What would really happen without religion [Archive]

View Full Version : What would really happen without religion

GrimAngelNamu

13-02-2006, 00:35

Moosashi

13-02-2006, 00:42

If we got rid of religion right now, I think society would remain intact (but obviously there would be some turmoil). However, if the current major religions of the world never attained the power and following that they did, and nothing rose to take their place, then I think we'd still be living in the Dark Ages. For all the terrible things done in the name of religion throughout history, there is nothing better for uniting otherwise disparate people behind a common law and ideology.

Dondrei

13-02-2006, 00:44

I won't answer that question until you rephrase it by putting spaces after your question marks. And is a paragraph too much to ask for?

Stoutwood

13-02-2006, 00:45

If we didn't have religion, then stupid religion vs. athiesm debates wouldn't clog up these forums.

Merick

13-02-2006, 01:06

stormrage112345

13-02-2006, 01:33

Damn, I really wanna make a quote from some Dune novel now.

Sir EvilFreeSmeg

13-02-2006, 01:35

I won't answer that question until you rephrase it by putting spaces after your question marks. And is a paragraph too much to ask for?
I'll settle just for paragraphs. Until then this thread is useless

buttershug

13-02-2006, 01:56

How about we all just listen to "Imagine" untill then.

BlackApocalypse

13-02-2006, 02:19

if religion was not "known" then it wouldnt matter everything would be the same, but if ne of them were true we would not exist the god (s) would be to pissed an wipe us out, neway funny u mention such a thing in a religion based game

Kasana

13-02-2006, 02:32

Well... it probably depends on whether or not religion was known from the "beginning of time" or if suddenly, today, religion simply didn't exist (although I'm not sure how that'd happen).

If religion had never made an outbreak in the first place, then everything would probably be a lot different. A lot of laws that have been made upon religion wouldn't be there. I think society would function maybe the same as it does now, with a few differences.

But what would happen about the controversial issues that are popular today? Like abortion and similiar? What would people base their opinions on that for? For many people today their only argument is that it's against their morals, which essentially relates back to their religion where I assume they get their morals.

I feel rather stupid posting all this, but whatever ^^

Anyee

13-02-2006, 02:54

Mmm...joined this month, 15 posts, I am calling the return of a bannee or someone who stormed off in a huff.

Llad?

ogogo on ice

13-02-2006, 03:12

Llad would use complete sentences.

GrimAngelNamu

13-02-2006, 03:26

Wow,you have to become such literary critics when you have no understanding of the concept. Anyway, as the fact stands this topic came to mind from a short inspiration on morality which lead to a discussion on religion. No harm intended. I don't need your mild, useless, and unconstuctive criticisms. So whatever your problem with me you should go ahead and get it off your chest.

stormrage112345

13-02-2006, 03:31

Without religion, there wouldn't be any people like Marilyn Manson, and most Satanic metal bands. It wouldn't be as cool to be evil. But, I suppose that religion is a basic requirement for humanity. Most of us are scared, so we make a religion, to explain the unknown. No one wants to die thinking that it'll be the end. When the chiefs wanted their cavemen to fight, they probably told them that they'd go to a heaven, and they passed it on to the next cheif, who grew up believing it. It continued on and on, and religion became a tradition I think. So really, religion is just our second life insurance policy. Without it, we would have been a lot more careful, there would be less controversy and war, and rebellious teens would have to find other things to rebel with. Leaders would lose another form of control, and a good deal of our art and architecture would be gone.

GrimAngelNamu

13-02-2006, 03:33

Finally an intelligent comment not firing at anyone!

stormrage112345

13-02-2006, 04:17

Oh, and I forgot, YO MAMAS SO FAT SHES BEEN DECLARED A REFUGE FOR CONDORS!!!!!!

Stevinator

13-02-2006, 04:29

A world without religion.

the trains would run on time, the streets would be paved in gold, and pigeons would only poop in designated areas.

seriously, I don't think things would be so much different. I'm not relgious and I think time spend on theological pursuits are wasted, but without them we'd find something else to waste our time and money on. There'd be details that were different.

for instance, weekends are based on tradition from genesis. we may have a completely different way of keeping track of time.

America may not have been populated with europeans as quickly, as no one would have come here searching for freedom from religious persecution.

many laws and traditions would not exist, and in all likelyhood, our holidays would be nearly all different. our culture would be very different.

