Destroying a Religion

Post Reply New Topic

Historical evidence (and recent evidence) suggests that the more a religion is persecuted, the more it thrives.
How then, can a government combat a religion that is harmful to society? By "harmful" I mean in the secular sense - the religion encourages violence, for example.

By ignoring the troll while educating the masses.

Are you suggesting I am trolling? I am most certainly not.

I am suggesting that the religion is the troll.

Friendly amendment - for "harmful to society" read "seen by the government as undesirable". The two are not synonymous and governments CARE about the latter.

Religious Organizations can be dismantled and suppressed, religious buildings and paraphernalia can be destroyed.

Religious activity can be penalized.

But God keeps showing himself to people who keep - it is I think built into us - seeking him. And in the end all governments will fall but the Kingdom.

Though you didn't state it explicitly, I have a sense of what religion you probably have in mind. In any case, I'm not sure what country you live in, but the very notion of the government "combating" a religion strikes me as illiberal bordering on the fascist. I'm not sure that you intended to convey this sense, but the citizens of liberal democracies should categorically reject any abridgment of their fellow citizen's free exercise of their religion.

The problem that you have identified still exists, though. What do you do if some segment of the population adheres to religious beliefs that incline them towards violence or other harm to society? If the harm is sporadic and takes place in, say, individual homes, then I think you deal with it on a case by case basis. Let's say that hypothetically, someone has religious beliefs that require them to severely beat their child upon turning 13 as a sort of "rite-of-passage". How do you deal with this? Simply by enforcing the law. Make it known that this will not be allowed, and if it still happens, deal with it the same way as any other child abuse case.

If the problem is more one of organized religious violence, such that a significant number of people belonging to a particular faith have the common aim of committing violence in a society, the answer will generally be to find moderate members of that faith who just as strongly reject the violence as the rest of society. They are more likely to have contact with and access to the extremists, and by working with them, the extremists can be infiltrated and dismantled. Thus, it is in the interest of the community not to alienate the religion as a whole, as having good relations with the moderate members is actually key to successfully defeating the extremists.

Irrespective of whether persecution leads to a backlash causing greater problems in the long run (though we both agree that it does), the larger question is the extent of tolerance that we have in society for differing systems of belief. And I think that in the modern world, at least in liberal democracies, we accept that it is a fundamental right of citizenship to choose our own beliefs and to freely exercise them in whatever manner we choose to, and that this right is only subject to the proviso that we must respect the equal right of others to do the same, and that we must still obey all laws that are equally and fairly applied (i.e. are not simply gratuitous attacks on the free exercise of religion).

Good idea. Where do I sign up?

Tell that to the Aztecs.



The proposed cure, using the government, would be worse than the disease. The greater threat to the people's freedom is usually the state and a state that can destroy a religion, is no friend to the citizen. As it is said put in A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

As to combating false religion, I recommend truth and lots of it.

You are a charter member. Just need to decide what to draw on your hood.

Okay- lets use logic.

If you have indeed concluded that "surpressing a religon makes it stronger" then the only logical thing to do is the exact opposite.

If you want to use government to "dismantle a religion" then logically the way to do that is for government to endorese and to subsidize the said religion. Give it the kiss of death!

It might work.

Seriously: look at the evidence. In the western half of europe in the second half of the twentieth centurey they had freedom of religion, taxpayer subsidy of churches (in some countries like Germany) and many countries (like th UK) had a single official sect as their official religion. Indeed the biggest Christian sect on the planet has its hq in a Western Europe Capital (the Vatican).

In contrast during the same period in the eastern half of Europe (including Russia) they had oppression of religion by athiestic ( not just secular but militantly atheist) communist dictatorships.

The result: religion is stronger than ever in eastern europe, but virtually nonexistant in western europe. Repression made religion strong in the east, and encouragement and subsidy did a masterful job of killing it off in the west.

So make snake handling Pentecostalism, into America's official religion, and you will never see snake handling in church again!

...

But kidding aside.

One could imagine the US government creating a legal status for "dangerous cults". And then placing certain religion-like entities that frankly I myself view as harmful-like the "church" of scientology into that category.

The only purpose of that category would be its IRS status: to deny the group the legal status of a "church" so they would not get tax exempt status.

That wouldve snuffed out Scientology in its infancy (though its too big now to be effected now) and it might well snuff out the next scientology like cult.

Ofcourse once something has been declared "a dangerous cult" it would create a legal precedent for other legal changes. Parents could declare the expense of de programing their kids from a "dangerous cult" a psychiatirc medical expense- for example.

Sounds like a good idea.
Right?

Trouble is that then people like YippySkippy would then pressure the government to put any religion they dont like into that same bin: Islam, Mormonism. and then Roman Catholicism, would be defined as "cults".

Where would it stop on this slippery slope to government thought control?

if any of the abrahamic religons tried starting today they woul have the same status as cults.

the reason they are different now is their history.

On what basis do you say that? As far as I know today Islam is the only one that will not let you walk, and I have not heard that that was policy for early Christianity

I'd like to sign up too, but destroying religion, the religionists have nothing to live for. Wait, why am I saying this like it's a bad thing?

You picked three religions at random, declared that I dislike them, and then decided what course of action I would hypothetically take against them if I had the chance. Seems a tad unfair.

The only way (it seems) to "destroy" religion is through education in critical thinking and the sciences, and the elimination and redaction of faith-based topics in public school science curricula. We could also depict religionists and their leaders as wild-eyed fanatical bullies, screeching crones, and child-grabbing geezers in cartoons directed at children.

Or maybe just devote an entire cable channel to the History of Religion, and include detailed historical accounts of inquisitions, conquistadors, pogroms, fatwas, sectarian conflicts, witch hunts, and the usual lies and scare tactics used by missionaries to proselytize and convert ignorant and gullible primitives from a naturalist way of life to abject slavery to the new religion.

Religion has survived that though, ad hocness has been its saviour since the days of Galileo.