Is religion good?

[Arval Va]

Is religion (in general) good?
There's two questions I want to explore, seen below:

---

1) Is religion inherently harmful?
2) Does religion have benefits, and do those benefits outweigh possible harm?

I've already shown my thoughts in this topic, but I'll share a summary to start:

---

1) Absolutely. Religion requires people to participate in faith, the practice of believing in something without evidence and/or while denying contradictory evidence. Most religious people are indoctrinated in childhood by parents or trusted adults, which means that this fundamentally anti-empirical idea with huge ramifications for someone's worldview is given to them by the people they most trust, when they're most vulnerable. When a religious person meets an idea which contradicts their religion, they must either continue believing in the religion and deny that idea no matter its merit, or get rid of something they've trusted their whole life, and lose all their ideas and beliefs built on top of it. Even more, many religions and religious groups impose harsh punisments for mild offenses (including non-belief,) inspired by their dusty holy book from whatever bygone age it hails. In general, trying to follow ideals set out thousands of years ago, when the scientific method and Occam's Razor didn't exist in a modern society where so much contradictory information is available always results in backwards or hostile behaviour.
2) Many people claim their religion provides morals and meaning to life. The first point is easy: if your religion is the only source of morals, what was it like before your religion was around? Communities can't develop without at least some sort of code of conduct, and religion can't exist without a society or community. Meaning to life? Many people find that in religion, and I wouldn't take that from anyone. But it is my belief that there are far better options to get your philosophy from.

[New-Minneapolis]

1) Is religion inherently harmful?
2) Does religion have benefits, and do those benefits outweigh possible harm?



1. This depends, and it varies greatly. In general, I think it provides false hope.

2. I think that the benefits sightly outweigh the harm. I support religion freedom because I think it contributes to a stable society. Not because of the few benefits that religion provides to society as a whole, but because that forbidding the religious from practicing their faith would cause civil unrest and a breakdown in societal order.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

In the USSR, where I was formed, religion as a whole was condemned (even recognizing that the original theses of religion, and some rebellious plebeian currents in it, reflected the mood of the oppressed masses). She was condemned for two things:

1. Slowdown of scientific and technological progress.
2. Slowing down the struggle of the oppressed poor for their rights.

1. The slowdown in scientific and technological progress was caused not only by the method of thinking of religious people (belief in miracles and mysticism, belief in consequences without reasons, dogma instead of verification, reliance on the unfounded statements of the prophets and on the texts of sacred books instead of reliance on facts), but also disregard for improving earthly life in general - if earthly life is a brief test before the eternal afterlife, then there is no point in developing science and technology for the sake of comfort and happiness in the earthly world.

2. The inhibition of the class struggle was caused by the same illusory hope for a heavenly paradise instead of earthly comfort - why go on strike for a pay rise or overthrow a tyrant if poverty and tyranny are only a short test before an eternal paradise in heaven as a reward for obedience? As well as numerous direct commandments of the obedience of slaves to masters, the divine origin of earthly power, humility and asceticism, limiting earthly needs instead of social struggle for their satisfaction.

In general, I still consider such criticism of religion to be quite fair, and religion "useful" only to the oppressors as an instrument of oppression.

[New-Minneapolis]

In the USSR, where I was formed, religion as a whole was condemned (even recognizing that the original theses of religion, and some rebellious plebeian currents in it, reflected the mood of the oppressed masses). She was condemned for two things:

1. Slowdown of scientific and technological progress.
2. Slowing down the struggle of the oppressed poor for their rights.

1. The slowdown in scientific and technological progress was caused not only by the method of thinking of religious people (belief in miracles and mysticism, belief in consequences without reasons, dogma instead of verification, reliance on the unfounded statements of the prophets and on the texts of sacred books instead of reliance on facts), but also disregard for improving earthly life in general - if earthly life is a brief test before the eternal afterlife, then there is no point in developing science and technology for the sake of comfort and happiness in the earthly world.