Some wars would never have been started, some that never happened would have. people would have found others things to obsess over. basically all kinds of stuff would have gone differently. I think the breath of the changes over such a long time would be too difficult to determine.

I think Merick makes a fatal flaw in his assessment though. Religion is not the sole source of meaning in ones life. There are other things to strive for, to believe in. Some may argue that these things are far more important than one's own soul.

Dondrei

13-02-2006, 05:35

Seriously, I doubt there'd be much difference. People would just call their beliefs ideologies instead of religions. It might make them a little more amenable to change, but maybe not. Removing people's desire for religiosity is a different matter.

We would be very different creatures as a whole if none of us had any spirituality. In fact, we'd be machines.
So you can't really ask what humans would be like, because they wouldn't be humans as we define them.

Although GrimAngelNamu's original post was incomprehensible, going by the title of the thread the question is about religion, not spirituality.

Of course, this is not a triviality - defining "religion" is a vexed question.

But what would happen about the controversial issues that are popular today? Like abortion and similiar? What would people base their opinions on that for? For many people today their only argument is that it's against their morals, which essentially relates back to their religion where I assume they get their morals.

Pshaw, those sort of opinions and attitudes don't really come from their religion. They come from upbringing and the "values" you're taught as a child. The Bible never said a word about abortion. On these issues, religion is a smokescreen.

When the chiefs wanted their cavemen to fight, they probably told them that they'd go to a heaven, and they passed it on to the next cheif, who grew up believing it.

Actually, the belief in a literal afterlife (particularly one that rewards the good or punishes the evil) is more often associated with modern religions. The Greek afterlife was inhabited by mindless shades. The only entry requirement to Valhalla was to die gloriously in battle, it didn't matter how cruel or vicious you were (in fact these were advantages). The Roman afterlife was similarly amoral (as opposed to immoral). Ancient religions usually said you'd go and be with your ancestors in some nebulous manner, and they also didn't have a reward system. In ancient times divine reward and punishment occurred in this life, not the afterlife, and was only based on how you'd pleased the gods, not how nice a person you were.

Anakha1

13-02-2006, 05:52

But, I suppose that religion is a basic requirement for humanity. Most of us are scared, so we make a religion, to explain the unknown. .

Religion is not a requirement for humanity. It's just another invention. When I don't know something I don't turn to a religion or make one up to suit my purposes. I either go and try to find the real facts or I admit that I'll never know and come to terms with that.

Society would not crumble. Society always adapts. Even the most theocratic society would eventually right itself and continue on.

DrunkPotHead

13-02-2006, 06:50

We would be very different creatures as a whole if none of us had any spirituality. In fact, we'd be machines.
So you can't really ask what humans would be like, because they wouldn't be humans as we define them.
I lack spirituality. Am I not human?

However, if the current major religions of the world never attained the power and following that they did, and nothing rose to take their place, then I think we'd still be living in the Dark Ages.
Like when people burned all those books during the Dark Ages in the name of christianity...

Dj_Otaku

13-02-2006, 07:28

I lack spirituality. Am I not human?

Like when people burned all those books during the Dark Ages in the name of christianity...

Or when the monks in Ireland wrote/copied countless pages and kept them safe.

Anyways, I think we need not such a broad question. Maybe something to the extent of "What if religion didn't play such a tremendous role in the birth of civilization?"

Dj_Otaku

asdf

13-02-2006, 07:58

Religion is not a requirement for humanity.
a man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.

if we suddenly removed religion right now, sure there'd be chaos. if it had never existed in the first place? i don't think people would be any better or worse. everyone, religious or not, is still good or bad, moral or immoral, whatever. many have never been in any religion before (like me), but then again, some people feel the need for such security in their lives.

Drosselmeier

13-02-2006, 09:27

Unless you completely alter the way humans think and feel something else would take its place. There would be wars and murders to defend the noble and true iambic pentameter from all those dirty savages who write alexandrines. The urge to believe in and dedicate yourself to something wouldn't vanish with religion.

And what about politics? It's not rare for politics to take the place of religion in people who lack faith, or at least take on some of the features of religion. I should know, being the old red that I am. It's hard not to see the similarities between Soviet brand communism or Naziism and religion at its worst.

So, nothing would change. Other names for what would be essentially the same things.

Merick

13-02-2006, 12:52

I lack spirituality. Am I not human?

See, I was going to edit my post, but then the forums went down, then they were back up but I decided to play some D2 after I checked a trade thread instead of editing. After that I decided to keep playing D2.

