Any hope of a lawsuit against religion?

[Salus Maior]

Organized faith has always and will likely always remain an active force in society-as you said. I wouldn't go so far as to call it the "forces of darkness" considering many churches provide positive benefits to the community. I would make the argument that religion can provide an essential need for hope in many people that don't otherwise connect with other activities. A society with no religion is closer to a dystopia than a utopia.

Most of the benefits organised religion provides are generally not limited or mutually exclusive to religion, in the least bit. Every time a person is asked to cite the positives of organised religion, they inevitable list things that are just as achievable in the absence of religion.

And yet people form connections with particular religions and movements for specific reasons, because there's something unique to them that they don't find elsewhere.

I imagine I could easily find community and very spiritually and traditionally minded people in a local Buddhist community, but I have no connection to Buddhism and so I'm not compelled to join them. I became a Catholic because I believe in it and have strong cultural connections to it, I feel at home there where I don't feel at home elsewhere.

Catholicism, in it's unique traditions and history, has something that I can't find elsewhere, and so I'm compelled to adhere to that and not to some wishy-washy Unitarian Universalist center, or Islamic mosque or what have you.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Well, the first problem with your assertion of religion = violence is that Russia is low on religion yet also low on state of peace. And then there's places like Indochina and Central America which aren't very low on the state of peace, yet high on religion. It's almost as if the lack of stability and economic factors produce violence and ideological radicalism. Which the same could be said of Africa and the Middle East as well, among other factors.

As for wanting to "sue" religion, that's laughable. Why don't we also sue "fascism" and "communism" while we're at it.

I did that because it's more concise than trying to type "what is the broadest religious organization that could possibly be the subject of a lawsuit for the harm that it has done" into a subjectline. But I've since narrowed it down to the more specific proposals throughout this thread. Please stop acting as though I haven't.

Russia didn't abandon religion of their own accord, it was taken from them through censorship. But places where people abandon religion of their own accord, like Japan or northern Europe, seem to be doing rather well.

[Salus Maior]

Well, the first problem with your assertion of religion = violence is that Russia is low on religion yet also low on state of peace. And then there's places like Indochina and Central America which aren't very low on the state of peace, yet high on religion. It's almost as if the lack of stability and economic factors produce violence and ideological radicalism. Which the same could be said of Africa and the Middle East as well, among other factors.

As for wanting to "sue" religion, that's laughable. Why don't we also sue "fascism" and "communism" while we're at it.

I did that because it's more concise than trying to type "what is the broadest religious organization that could possibly be the subject of a lawsuit for the harm that it has done" into a subjectline. But I've since narrowed it down to the more specific proposals throughout this thread. Please stop acting as though I haven't.

Russia didn't abandon religion of their own accord, it was taken from them through censorship. But places where people abandon religion of their own accord, like Japan or northern Europe, seem to be doing rather well.

The meaning of "religiousness" is complicated in Japan, as I'm sure Hana can tell you. Sure, they might not be religious in the same way as say, Catholics are religious, but they do seem to have a certain dedication to spiritual tradition that's part of their national identity.

That's complete nonesense, and the means should not matter. Especially when Russia is nearly a century removed from the worst of their religious persecutions. The current Russian generation is really not that different from anyone else in the modern world, to say otherwise is just to make an inane exception to fit your preconceived notions.

And of course you're also ignoring the fact that Indochina rates high for state of peace, as well as high for religion. The same can be said for Poland, Romania, Italy, and Indonesia, and Central America is moderate on peace state yet high on religion. Bhutan is listed as one of the highest on peace, higher than France or Britain, yet is high on religion. This indicates that my assertion is correct: it's political stability and economic prosperity that is the prime mover for violence and peace, not religion.

[Crockerland]

Well, the first problem with your assertion of religion = violence is that Russia is low on religion yet also low on state of peace. And then there's places like Indochina and Central America which aren't very low on the state of peace, yet high on religion. It's almost as if the lack of stability and economic factors produce violence and ideological radicalism. Which the same could be said of Africa and the Middle East as well, among other factors.

As for wanting to "sue" religion, that's laughable. Why don't we also sue "fascism" and "communism" while we're at it.

I did that because it's more concise than trying to type "what is the broadest religious organization that could possibly be the subject of a lawsuit for the harm that it has done" into a subjectline. But I've since narrowed it down to the more specific proposals throughout this thread. Please stop acting as though I haven't.