2. The inhibition of the class struggle was caused by the same illusory hope for a heavenly paradise instead of earthly comfort - why go on strike for a pay rise or overthrow a tyrant if poverty and tyranny are only a short test before an eternal paradise in heaven as a reward for obedience? As well as numerous direct commandments of the obedience of slaves to masters, the divine origin of earthly power, humility and asceticism, limiting earthly needs instead of social struggle for their satisfaction.

In general, I still consider such criticism of religion to be quite fair, and religion "useful" only to the oppressors as an instrument of oppression.

See. On a personal level, I feel this way about religion. But I strongly disagree with USSR on banning or putting massive regulations on Religion. I support religiously neutral government, neither a theocracy nor an atheist state. I think banning religion creates massive social unrest.

[Sanasalia]

In the USSR, where I was formed, religion as a whole was condemned (even recognizing that the original theses of religion, and some rebellious plebeian currents in it, reflected the mood of the oppressed masses). She was condemned for two things:

1. Slowdown of scientific and technological progress.
2. Slowing down the struggle of the oppressed poor for their rights.

1. The slowdown in scientific and technological progress was caused not only by the method of thinking of religious people (belief in miracles and mysticism, belief in consequences without reasons, dogma instead of verification, reliance on the unfounded statements of the prophets and on the texts of sacred books instead of reliance on facts), but also disregard for improving earthly life in general - if earthly life is a brief test before the eternal afterlife, then there is no point in developing science and technology for the sake of comfort and happiness in the earthly world.

2. The inhibition of the class struggle was caused by the same illusory hope for a heavenly paradise instead of earthly comfort - why go on strike for a pay rise or overthrow a tyrant if poverty and tyranny are only a short test before an eternal paradise in heaven as a reward for obedience? As well as numerous direct commandments of the obedience of slaves to masters, the divine origin of earthly power, humility and asceticism, limiting earthly needs instead of social struggle for their satisfaction.

In general, I still consider such criticism of religion to be quite fair, and religion "useful" only to the oppressors as an instrument of oppression.

See. On a personal level, I feel this way about religion. But I strongly disagree with USSR on banning or putting massive regulations on Religion. I support religiously neutral government, neither a theocracy nor an atheist state. I think banning religion creates massive social unrest.

I also agree that a religiously-neutral government is preferabble, and that banning both religious tendencies and religion as a whole is bound to lead down an unwanted path. It should probably be also brought up how religion is taught in the education system, a topic I stay more neutral on and am open to anyone who wants to responds opinions.
The one thing that the USSR banned that was probably for the best was "psychics" as well. I'm not going to go on an argument about this but honestly it is a bit of a money-grabbing scheme that ends up hurting people. I'm not going to condemn anyone for being a psychic, but they have to understand what they are doing is a scam unless treated with fair prices (which should probably be a low price). Just in general I think not making things like "psychics" or chasing someone up repetitively with trying to convince them to join a religion illegal, but frowned upon, would improve the system. But I agree parts of that solution is flawed.

Also Religion needs to be more private. It should be between you and what you believe in, and perhaps your family and friends and other people your in a relationship with. I understand though some religions are going to be obvious to tell who follows what, and that some religions require social gatherings and large gatherings.

Anyway, I have probably made some mistakes but this was basically my view

[Technoscience Leftwing]

In the USSR, where I was formed, religion as a whole was condemned (even recognizing that the original theses of religion, and some rebellious plebeian currents in it, reflected the mood of the oppressed masses). She was condemned for two things:

1. Slowdown of scientific and technological progress.
2. Slowing down the struggle of the oppressed poor for their rights.

1. The slowdown in scientific and technological progress was caused not only by the method of thinking of religious people (belief in miracles and mysticism, belief in consequences without reasons, dogma instead of verification, reliance on the unfounded statements of the prophets and on the texts of sacred books instead of reliance on facts), but also disregard for improving earthly life in general - if earthly life is a brief test before the eternal afterlife, then there is no point in developing science and technology for the sake of comfort and happiness in the earthly world.

