to explain the meaning of life, the meaning of our relationships to each other and the many mysteries of the universe.

The answers to those questions can have extensive repercussions in our daily lives and how we live them. And as we learn more facts about life, it can pose problems for any who followed a religious explanation that now conflicts with facts.

A lot of evil has been done RELATED TO religion, either by those using a religion to control those within, or those trying to impose their religion on others, or those trying to do away with a religion. To me, religion is more of a focal point of contention rather than being evil itself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 10:57AM by seekyr.

Killing each other in the name of religion is fare more than "Related" to religion, it is the MOTIVE and JUSTIFICATION for the killings of the reformation, crusades, inquisitions, etc..

Seriously, the reformation was Christians killing Christians over what it means to be Christian.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 11:18AM by MJ.

Originally, it's purpose was to figure out a use for the left-over chicken bones.

People who commit atrocities hide behind religion, or hide behind communism. It's not the religion or the communism which is causing that sort of behaviour. A murderer will murder people whether they're Christian, communist, atheist or indifferent to whether or not there's a supernatural being.

So, in the reformation, Christians killing Christians over what it means to be Christian had nothing to do with Christianity?

No, they do not just hide, they use it as motive and justification.

Religion is there to service everyone who really doesn't want to face facts. I can think of no other reason to have it.

Helping others should be all of society's responsibility all the time. Charity is not the sole property of religion.

Teaching children is better without religion.

Religion can be the "any port in a storm" for those who are really down and have no one. But for this to be truly effective, most religions would have to be restructured starting with the Mormon church because if you are truly down, the Mormons are the last port you want to moor in.

For there to be an appropriate place for religion in society,the leaders of churches need to forget God, forget Jesus, and all their counterparts, and just be spiritual leaders striving for purity of good will with no thought of reward. The leaders should teach that goodness is its own reward and there should be no emphasis of a heavenly afterlife as a grand prize. Then there might be a place for religion.

blueorchid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religion is there to service everyone who really
> doesn't want to face facts. I can think of no
> other reason to have it.
>

Religion is used to control people. It is used to control others thus give power to the controllers. In this case, it is there to service nobody but the powerful. It is often used to get good people to do bad things thinking they are doing good. The LDS is an example that should make it clear to anyone here how that can be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 11:39AM by MJ.

They would hide behind whatever was handy to hide behind.

That is not hiding. Using God to justify murder is not hiding.

Slipping off to the shadows is hiding. Hiding is an indication of guilt, the idea that they know they did something wrong.

Justifying ones actions by doing them in the name of God does not indicate the guilt hiding does. Sorry they are two different things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 11:27AM by MJ.

It's about power.

If you wanted to take over the world, would you say, "I want all the power and all the money, so I'm going to take over?"

Or would you find something that you know you could raly people behind. Give them a cause and many will follow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 11:28AM by Greyfort.

It certainly is not about hiding. Using God to justify murder is not hiding.

Slipping off to the shadows is hiding. Hiding is an indication of guilt, the idea that they know they did something wrong, so they hide.

Justifying ones actions by doing them in the name of God does not indicate the guilt hiding does. Sorry they are two different things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 11:36AM by MJ.

Dagny,slavery and other evils go back to prehistoric times. The Bible did not yet exist. Neither did other religious texts or even religion as we have today,so please explain how you know religion was the cause.

You are spinning this. You know full well that the Bible was used as justification to perpetuate the practices that were in existence- ancient or not. I'm not saying the Bible invented the bad behavior of humans.

Religion is an effective tool to perpetuate and justify behavior. Religion is regressive and does not change until the social currents force them. Interesting how the people who become agents for change in religion have to help their religions correct themselves.

Dagny, I am well aware the south used the Bible to justify slavery,but that was not the cause of slavery. A brief review of US history will show that slavery in the south was due to the geography which led to the plantation system. Without slaves, the plantation system was not profitable. The geography in the north was different and led to small farms which did not need slaves.I didn't bring up the justification of slavery from.the Bible because it is common knowledge. However, the abolitionists also used the Bible to justify their.position-a fact which you neglected to mention. I would be justified in accusing you of spinning too.At any rate none of this was my point. My point was that slavery predates the Bible and modern religion was was pretty much universal until the last few hundred years.