Russia didn't abandon religion of their own accord, it was taken from them through censorship. But places where people abandon religion of their own accord, like Japan or northern Europe, seem to be doing rather well.

According to Agency for Cultural Affairs, 70% of Japanese people are Shinto and 69% of them are Buddhists - the two overlap as the religions are compatible - with about 84.7 million out of Japan's 126 million people being adherents of Shinto.
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00226/believe-it-or-not!-religious-adherents-outnumber-people-in-japan.html

Encyclopedia Britannica's numbers from 2012 show similar results, with 79% following Shinto, and 69% following Buddhism.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Japan/Religion

Similarly with Northern Europe, the countries you cite as "abandon[ing] religion of their own accord" are actually highly religious.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Norway/Languages#ref225480
Norway is 82% Lutheran


https://denmark.dk/people-and-culture/religion
Denmark is 75% Lutheran, one of the only countries on Earth remaining with a state religion, and has no separation of church and state.


https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/religion-in-finland-today.html
70% of Finns are part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland

https://www.faroeislands.fo/people-society/religion/
And the Faroe Islands are 85% Lutheran as well


Seems like your claims don't really hold up under scrutiny.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The meaning of "religiousness" is complicated in Japan, as I'm sure Hana can tell you. Sure, they might not be religious in the same way as say, Catholics are religious, but they do seem to have a certain dedication to spiritual tradition that's part of their national identity.

So you don't need Christianity nor Islam. For the purposes of this thread, I approximate religion as referring to the most mainstream of religions. I'll worry about the less-mainstream ones if/when they become mainstream, and if/when they prove harmful on a significant level.

That's complete nonesense, and the means should not matter. Especially when Russia is nearly a century removed from the worst of their religious persecutions. The current Russian generation is really not that different from anyone else in the modern world, to say otherwise is just to make an inane exception to fit your preconceived notions.

Really? Does "everyone else in the modern world" see political opponents to current leadership blatantly murdered in the streets?

At best, the public's irreligiosity has no bearing on how the society is run because it has no bearing on how the government is run. So it's not like "religiosity" could have done anything about it. (Unless you think Putin being Christian would've changed things, which... depends on how you interpret Christianity, quite frankly.)

And of course you're also ignoring the fact that Indochina rates high for state of peace, as well as high for religion.

That's NOT what YOU said.

But yes, it's true. Still not AS peaceful as Scandinavia, Belgium, Holland, though. The key is to compare the best of religion to the best without religion, to see what we are capable of when we throw religion aside. There's no reason why religion would PREVENT violence, after all.

Google search says it's "Vietnamese folk religion," not something mainstream like Christianity or Islam. Almost as if the last Christian country they interacted with bombing the hell out of them might have something to do with it or something.

The same can be said for Poland, Romania, Italy, and Indonesia, and Central America is moderate on peace state yet high on religion.

Only because the GPI doesn't count violence against the climate. Brazil doesn't need to start a war themselves when their role in climate change will cause other countries to wage war against each other instead.

Indonesia executes people over drugs, not unlike what the most ardent Christians advocate in the USA. Only in their country they execute people for trying to smuggle drugs OUT (which any other country considers none of their business) and even an apology didn't satiate them. Once again going to show what happens when you let Islam take over. That might explain the light green as opposed to the aforementioned northern European countries' dark green.

Poland's actually a legitimate exception, but it's still more plainly an anomaly in the trend. Even then, their "religious in a peaceful way" anomaly might be an unstable equilibrium.

Bhutan is listed as one of the highest on peace, higher than France or Britain, yet is high on religion. This indicates that my assertion is correct: it's political stability and economic prosperity that is the prime mover for violence and peace, not religion.

And how do you rule out religion not holding back "political stability and economic prosperity"?

[Salus Maior]

1.Really? Does "everyone else in the modern world" see political opponents to current leadership blatantly murdered in the streets? At best, the public's irreligiosity has no bearing on how the society is run because it has no bearing on how the government is run. So it's not like "religiosity" could have done anything about it. (Unless you think Putin being Christian would've changed things, which... depends on how you interpret Christianity, quite frankly.)

2.That's NOT what YOU said.

But yes, it's true. Still not AS peaceful as Scandinavia, Belgium, Holland, though. The key is to compare the best of religion to the best without religion, to see what we are capable of when we throw religion aside. There's no reason why religion would PREVENT violence, after all.

