Afghan schoolgirls are weeping as they finish sixth grade, knowing their education is over. Under Taliban rule, they are unlikely to ever step foot in a classroom again.
Putin embraces the Russian Orthodox Church as part of his nationalism. Also, Russia is only 13% atheist. Hardly a non-religious nation.
But, you’re right, power is the real point. Religion is just one of the most hateful methods of justifying and maintaining power.
Democracy with socially regulated capitalism, in our experience, has a lighter touch and has thus far provided a lot of benefits to the vast majority of people.
You mention revolution, but don’t specify from what or to what? Revolutions have a way of not going quite the way the idealists hope they will.
So, you’re close but wrong country. Russia tried to get rid of religion but failed. The Russian Orthodox Church just kind of became part of the government. That’s why you see the priests blessing Russian weapons and stuff.
China on the other hand did get rid of religion pretty successfully. The reason communism strives to get rid of religion is because when people aren’t arguing over who’s imaginary supernatural friend loves his people more. It’s easier to get them to agree on things.
Now, I’m not going to pretend that this is a perfect plan. After all successfully getting rid of religion comes with a whole new set of pitfalls. But, I personally think the pros outweigh the cons.
I get what previous commenter said: the problem is the people with power wanting to control the population, religion is just the means to an end (sorry if this is not the correct way to say it).
In my way of seeing it, religion as always been a cover to interests of the powerful, a way to keep the population controlled, or dumbed down. In the example of this thread, they are openly using this strategy by cutting access to education.
But for a good person to do bad things, that takes religion.
This sounds like it’s a prerequisite to be good before becoming religious … which historically is not the case.
Child molesters who entered the priesthood were not “good” before using the shelter of the Church to rape children.
Being “good” or “bad” is a conscious, moral decision which is maintained by every person choosing what is of the utmost importance for their life … selfish fulfillment or altruism.
… this is, ofc, setting aside mental health issues that do not allow some to make rational conscious decisions.
As long as its not a fucking religious text.
Religion can be toxic, but so can non-religious nations like Russia under Putin.
The real shit is money and power - those are what kill and lie and steal from the billions of us who haven’t yet got to the point of revolution.
If nothing else we know it’s coming … and when it does it’ll be massive and worldwide.
Putin embraces the Russian Orthodox Church as part of his nationalism. Also, Russia is only 13% atheist. Hardly a non-religious nation.
But, you’re right, power is the real point. Religion is just one of the most hateful methods of justifying and maintaining power.
Democracy with socially regulated capitalism, in our experience, has a lighter touch and has thus far provided a lot of benefits to the vast majority of people.
You mention revolution, but don’t specify from what or to what? Revolutions have a way of not going quite the way the idealists hope they will.
Russia is 72% Eastern Orthodox by population. The US is estimated to be ~63% split between flavors of christianity, for comparison.
So, you’re close but wrong country. Russia tried to get rid of religion but failed. The Russian Orthodox Church just kind of became part of the government. That’s why you see the priests blessing Russian weapons and stuff.
China on the other hand did get rid of religion pretty successfully. The reason communism strives to get rid of religion is because when people aren’t arguing over who’s imaginary supernatural friend loves his people more. It’s easier to get them to agree on things.
Now, I’m not going to pretend that this is a perfect plan. After all successfully getting rid of religion comes with a whole new set of pitfalls. But, I personally think the pros outweigh the cons.
You can die from snake venom. That doesn’t mean cancer is harmless.
I get what previous commenter said: the problem is the people with power wanting to control the population, religion is just the means to an end (sorry if this is not the correct way to say it). In my way of seeing it, religion as always been a cover to interests of the powerful, a way to keep the population controlled, or dumbed down. In the example of this thread, they are openly using this strategy by cutting access to education.
Bad people do bad things.
But for a good person to do bad things, that takes religion.
This sounds like it’s a prerequisite to be good before becoming religious … which historically is not the case.
Child molesters who entered the priesthood were not “good” before using the shelter of the Church to rape children.
Being “good” or “bad” is a conscious, moral decision which is maintained by every person choosing what is of the utmost importance for their life … selfish fulfillment or altruism.
… this is, ofc, setting aside mental health issues that do not allow some to make rational conscious decisions.
No, it’s saying if you are good, religion can make you do bad and that bad people will do bad regardless of religion.