Anyway, I was going to add that although many people (myself included) are not spiritual, if absoultely no one was, we wouldn't be people any more. I'm not a female, but we wouldn't humans anymore if none of us were. I'm not a talented oboe player, but if no one was, then there'd be something very different about how people are made, and there would be other, larger changes too.

Draconis

13-02-2006, 12:57

This thread title brings to mind the Simpsons episode in which there is imagined 'a world without lawyers'.

myleftfoot

13-02-2006, 13:44

Isn't religion "suppose" to keep order?Then without it what do we have?Would there not be massive amounts of chaos?Wouldn't the people who "found God" just go back to killing and murdering or preforming their little sick acts?But on a more positive note wouldn't it end religious wars?Wouldn't it not give motivation to public reticule and humiliation?Wouldn't it end the need for people to try and convert people to their religion?Wouldn't it give people will to live intead of instantly deciding their going to Heaven or Hell?Wouldn't it make the world a happier place?Everything was rounded by religion,but what if we didn't have it?I'm probably just rambling on now,but I'd like to know your oppinions.:grin:

There is absolutly no way in hell our society could have gotten to where it is today without religion. Not saying that religion directly caused our society to evolve but with evolution came the mental capacity to "Think outside the box" and because of all the myths and folklore around 100s of years ago some kind of belief system would have followed. Because of our will to be the best & the biggest a few belief systems would have ruled the majority. So in my mind it's not possible not have religion (double negative, ohhh yeah!).

Necrochild313

13-02-2006, 13:58

I think that alot of the morality left in society has religious roots, and even if you aren't religious you are somewhat effected by them. I think the better question is not "what if religion stopped today", but rather, "what if religion had stopped 1000 years ago".

Drosselmeier

13-02-2006, 14:00

There is absolutly no way in hell our society could have gotten to where it is today without religion. Not saying that religion directly caused our society to evolve but with evolution came the mental capacity to "Think outside the box" and because of all the myths and folklore around 100s of years ago some kind of belief system would have followed. Because of our will to be the best & the biggest a few belief systems would have ruled the majority. So in my mind it's not possible not have religion (double negative, ohhh yeah!).

I kind of agree, but I'm not sure the notion of a conscious, acting god is really needed. Aware and active deities could have vanished from the west 2500 years ago and been replaced by some sort of philosophical or natural figure without that slowing us down in any way. Plato was religious in a way, but not in the way christians are and have been.
Also, it's wrong to think that all the ancients believed in the gods of their respective religions. A lot of old myths serve primarily as explanations of the world and the human situation, or as rules or guidelines for a good life. Different deities explain different principles or phenomena that people couldn't eexplain in more concrete terms in those days.

Stevebo

13-02-2006, 14:21

I imagine the main difference would be that groups of people would just use slightly different excuses to be pricks to each other.
You'd have the same sort of actions throught history, but the reasons one group of people declared war on another would be race, ideaology or blunt honesty in claiming a land grab.

myleftfoot

13-02-2006, 14:34

I kind of agree, but I'm not sure the notion of a conscious, acting god is really needed. Aware and active deities could have vanished from the west 2500 years ago and been replaced by some sort of philosophical or natural figure without that slowing us down in any way. Plato was religious in a way, but not in the way christians are and have been.
Also, it's wrong to think that all the ancients believed in the gods of their respective religions. A lot of old myths serve primarily as explanations of the world and the human situation, or as rules or guidelines for a good life. Different deities explain different principles or phenomena that people couldn't eexplain in more concrete terms in those days.

Exactly, and that's when the rumour mill goes into overdrive and stories become distorted & twisted, almost magical. i.e. The Bible :grin:

AeroJonesy

13-02-2006, 18:19

Cloud_Walker

13-02-2006, 18:27

Wouldn't the people who "found God" just go back to killing and murdering or preforming their little sick acts?

I'm sure at least some of those who are only "good" as long as heaven is held tantalizingly before them and hell is threatening them, i.e., those who are only "good" to save their own behind, would. Then some who believe the lie that religion is the only source of morality wouldn't know what to do. Anyone whose life in which religion played a significant role would have some trouble, but in the end they'd cope. No, the world would not magically transform into a happy place, but it would help; one less reason for separation, hatred, intolerance, etc.