Google search says it's "Vietnamese folk religion," not something mainstream like Christianity or Islam. Almost as if the last Christian country they interacted with bombing the hell out of them might have something to do with it or something.


3.Only because the GPI doesn't count violence against the climate. Brazil doesn't need to start a war themselves when their role in climate change will cause other countries to wage war against each other instead.

4.Indonesia executes people over drugs, not unlike what the most ardent Christians advocate in the USA. Only in their country they execute people for trying to smuggle drugs OUT (which any other country considers none of their business) and even an apology didn't satiate them. Once again going to show what happens when you let Islam take over. That might explain the light green as opposed to the aforementioned northern European countries' dark green.

5.Poland's actually a legitimate exception, but it's still more plainly an anomaly in the trend. Even then, their "religious in a peaceful way" anomaly might be an unstable equilibrium.

6.And how do you rule out religion not holding back "political stability and economic prosperity"?

1. Yes, because political murder has to do with Christianity, and not the fact that Russia's always been harsh politically since their society's collapse with the fall of the USSR. And I'm not making the argument that Christianity/religiousness is strictly a benefit, I'm saying that it's not a harm in the way you think it is. Your own evidence doesn't even support that.

2. You're getting testy, aren't you? Vietnam is Buddhist as well as folk religion, although there's also a Catholic minority. And what does the Vietnam war, a war waged over political ideology and not religion, have to do with anything? Exactly, it doesn't. You're grasping for straws here, man.

Bhutan is religious and traditional, and rates as highest tier peace alongside the rest of your mentioned countries. Hell, even higher than France and Britain.

3. I didn't mention Brazil, I mentioned Central America, which is moderate on the GPI and high on religion. And as far as I'm aware, they're pretty protective of their environment for the sake of tourism income.

4. Now you're picking between second highest peace, and highest peace? That's just nit-picking. If what you asserted was strictly true, all the heavily religious countries (at least the countries with the religions you're particularly phobic of) would rate red or close to red. They would not be rating close to the less religious countries. I'm sorry man, but you're just wrong, and this argument is simple and petty. As for the drug issue, if it's working to keep the peace, than that's just what they have to do. I don't see why that's such a problem to you, unless you perhaps were waiting to get some illegal Indonesian drugs?

5. Vague and unconvincing. Again, you're just trying to fit a preconceived notion, and not actually looking at the data and thinking about what it means. Which is pretty sad considering you're the one producing the data.

6. Because the countries in red are largely former colonies, which have been impoverished because Colonial Powers extracted wealth from them and didn't develop them to become independent nations, or they've been destabilized by political or military action, like what we did to Iraq or Venezuela's constant coups. When societies are destabilized, radicals that were once on the sidelines come out of the woodwork and try to take advantage. These can be religious radicals like ISIS or the Taliban, sure, but they would never have been mainstream if it weren't for their countries becoming destabilized by either America or the USSR respectively.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

1.Really? Does "everyone else in the modern world" see political opponents to current leadership blatantly murdered in the streets? At best, the public's irreligiosity has no bearing on how the society is run because it has no bearing on how the government is run. So it's not like "religiosity" could have done anything about it. (Unless you think Putin being Christian would've changed things, which... depends on how you interpret Christianity, quite frankly.)

2.That's NOT what YOU said.

But yes, it's true. Still not AS peaceful as Scandinavia, Belgium, Holland, though. The key is to compare the best of religion to the best without religion, to see what we are capable of when we throw religion aside. There's no reason why religion would PREVENT violence, after all.

Google search says it's "Vietnamese folk religion," not something mainstream like Christianity or Islam. Almost as if the last Christian country they interacted with bombing the hell out of them might have something to do with it or something.


3.Only because the GPI doesn't count violence against the climate. Brazil doesn't need to start a war themselves when their role in climate change will cause other countries to wage war against each other instead.

4.Indonesia executes people over drugs, not unlike what the most ardent Christians advocate in the USA. Only in their country they execute people for trying to smuggle drugs OUT (which any other country considers none of their business) and even an apology didn't satiate them. Once again going to show what happens when you let Islam take over. That might explain the light green as opposed to the aforementioned northern European countries' dark green.

5.Poland's actually a legitimate exception, but it's still more plainly an anomaly in the trend. Even then, their "religious in a peaceful way" anomaly might be an unstable equilibrium.

6.And how do you rule out religion not holding back "political stability and economic prosperity"?