2. The inhibition of the class struggle was caused by the same illusory hope for a heavenly paradise instead of earthly comfort - why go on strike for a pay rise or overthrow a tyrant if poverty and tyranny are only a short test before an eternal paradise in heaven as a reward for obedience? As well as numerous direct commandments of the obedience of slaves to masters, the divine origin of earthly power, humility and asceticism, limiting earthly needs instead of social struggle for their satisfaction.

In general, I still consider such criticism of religion to be quite fair, and religion "useful" only to the oppressors as an instrument of oppression.

See. On a personal level, I feel this way about religion. But I strongly disagree with USSR on banning or putting massive regulations on Religion. I support religiously neutral government, neither a theocracy nor an atheist state. I think banning religion creates massive social unrest.

Here, perhaps, the problem is in some cultural difference between the United States and Russia.

Religious dissidents from various sects of Protestantism fled to the United States, and they saw in the right to form religious groups freedom from the despotism of continental monarchs and their established churches.

And in Russia, religion was an instrument of state oppression, an instrument of the monarchy. Therefore, people saw freedom in liberation from religion, and hence the repressions of the insurgent people against the clergy during the revolutionary period. Apparently, the anti-church repressions during the French Revolution were also caused by the close connection between the official church and the monarchy, as a result of which the masses transferred their hatred of the monarchy to its church as well.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

... Religious dissidents from various sects of Protestantism fled to the United States, and they saw in the right to form religious groups freedom from the despotism of continental monarchs and their established churches...

I'm not sure this is true. Some of the early UK protestants who went to the proto-US, went because they were extremists who wanted there to be less religious freedom.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

See. On a personal level, I feel this way about religion. But I strongly disagree with USSR on banning or putting massive regulations on Religion. I support religiously neutral government, neither a theocracy nor an atheist state. I think banning religion creates massive social unrest.

I also agree that a religiously-neutral government is preferabble, and that banning both religious tendencies and religion as a whole is bound to lead down an unwanted path. It should probably be also brought up how religion is taught in the education system, a topic I stay more neutral on and am open to anyone who wants to responds opinions.
The one thing that the USSR banned that was probably for the best was "psychics" as well. I'm not going to go on an argument about this but honestly it is a bit of a money-grabbing scheme that ends up hurting people. I'm not going to condemn anyone for being a psychic, but they have to understand what they are doing is a scam unless treated with fair prices (which should probably be a low price). Just in general I think not making things like "psychics" or chasing someone up repetitively with trying to convince them to join a religion illegal, but frowned upon, would improve the system. But I agree parts of that solution is flawed.

Also Religion needs to be more private. It should be between you and what you believe in, and perhaps your family and friends and other people your in a relationship with. I understand though some religions are going to be obvious to tell who follows what, and that some religions require social gatherings and large gatherings.

Anyway, I have probably made some mistakes but this was basically my view

Yes, these psychics, "alternative medicine", fortune-tellers, magicians, shamans (among the northern ethnic groups), and many similar miracle workers were also banned, all this was considered a type of fraud, especially dangerous in the healthcare sector - because. believing a charlatan, a person could not go to the doctor, and as a result, a neglected disease killed him.

But as the USSR lagged behind in other areas, confidence in materialism also fell, interest in esotericism grew, and charlatans began to use it. Finally, the most unprincipled part of the bureaucracy entered into a deal with them and put them on television screens, presenting it as freedom. The results were very sad: the audience believed the crooks, lost money and health.

[Greater Rostoria]

See. On a personal level, I feel this way about religion. But I strongly disagree with USSR on banning or putting massive regulations on Religion. I support religiously neutral government, neither a theocracy nor an atheist state. I think banning religion creates massive social unrest.

And in Russia, religion was an instrument of state oppression, an instrument of the monarchy. Therefore, people saw freedom in liberation from religion, and hence the repressions of the insurgent people against the clergy during the revolutionary period. Apparently, the anti-church repressions during the French Revolution were also caused by the close connection between the official church and the monarchy, as a result of which the masses transferred their hatred of the monarchy to its church as well.

Oh I get it, so you're telling me Islam was an instrument of oppression for the Christian Russian monarchy?