Rizzo

13-02-2006, 18:37

We have no way in hell to know whether or not the society could've evolved pass that of today in a world without religion. The fact of the matter is that it happened so long ago that we today have a history of deepseeded religious interference that affects the way we think and act.
We don't know if the absence of a god made us pursue science or made us have no goal in life. Personally I think it's the first one, but I have no way of knowing. People are so different and most of us need some kind of belief to support ourselves in our daily lives.

Anyee

13-02-2006, 20:20

I will dignify this otherwise troll post, in my ancient experience, with a few words:

Even if there were no organized religion as such, people would still look to perinatural forces for inspiration. We are designed/have evolved to seek meaning in chaos; anyone who has ever gazed at clouds and found shapes or who has listened for hidden meanings in white noise is drawing on that signal-from-noise tendancy. We look for explanations for otherwise random events and generate patterns where none actually exist, i.e. superstitions. So even if there were no church, no shul, no mosque, there would be those who would claim that something else drives our lives.

You cannot eradicate religion without eradicating a fundamental function of the frontal lobes. Happy now?

Drosselmeier

13-02-2006, 20:46

Even if there were no organized religion as such, people would still look to perinatural forces for inspiration. We are designed/have evolved to seek meaning in chaos; anyone who has ever gazed at clouds and found shapes or who has listened for hidden meanings in white noise is drawing on that signal-from-noise tendancy. We look for explanations for otherwise random events and generate patterns where none actually exist, i.e. superstitions. So even if there were no church, no shul, no mosque, there would be those who would claim that something else drives our lives.

That's what I was shooting for, pretty much.

I'd like to add that explanations and meaning aside, most humans are drawn to the purity and beauty of the sublime. The enjoyment we find in experiences that go beyond (for lack of a better word) is enough to drive people to religion or other things pointing towards the sublime.

EDIT: And my point, of course... this is also an important part of being human. Remove religion and something else will fill this niche as well, with the same results.

stormrage112345

13-02-2006, 23:28

Sorry, I mistated myself. When I said that religion is a basic human requirement, I meant that all cultures that I know of have used it. In now way do I promote religion, as a devout agnostic.

Cloud_Walker

13-02-2006, 23:36

Drosselmeier

13-02-2006, 23:47

I agree with these insights, but the OP asked what would happen without religion, not if there ever could be no religion.

And it's been answered. Its place would be taken by something similar.

KillerAim

14-02-2006, 00:15

Cloud_Walker:

No, the world would not magically transform into a happy place, but it would help; one less reason for separation, hatred, intolerance, etc.That would be true if, overall, religion had a detrimental effect on people as a whole. But I don’t think that that argument has much merit when you look under the surface.

All I need to do is look at some recent atheistic societies and their track records when it came to human rights. Stalin killed an estimated 10 million in his purges and around 7 million more Ukrainians died of starvation during his fight to consolidate power. Pol Pot killed 2 million, or roughly one out of 8 people in Cambodia; mostly intellectuals, the ministry, and foreign born or mixed race Cambodians. WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and Iraq are more cultural and jingoistic wars than religious ones.

Abuse comes with power and the more concentrated the power, the more the abuse. The people’s adherence to religious beliefs and religious authorities help to hold the secular Government in check. For example, the Abolition movement in the 1800’s started in the Churches.

Everyone looks to the Middle Ages as an example of the danger of Religion. What they either don’t know or conveniently forget is the fact that at that time in our history, the same group of people controlled both religious and secular power. Instead of counterbalancing each other, religion and government colluded together and ended up literally controlling all aspects of the common people’s lives.

- - -

I think that people have an innate desire to attach meaning to everything that happens in life and to their own existence. They want to believe that somebody is in control; that things just don’t happen by happenstance. If things “just happen” then you have lost control over some major factors that influence your life. If, however, someone is in control, then there is always the possibility that this controller will do the things you want as long as you comply with his desires and demands or with the wishes and demands of those who are “close to him”.

Dondrei

14-02-2006, 00:17

I think that alot of the morality left in society has religious roots,

Actually, it's vice versa.

and even if you aren't religious you are somewhat effected by them. I think the better question is not "what if religion stopped today", but rather, "what if religion had stopped 1000 years ago".

I would've thought 2000 years would be a more effective figure, which puts it just before the evolution of modern religions (although it was actually a fluid process and you can't really put a fixed date on it). A thousand years ago puts it about midway through Christianity, a few hundred years into Islam and just shaves the tip off the older religions.

Eternium

14-02-2006, 00:24

A thousand years ago puts it about midway through Christianity, a few hundred years into Islam and just shaves the tip off the older religions.