1. Yes, because political murder has to do with Christianity, and not the fact that Russia's always been harsh politically since their society's collapse with the fall of the USSR. And I'm not making the argument that Christianity/religiousness is strictly a benefit, I'm saying that it's not a harm in the way you think it is. Your own evidence doesn't even support that.

2. You're getting testy, aren't you? Vietnam is Buddhist as well as folk religion, although there's also a Catholic minority. And what does the Vietnam war, a war waged over political ideology and not religion, have to do with anything? Exactly, it doesn't. You're grasping for straws here, man.

Bhutan is religious and traditional, and rates as highest tier peace alongside the rest of your mentioned countries. Hell, even higher than France and Britain.

3. I didn't mention Brazil, I mentioned Central America, which is moderate on the GPI and high on religion. And as far as I'm aware, they're pretty protective of their environment for the sake of tourism income.

4. Now you're picking between second highest peace, and highest peace? That's just nit-picking. If what you asserted was strictly true, all the heavily religious countries (at least the countries with the religions you're particularly phobic of) would rate red or close to red. They would not be rating close to the less religious countries. I'm sorry man, but you're just wrong, and this argument is simple and petty. As for the drug issue, if it's working to keep the peace, than that's just what they have to do. I don't see why that's such a problem to you, unless you perhaps were waiting to get some illegal Indonesian drugs?

5. Vague and unconvincing. Again, you're just trying to fit a preconceived notion, and not actually looking at the data and thinking about what it means. Which is pretty sad considering you're the one producing the data.

6. Because the countries in red are largely former colonies, which have been impoverished because Colonial Powers extracted wealth from them and didn't develop them to become independent nations, or they've been destabilized by political or military action, like what we did to Iraq or Venezuela's constant coups. When societies are destabilized, radicals that were once on the sidelines come out of the woodwork and try to take advantage. These can be religious radicals like ISIS or the Taliban, sure, but they would never have been mainstream if it weren't for their countries becoming destabilized by either America or the USSR respectively.

1. I never said religion was responsible for their political murders. I said political murders aren't committed on behalf of the public, but in spite of the will of the public, so it doesn't matter what their public believes, compared to in democracies. Learn some reading comprehension.

2. Historically, religious states disproportionately elected warmongers. It's almost as if religion legitimizing gullibility on the supernatural legitimized gullibility on when war is or isn't the solution.

3. My bad, I'm quite used to Latin and Central America being lumped together. Nevertheless, Central America wouldn't exactly be immigrating to the USA en masse if the effects on their society were a net positive, would they?

4. Hell no. I prefer whisky. Nonetheless, criminalization has generally proven to do more harm than good (which is why Europe opts to treat it as a health issue more, and criminal issue less, than the USA or Indonesia) but see, that's the point. You need to know what happens when religion isn't leading people away from the best way to run a society. We can give up religion without reverting to the worst possible alternatives to it.

5. Okay, fair point. But in light of all I've mentioned, the best of secular societies are still better than the best of religious societies, if only slightly.

6. Colonial Powers claiming to do what they did on behalf of "God, gold, and glory," by the way. People who considered the indigenous "heathens" for not praying to the same deities. At worst, religion made that worse too. At best, there was nothing religion could have done to prevent that. As for Iraq, need I remind you it was the Bible belt that voted for Bush in the first place?

[Salus Maior]

1. I never said religion was responsible for their political murders. I said political murders aren't committed on behalf of the public, but in spite of the will of the public, so it doesn't matter what their public believes, compared to in democracies. Learn some reading comprehension.

2. Historically, religious states disproportionately elected warmongers. It's almost as if religion legitimizing gullibility on the supernatural legitimized gullibility on when war is or isn't the solution.

3. My bad, I'm quite used to Latin and Central America being lumped together. Nevertheless, Central America wouldn't exactly be immigrating to the USA en masse if the effects on their society were a net positive, would they?

4. Hell no. I prefer whisky. Nonetheless, criminalization has generally proven to do more harm than good (which is why Europe opts to treat it as a health issue more, and criminal issue less, than the USA or Indonesia) but see, that's the point. You need to know what happens when religion isn't leading people away from the best way to run a society. We can give up religion without reverting to the worst possible alternatives to it.

5. Okay, fair point. But in light of all I've mentioned, the best of secular societies are still better than the best of religious societies, if only slightly.