The Soviet Union shut down mosques, Soviets prosecuted Central Asians for following their beliefs, Soviets dug up graves of great Muslim figures. And yet the instrument of oppression is religion? Maybe the instrument of oppression are the leaders in Moscow? The Central Asians did nothing to oppress people, and yet they were still punished. Its not a case of religion, its a case of authoritarian and incompetent leaders.

[Quincy]

I. Is religion inherently harmful?
I would firmly say so. From my own experiences with it in the Deep South of the United States and in general across the country, I have firm, concrete evidence to say for sure that it is harmful. For example, there are beliefs in religions like Christianity and Islam in particular along with others such as Mormonism (though I don't even know if calling Mormonism much more than an offshoot of Christianity is worth the merit, but I digress), of which hold views that are incredibly antiquated and, at worst, even radically conservative for antiquated standards.

II. Does religion have benefits, and do those benefits outweigh possible harm?
No. Well - at least, I don't think so. Seeing how religion and religious folk react to opinions which deviate from their own beliefs? Eh... I am on the side of NO benefits whatsoever. As the OP put it, "inspired [from] their dusty holy book from whatever bygone age it hails from"; the statement that has rang true to me for years on end.

In conclusion, I think, to summarize all of this: religion is harmful and has no benefits, at least how I see it. It is antiquated, serves no modern use, and generally is rather conservative and refuses to change - something I am not a fan of. Religion also harbors views on certain issues that I find... problematic at best, especially considering modern reality and life. Overall, I loathe and hate religion and believe it is the worst evil mankind has - false morality.

[Drongonia]

That's like asking 'does coca-cola taste good?' - it's a subjective thing.

Devout people will tell you of the enlightenment and peace it brings them. Reddit-tier atheists will lamely call it 'the opiate of the masses' despite literal opiates being the opiate of the masses and tell you that it's inherently harmful and blah blah blah nonsense.

Honestly the fact that you're trying to boil down someone's faith to a mathematical or statistical question of "does my perception of their harm outweigh my perception of the good they do" tells me no post by a religious person would change your mind.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

And in Russia, religion was an instrument of state oppression, an instrument of the monarchy. Therefore, people saw freedom in liberation from religion, and hence the repressions of the insurgent people against the clergy during the revolutionary period. Apparently, the anti-church repressions during the French Revolution were also caused by the close connection between the official church and the monarchy, as a result of which the masses transferred their hatred of the monarchy to its church as well.

Oh I get it, so you're telling me Islam was an instrument of oppression for the Christian Russian monarchy?

The Soviet Union shut down mosques, Soviets prosecuted Central Asians for following their beliefs, Soviets dug up graves of great Muslim figures. And yet the instrument of oppression is religion? Maybe the instrument of oppression are the leaders in Moscow? The Central Asians did nothing to oppress people, and yet they were still punished. Its not a case of religion, its a case of authoritarian and incompetent leaders.

Islam also taught to obey earthly lords, often feudal lords (emirs, sultans), provided that they were Muslims. Naturally, this contradicted the revolutionary mood of 1917 for the uprising of the oppressed against the rich and powerful everywhere in the world, hence the conflicts, including armed clashes (the struggle of the Soviets against the Basmachi). But tsarism tried to find a common language with Islam, provided that the clergy were loyal to the royal power. But at the same time, the king perceived Islam as a secondary tool, in comparison with Christianity.

[Greater Rostoria]

Oh I get it, so you're telling me Islam was an instrument of oppression for the Christian Russian monarchy?

The Soviet Union shut down mosques, Soviets prosecuted Central Asians for following their beliefs, Soviets dug up graves of great Muslim figures. And yet the instrument of oppression is religion? Maybe the instrument of oppression are the leaders in Moscow? The Central Asians did nothing to oppress people, and yet they were still punished. Its not a case of religion, its a case of authoritarian and incompetent leaders.