Judaism/circumcision pun intended?

Dondrei

14-02-2006, 01:20

KillerAim: while I don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument, a number of things in your post are misleading or incorrect.

Abuse comes with power and the more concentrated the power, the more the abuse. The people’s adherence to religious beliefs and religious authorities help to hold the secular Government in check. For example, the Abolition movement in the 1800’s started in the Churches.

But seeing as there is nothing in the Bible against slavery - and indeed, in the time of Jesus slavery was far more common than in late 18th/early 19th century England where the Abolition movement began. If Jesus had a view about slavery, that was certainly the time to say it. So it seems that the religion itself was not the source of the movement (which by the way was led in the early days by Quakers, Baptists and Methodists - small minority denominations, at least in Britain), rather that these people developed the idea themselves and rationalised it with their religion.

The French abolished slavery during the Revolution in 1794, who as you know were fervent atheists and indeed had a deep-seated mistrust of religion. By contrast, Britain didn't pass the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act until 1807, and the Slavery Abolition Act which outlawed slavery in the colonies wasn't passed until 1833, with the emancipation the following year. In the U.S. Emancipation wasn't until 1862.

Abolitionism was clearly an outgrowth of Enlightenment thinking (which was, although not exactly irreligious, certainly a reaction to the excessive religiosity of earlier eras) - unless you care to explain how Christians managed to sit by for the previous one and a half thousand years without noticing that slavery was unchristian.

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

Everyone looks to the Middle Ages as an example of the danger of Religion. What they either don’t know or conveniently forget is the fact that at that time in our history, the same group of people controlled both religious and secular power. Instead of counterbalancing each other, religion and government colluded together and ended up literally controlling all aspects of the common people’s lives.

How is that exactly? The great religious power in the Middle Ages was the Pope - and there is no doubt that he was a force unto himself with which kings had to deal in one way or another. The establishment of the Church of England with the King or Queen at its head wasn't until the 1500's, a period universally considered to be after the Middle Ages. Indeed the rise of Protestantism is generally thought of as the demarkation of the end of the Middle Ages. Before that time there is no way you can claim that the church was not an independent power with the ability to make or break kings. There was no collusion, they were independent authorities negotiating or conflicting with one another for a greater share of power.

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

Ash Housewares

14-02-2006, 01:22

can't think of a whole lot of wars fought about religion

Dondrei

14-02-2006, 01:22

Judaism/circumcision pun intended?

I wish I could say yes. That's a good one. :laugh:

Ash Housewares

14-02-2006, 01:23

I wish I could say yes. That's a good one. :laugh:

unintended puns are usually more amusing

Stoutwood

14-02-2006, 02:07

can't think of a whole lot of wars fought about religion

I can't think of any. I can think of a couple where religion was used to get people to fight over capital though.

Moosashi

14-02-2006, 02:56

Religion is power. When power over the masses is needed, religion has served mankind well.

Nothing but Christianity with a pope in Rome could have united Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. It took a while, but eventually, enemies to overall security were destroyed or converted, international commerce resumed and art and literature, albeit of a religious nature, flourished given the technology of the age.

Moosashi

14-02-2006, 03:05

I can't think of any. I can think of a couple where religion was used to get people to fight over capital though.
I'll take that further. Religion, when implicated in war, has always been merely the excuse, or moral high ground, to justify wars fought for entirely secular reasons. If it wasn't religion, it'd be something else, or else we'd simply fight without pretension.

stormrage112345

14-02-2006, 03:19

Hell, without religion, the cowards of the world would be a lot weaker. I guess it can be compared to a steroid, in that we use it to make ourselves stronger, but it makes you a big mean jerk and it's also like a crutch.

CheeseRYummy

14-02-2006, 03:25

Religion gave us Intelligent Design.

That, in itself, speaks volumes.

Religion = \"morals\"

CheeseRYummy

14-02-2006, 03:27

Sir EvilFreeSmeg

14-02-2006, 04:43

If there was no religion this pic (http://static.flickr.com/41/99072846_3d4182247c_o.jpg) would be worthless.

Cloud_Walker

14-02-2006, 05:09

Cloud_Walker:
That would be true if...

No, it's true, period.

Everyone looks to the Middle Ages as an example of the danger of Religion. What they either don’t know or conveniently forget is the fact that at that time in our history, the same group of people controlled both religious and secular power.

I'm sure many people do know and don't forget that it was the religious that had control over both. That's why it is looked at in such a way.