6. Colonial Powers claiming to do what they did on behalf of "God, gold, and glory," by the way. People who considered the indigenous "heathens" for not praying to the same deities. At worst, religion made that worse too. At best, there was nothing religion could have done to prevent that. As for Iraq, need I remind you it was the Bible belt that voted for Bush in the first place?

1. And the "will of the public" doesn't have anything to do with your proposed subject. So this answer is just a waste of time and a distraction.

2. Likewise to 1, this has nothing to do with the proposed subject. Nor the Vietnam War. So far you're doing really well in wasting your own time and mine.

3. It probably has to do with the fact that the CIA really fucked them over doing the Cold War by setting up anti-communist dictatorships and supporting the drug cartel. Unsurprisingly, religion is again not the culprit.

4. And despite that, they're still high on the Peace Scale. So it probably isn't the same kind of issue there as it was this side of the world. And again, you have no idea whether or not religion influences the anti-drug policy or not, you're just assuming.

5. As I pointed out before, Bhutan is traditional and religious and top tier peace level, equal to the European states you're salivating over.

6. Again, a distraction from the actual point that religion is not what's making these places hard to live in, it's economic and political issues. And besides, Britain wasn't a huge fan of Evangelicals doing missions in the colonies, because it brought up the threat of local uprisings which interrupted the status quo of productivity. Because that's why they were there, for economic Empire. After 9/11 everyone supported the Iraq invasion, not just Bush's original electoral base. And need I remind you that Democrats have also been War Hawks? Direct intervention in Syria was on Hillary Clinton's agenda.

As usual, Lima, your arguments are incredibly weak and not at all based in real knowledge, but assumption upon assumption hoping something will stick or someone won't call you out on it. This whole thread is just a personal tirade against particular groups you hate, that's not even supported by the information you're presenting. This isn't worth anyone's time, and nobody's going to be coming out of this any wiser.

[James_xenoland]

I have a silly question of my own. Any hope of a lawsuit against leftist ideology and specifically communism?

Define "leftist" and/or "communist."

As soon as someone defines "religion" in this context i'll get right on that.

Which pretty much single handedly make histories other greatest mass murderers and genocidal assholes look like saints in terms of sheer numbers.

As opposed to deaths from capitalist exploitation? There's no way of knowing how many more people capitalism killed if seeing who people would turn to in the name of communism didn't send a message.

Besides, it's not like libertarian atheists get much (if any) more respect from the religious right.

Woah wait.. When did capitalism come into this debate? My (semi-satirical) argument was with communism, not as a defense of capitalism! I mean such a defense wouldn't be too hard to make, as it's apples to oranges really but still.

Probably true, but atheism isn't the default standard for libertarian thought/ideology either.

And since we are playing guilt by association, let's include atheism in that leftist/communist suit as well!

What, if anything, would "believing in God" have done about this?

I think you misunderstand the concept of "guilt by association".

[James_xenoland]

I have a silly question of my own. Any hope of a lawsuit against leftist ideology and specifically communism? Which pretty much single handedly make histories other greatest mass murderers and genocidal assholes look like saints in terms of sheer numbers. And since we are playing guilt by association, let's include atheism in that leftist/communist .

Funny you say that. Let's compare Hitler and Stalin. Official records put Stalin's victim toll at about 3.3 million, not counting the famines, those would add 6.5 million at most.

Holocaust? Betwern 2.8 and 3.3 of Soviet POWs only. The total count is 17 million, of which about 6 million Jews, 8.5 million non-Jewish Soviet and between 1.8 and 3 million Poles. Not even close. Hitler's position on religion is impossible to determine, because he was a masterful politician. He would be the most devout Catholic when he needed, yet become the most die-hard atheist if it was required.

Religion's count is very hard to determine, because much of it was in the Middle Ages. One of the things that you also have to consider is that religion probably didn't cause much death in sheer numbers. The catch? Population was also much smaller. It boomed to where it is now, in the age where religion became less important, while nationalism and ideologies risen.

*facepalm* First capitalism and now nazism!

When did nazism come into this? My (semi-satirical) argument was with communism, certainly not as a defense of nazism! There is always the jump to the defensive when one brings up communism, usually while confirming godwin's law. Nazism doesn't have any shortage of public commentary and pointing out of it's deeds.

Just the count is "hard to determine"?! That's just one of a whole number of issues that are hard to determine with OP's kind of question/argument!