Islam also taught to obey earthly lords, often feudal lords (emirs, sultans), provided that they were Muslims. Naturally, this contradicted the revolutionary mood of 1917 for the uprising of the oppressed against the rich and powerful everywhere in the world, hence the conflicts, including armed clashes (the struggle of the Soviets against the Basmachi). But tsarism tried to find a common language with Islam, provided that the clergy were loyal to the royal power. But at the same time, the king perceived Islam as a secondary tool, in comparison with Christianity.

And so for the fact that the Central Asian muslims disagreed with the Soviets and the revolutionary mood, their mosques just had to be burned down, the people shot by firing squads, and its people oppressed even more? Even after the revolutionary period, Central Asians were still oppressed under a tyrannical Soviet regime. Not to mention you guys also decided to drain the Aral sea for cotton cultivation.

And they went from being taught to obey Sultans and Emirs, to being taught to obey Soviet leaders and dare not have a negative opinion of the state.

That's like asking 'does coca-cola taste good?' - it's a subjective thing.

Devout people will tell you of the enlightenment and peace it brings them. Reddit-tier atheists will lamely call it 'the opiate of the masses' despite literal opiates being the opiate of the masses and tell you that it's inherently harmful and blah blah blah nonsense.

Honestly the fact that you're trying to boil down someone's faith to a mathematical or statistical question of "does my perception of their harm outweigh my perception of the good they do" tells me no post by a religious person would change your mind.

I agree with you. While im not very religious, I still believe in Islam as it is how I was raised and a defining feature of my Uzbek roots. I do not hate Atheists just because, more so the ones that will make fun of you and try to make you feel worse for believing in religion (Even if it does not affect them in any way). I do agree with some that there are crazy religious nuts, but there are also crazy Atheists. And to base your entire opinion of someone because of a very small and vocal minority, is childish and very dumb.

In conclusion: W opinion from you.

[New-Minneapolis]

Islam also taught to obey earthly lords, often feudal lords (emirs, sultans), provided that they were Muslims. Naturally, this contradicted the revolutionary mood of 1917 for the uprising of the oppressed against the rich and powerful everywhere in the world, hence the conflicts, including armed clashes (the struggle of the Soviets against the Basmachi). But tsarism tried to find a common language with Islam, provided that the clergy were loyal to the royal power. But at the same time, the king perceived Islam as a secondary tool, in comparison with Christianity.

And so for the fact that the Central Asian muslims disagreed with the Soviets and the revolutionary mood, their mosques just had to be burned down, the people shot by firing squads, and its people oppressed even more? Even after the revolutionary period, Central Asians were still oppressed under a tyrannical Soviet regime. Not to mention you guys also decided to drain the Aral sea for cotton cultivation.

And they went from being taught to obey Sultans and Emirs, to being taught to obey Soviet leaders and dare not have a negative opinion of the state.

That's like asking 'does coca-cola taste good?' - it's a subjective thing.

Devout people will tell you of the enlightenment and peace it brings them. Reddit-tier atheists will lamely call it 'the opiate of the masses' despite literal opiates being the opiate of the masses and tell you that it's inherently harmful and blah blah blah nonsense.

Honestly the fact that you're trying to boil down someone's faith to a mathematical or statistical question of "does my perception of their harm outweigh my perception of the good they do" tells me no post by a religious person would change your mind.

I agree with you. While im not very religious, I still believe in Islam as it is how I was raised and a defining feature of my Uzbek roots. I do not hate Atheists just because, more so the ones that will make fun of you and try to make you feel worse for believing in religion (Even if it does not affect them in any way). I do agree with some that there are crazy religious nuts, but there are also crazy Atheists. And to base your entire opinion of someone because of a very small and vocal minority, is childish and very dumb.

In conclusion: W opinion from you.

Right. I don't really know anyone that denies that the Soviets prosecuted it's Central Asia. I've been talking with people that lived in former Soviet countries on Twitter..and they say the USSR was racist AF.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

Islam also taught to obey earthly lords, often feudal lords (emirs, sultans), provided that they were Muslims. Naturally, this contradicted the revolutionary mood of 1917 for the uprising of the oppressed against the rich and powerful everywhere in the world, hence the conflicts, including armed clashes (the struggle of the Soviets against the Basmachi). But tsarism tried to find a common language with Islam, provided that the clergy were loyal to the royal power. But at the same time, the king perceived Islam as a secondary tool, in comparison with Christianity.