Ash Housewares

14-02-2006, 05:25

I'll take that further. Religion, when implicated in war, has always been merely the excuse, or moral high ground, to justify wars fought for entirely secular reasons. If it wasn't religion, it'd be something else, or else we'd simply fight without pretension.

it's always economics, every time, without fail

Dondrei

14-02-2006, 07:21

If there was no religion this pic (http://static.flickr.com/41/99072846_3d4182247c_o.jpg) would be worthless.

Best argument for keeping religion ever.

KillerAim

14-02-2006, 23:11

dondrei:

So it seems that the religion itself was not the source of the movement (which by the way was led in the early days by Quakers, Baptists and Methodists - small minority denominations, at least in Britain), rather that these people developed the idea themselves and rationalised it with their religion.
First of all, I was referring to the Abolitionist movement in the United States when I mention the 1800’s, but no matter.

Secondly, I wasn’t making the argument that the belief that slavery was evil came from religious precepts and teachings; I was arguing that the Abolitionist movement started in churches. You yourself documented that various religious sects in England served as ground zero for this movement.

My point is that religious authorities and communities served as a counterpoint to ideas fostered and approved by secular groups and the Government. Thus, while religious teachings might not have been the source of the theory behind the Abolitionist movement, the presence of religious communities and their belief in an authority beyond the Government led these communities to be the source of the Movement itself.

The French abolished slavery during the Revolution in 1794, who as you know were fervent atheists and indeed had a deep-seated mistrust of religion.
I never said that Religious groups were the only people who came out against Slavery; I just said that they served as a check and balance to governmental abuse. Obviously, the ultimate check and balance to governmental abuse is the fear of revolution.

The great religious power in the Middle Ages was the Pope - and there is no doubt that he was a force unto himself with which kings had to deal in one way or another…

…there is no way you can claim that the church was not an independent power with the ability to make or break kings. There was no collusion, they were independent authorities negotiating or conflicting with one another for a greater share of power.
Certainly the papacy was a force unto itself and the nobility had to be concerned with papal approval or disapproval. But, at the same time, the papacy had to have the support of at least some of the more powerful noble families.

The offspring of the wealthy during the Middle Ages through the Renaissance basically had four career choices. The oldest inherited the family’s business and position while the younger sons became military leaders, were married off to cement strategic alliances, or became members of the clergy.

Everyone realizes that one way a noble could extend his influence was by having his family inter-marry with other powerful families. It would be ludicrous to believe that they consolidated their power with other nobles by family connections but would ignore the same process when it came to the Church. Overwhelmingly, the popes came from the upper class and most owed their allegiance not only to God but also to their families or powerful friends.

The history of the Popes from the 500’s through the 1500’s shows a fluctuating influence between them and the secular powers of the time. The earliest popes could only be ordained with the blessing of the Emperor. The middle popes, it is true, became vastly powerful and independent, while the last group were little more than the puppets of the rich. History books refer to the Medici Popes and the Borgia Popes with good reason. Either they were actual members of those families or they were totally controlled by them.

But even at the time when the pope's power was the greatest, kings influenced the choice of the pope. There were even times in history when there were two simultaneous claimants for the papacy, each supported by a different king or group.

Consider the bishops and the papacy as the politicians of their time, with the real power in the early Middle Ages residing with the bishops. (The Pope was actually more in a “first among equals” position.) Yes, they had power, but more often than not, they held their power because of their allegiance to powerful backers. And they ignored the wishes of these backers at their peril.

- - -

Actually, it doesn’t even matter to my position if the Religious hierarchy dominated the secular governments at that time. My point still is that the church is an asset when it serves as an independent source of guidance of Society. It only exacerbates the situation when it dominates the secular government, colludes with government, or is subservient to secular authorities.

- - -

Cloud_Walker:

No, it's true, period.
I was wondering how you were going to support your claim that the world would be better off without religion, especially when I pointed out that, in the last 100 years or so, it is the atheistic regimes that have committed by far the worst human right violations. But, you surprised me. A brilliant point-by-point refutation of my position!

I'm sure many people do know and don't forget that it was the religious that had control over both. That's why it is looked at in such a way.
See my response above to dondrei.

Will you actually to support your position this time, or can I expect another “I am right, period” type of response?

Ron Burgundy

14-02-2006, 23:14

I have a feeling a lot of former Catholic priests would be frequenting public washrooms and truck stops.