And so for the fact that the Central Asian muslims disagreed with the Soviets and the revolutionary mood, their mosques just had to be burned down, the people shot by firing squads, and its people oppressed even more? Even after the revolutionary period, Central Asians were still oppressed under a tyrannical Soviet regime. Not to mention you guys also decided to drain the Aral sea for cotton cultivation.

And they went from being taught to obey Sultans and Emirs, to being taught to obey Soviet leaders and dare not have a negative opinion of the state.

The ideology of the USSR did not proclaim the goal of repression against the inhabitants of Central Asia on ethnic grounds. Modernization was carried out there, hospitals, universities, schools, libraries, industrial enterprises, irrigation systems, modern city blocks with electricity, sewerage and water supply were built. As elsewhere in the USSR, there was a struggle against religion and its propagandists, and against the propaganda of nationalism. Moreover, both Islam and Christianity were criticized, both local nationalism and Great Russian chauvinism. The great contribution of the peoples of Central Asia to mathematics, architecture, and literature was recognized. There were repressions against nationalists and clerics. There was no xenophobia towards ethnic groups.

[Floofybit]

1) Is religion inherently harmful?

Some can be. However, mine is not, but rather helpful.

2) Does religion have benefits, and do those benefits outweigh possible harm?

Religion has a MASSIVE variety of benefits. Well, at least mine does, but that's the only religion I really care about.

3) What was it like before your religion was around?

My religion was around at the beginning. There were times when there was apostasy, but people still have a chance to be saved

[Portzania]

Oh I get it, so you're telling me Islam was an instrument of oppression for the Christian Russian monarchy?

The Soviet Union shut down mosques, Soviets prosecuted Central Asians for following their beliefs, Soviets dug up graves of great Muslim figures. And yet the instrument of oppression is religion? Maybe the instrument of oppression are the leaders in Moscow? The Central Asians did nothing to oppress people, and yet they were still punished. Its not a case of religion, its a case of authoritarian and incompetent leaders.

Islam also taught to obey earthly lords, often feudal lords (emirs, sultans), provided that they were Muslims. Naturally, this contradicted the revolutionary mood of 1917 for the uprising of the oppressed against the rich and powerful everywhere in the world, hence the conflicts, including armed clashes (the struggle of the Soviets against the Basmachi). But tsarism tried to find a common language with Islam, provided that the clergy were loyal to the royal power. But at the same time, the king perceived Islam as a secondary tool, in comparison with Christianity.

>Islam also taught to obey earthly lords, often feudal lords
Replacing feudal lords with a oppressive dictatorship! so much better!

[Technoscience Leftwing]

Islam also taught to obey earthly lords, often feudal lords (emirs, sultans), provided that they were Muslims. Naturally, this contradicted the revolutionary mood of 1917 for the uprising of the oppressed against the rich and powerful everywhere in the world, hence the conflicts, including armed clashes (the struggle of the Soviets against the Basmachi). But tsarism tried to find a common language with Islam, provided that the clergy were loyal to the royal power. But at the same time, the king perceived Islam as a secondary tool, in comparison with Christianity.

>Islam also taught to obey earthly lords, often feudal lords
Replacing feudal lords with a oppressive dictatorship! so much better!

Louis XVI ruled authoritarianly, and his successors Robespierre and Napoleon ruled authoritarianally. Does this mean that the French Revolution did not change anything in France? Has changed a lot. There is a reactionary dictatorship, and there is a revolutionary, progressive one. And they weigh not equally on the scales of history.

However, we are going beyond the scope of the topic ...

[Portzania]

>Islam also taught to obey earthly lords, often feudal lords
Replacing feudal lords with a oppressive dictatorship! so much better!

Louis XVI ruled authoritarianly, and his successors Robespierre and Napoleon ruled authoritarianally. Does this mean that the French Revolution did not change anything in France? Has changed a lot. There is a reactionary dictatorship, and there is a revolutionary, progressive one. And they weigh not equally on the scales of history.

However, we are going beyond the scope of the topic ...

Napoleon still wasn't a good person though, suppressing and slaughtering Haitians in the revolt and executing hundreds of thousands of Spainard citizens in the peninsular war.
On the topic of religion, Napoleon still showed tolerance towards other religions, being a fairly neutral catholic despite wanting to restore the unity of the Catholic Church.

[Dogmeat]

Truth is justified unto itself. All that matters is whether religion is true, and it is not.

[Past beans]

1: personally, I think religion is harmful. If you need a moral code enforced by customs just to feel happy, then I'm sorry but I feel it's wrong.

2: religion DOES have it's benefits, but I do not believe that they outweigh harm.

[Floofybit]

Truth is justified unto itself. All that matters is whether religion is true, and it is not.

You're right about that. Except for the one religion that's true. And it's not atheism, non-religious, or any of that crap

[The Archregimancy]

... Religious dissidents from various sects of Protestantism fled to the United States, and they saw in the right to form religious groups freedom from the despotism of continental monarchs and their established churches...

I'm not sure this is true. Some of the early UK protestants who went to the proto-US, went because they were extremists who wanted there to be less religious freedom.

Absolutely. Many early Protestant settlers in the American colonies - notably New England - weren't looking for freedom of conscience for Christians, but rather the freedom to install their particular view of a Protestant theocracy. The Massachusetts Bay Colony for example, explicitly restricted the franchise to recognised members of the local Puritan church, and was openly intolerant of all other Protestant denominations, including the established Anglican Church of England. When Roger Williams founded what became Rhode Island, and offered some measure of freedom of conscience on religious issues to new settlers, it was because he was fleeing religious persecution in Massachusetts Bay, not because he was fleeing despotism and religious intolerance in Europe.

Quaker-founded Pennsylvania and Catholic-founded Maryland did offer a more explicit level of religious freedom more or less from their foundation, but Maryland founder Lord Baltimore was hardly an anti-establishment figure, while William Penn was granted a royal charter by Charles II - so both had the full support of the metropole for their foundation.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

Louis XVI ruled authoritarianly, and his successors Robespierre and Napoleon ruled authoritarianally. Does this mean that the French Revolution did not change anything in France? Has changed a lot. There is a reactionary dictatorship, and there is a revolutionary, progressive one. And they weigh not equally on the scales of history.

However, we are going beyond the scope of the topic ...

Napoleon still wasn't a good person though, suppressing and slaughtering Haitians in the revolt and executing hundreds of thousands of Spainard citizens in the peninsular war.
On the topic of religion, Napoleon still showed tolerance towards other religions, being a fairly neutral catholic despite wanting to restore the unity of the Catholic Church.

Naturally! But I do not write that any of the Soviet leaders was a "good person" in the sense of ideal democracy, holiness or non-violence. Often they had to make authoritarian decisions, often these decisions hit the established way of life and the habitual beliefs of people. But their difference from the sultans, kings, emirs of the past was that they carried out the modernization of an agrarian country, and tried to give urban comfort, education and social guarantees to the poor and plebeians.

Yes, Napoleon was more tolerant of the Catholic Church than Hebert and Robespierre, but in the eyes of a progressive, this is rather a minus. Because the church was an accomplice of anti-democratic, anti-republican and anti-socialist forces.

[Portzania]

But their difference from the sultans, kings, emirs of the past was that they carried out the modernization of an agrarian country, and tried to give urban comfort, education and social guarantees to the poor and plebeians.

This is one of the problems though. Not everyone wants to be forced live urban, not everyone wants give up their traditions, land, and home because someone said "we have to progress" and certainly no one wants to give up everything they've believed in, like a higher power, because someone told them "you're wrong".

Take the 2nd Spanish Republic for example, definitely a lot of dominos fell down that caused the right wing coup, but one of the biggest causes was how hostile the Republic was towards church, and religion. Suppressing religion never works out in the end, even the USSR toned down on their anti-church views when Stalin was finally dead.