Religion, Hindrance or Benefit

Do anybody here believe that religion, taken in context through History, is ultimatly a benefit to man or a hindrance to our ultimate evolution? Man relies on religion to give one hope and faith. However, in a new age of technology, does man really need religion in order to evolve and grow beyond the scope of a higher being? Not to offend people of religious faith here but discuss above the belt and make it a clean fight.

This is how I see it. Imagine if, thousands of years ago, the Greeks hadn't persecuted Sochrates for teaching sacralige, or if the Greeks had tried to look into some of those things, i.e Earthquakes, instead of blaming them on the gods? I think the world would be much better off.

Sure, religion gives humans hope, but what good is hope if you get killed when your praying?

The worst thing is the Catholic church. Not to offend, but the Catholic religion was constructed to keep down the people.

1. The most important step to take is to abandon naïve beliefs about religion that register it mentally as either a categorical positive or negative in terms of coexistence. There may be political interests at work in either demonizing or lionizing religion, such as President Bush’s recent attempts rhetorically to see Islam in only good terms. But for strategists of coexistence it is critical to examine and understand how each religion involved in the conflict promotes countervailing values. One of the most important reasons that this is so important is that the adversary groups are generally speaking very familiar with the worst and best in their religions, cleverly using both to strengthen us/them dynamics of conflict and violence wherein one’s own group are the righteous victims and the others are only abusers. They will know when you are soft-pedaling religion, and when you are covering up their own religious leaders’ contributions to the conflict. This will not help matters. It is imperative to acknowledge fully both contributions to the war, the positive and the negative, and it is important to appeal engage religion in a way that will be believable to inherently skeptical audiences.

2. How does one contain the damage done by organized religions in the context of war? By stimulating and generating a public repudiation of the activities of some in the war, especially if and when they used particular symbols, traditions, or texts, in the course of justifying or perpetrating any atrocities. Each use of religion for atrocity must be responded to hermeneutically in exactly a parallel fashion.

The same goes for religious leaders or representatives who were active during the war must be encouraged, and, if possible, compelled to repudiate those same uses of religion during the war. They must reject and, if possible, disown actual religious perpetrators, especially those who committed atrocities in the name of religion.

If these leaders cannot or will not repudiate prior religious hermeneutics then it is important to encourage alternative leaderships and courageous individuals who will engage in that repudiation. This is most successfully accomplished where there are third party strategies to stimulate these reactions bilaterally and simultaneously or consecutively. These reactions should be accompanied by acknowledgments of the pain inflicted and apologies. This may take years but the efforts must begin as soon as possible and begin at a small scale.

3 and 4. If one understands in a deep way the hermeneutical variation of traditions, and the war within communities over their values choices, one is in a much better position to strengthen those who are engaged in battles for the pro-social side of a religious tradition. It is important to know the substance of the debate as well as the players, because conflict resolution or coexistence third parties will then be in a better position to design appealing peace strategies that gel nicely with the each communities’ way of framing their choices morally and spiritually.

Strengthening the peacemakers means helping them financially and spiritually. It means giving whatever they need to persist. They should be the ones, for the most part, to explain their needs and what will make them more effective. But it is also the case that sometimes peacemakers are so fringe that they are not necessarily adept at social influence. We must also keep in mind that in every corporate religious group there are those peacemakers who leave the group and struggle from the outside and those who work from within. Mechanisms of support for religious peacemakers should always be so structured by third parties as to be ready for inclusion. This is particularly problematic historically for peacemakers who tend to be as exclusive as any other in-bred groups. It is the job of third parties to not allow left/right, or peace/violence divisions to become encrusted in religious communities. There should a highly elastic and creative process of ever widening communication and creativity.

5. In the long run this will create more and more possibilities of inter-religious alliances of new hermeneutics, new interpretations and symbols of coexistence. The more varied each group’s religious actors are the more they will find their counterparts on the other side. Liberals will find liberals and conservatives will find conservatives, and out of a broadened coalition of those committed to coexistence will come a slow and steady defeat of those committed to violence.

6. Focus on deeds more than dialogue, or make dialogue contingent upon or interactive with a regime of righteous bilateral deeds. Dialogue is over-rated. It may make a good platform for leaders to demonstrate their political importance, but it just as often generates skepticism, especially when it is engaged too soon. It is the rage of the masses that this the critical dynamic of religion and war, and that rage is not turned off like a spigot. It is true that leaders are critical symbols of social change, and fostering their relationship with each other is crucial. But we must not over-rate its contribution. The masses of people understand, in their wisdom, the evidence of reconciliation, acknowledgment and repentance, in the realm of deeds rather than in the rhetoric of political manipulation.

7. Efforts at religious coexistence work can be hampered by bureaucratic division of efforts and poorly integrated thinking about the nature of conflict. Just as deeds are crucial to true religious trust, so is development and poverty relief at the heart of serious conflict resolution. These two insights can and should be integrated in the form of creative programs and joint activities that the warring communities design with the help of others. So too, religious healing and psychological recovery need to work hand in hand. Each must understand the peculiar approaches of the other, and attempt a cooperative or parallel set of processes. The same is the case with security concerns. Issues of public safety, crime and justice, should be framed where possible in terms of religious values. This does not mean surrender the public order to religious authority. At the end of the day, there is no peace when one religious community or another controls the military or judiciary or the public space as such. Most religious adherents around the world have come to understand that religion is at its best when it does not control the temporal space. Democracy and human rights ultimately depend upon this. that having been said, there is not reason that the liberal forms of social order—judiciary, police, democracy—should not be hermeneutically framed in religious ways. Enough adherents around the world are actively engaged in this framing process—often in very deep ways—so that this alliance of civil society need not be seen as the enemy of religion. This must be aggressively funded the world over. We are not engaged in a civilizational struggle today, nor a war of religions, but rather a war within religions and civilizations over the future of civil liberties, particularly the freedom of women. It is my impression that most religious adherents want human rights and democracy, but do not want it if is perceived to be a means of crushing their identity or civilization. We need to work harder at making the case for a culture and religion friendly liberal social order. And we need the international corporations and representatives of capitalism to become an asset not a liability in this struggle.

8. Face and focus on the tremendous psychological power of religion to stimulate mood swings and utilize for reconciliation gestures of acknowledgment, apology and repentance, but be prepared to combat the compelling contagion of righteous hatred

9 and 10. The greatest danger that we face from religion today is its tremendous power to stimulate rage in massive numbers of people. Irresponsible clerics cannot resist the opportunity to capitalize on this power to actively fight world orders with which they see themselves, at the present time, unable to coexist. In a poverty of vision, these clerics have not reached yet the conclusions that millions of other clergy have discovered about the modern world: namely, that it is possible for religion to flourish even with Coca Cola, MTV, and absolute freedom of choice by women and men. But the free floating rage of millions of people is the single greatest danger of human history. It waits, like a ripe fruit, for power hungry individuals and institutions to take advantage of that rage. And then the sociopaths, the fascistic leaders and terrorists come along as the great release of the rage. This is as true in the twentieth century, under the aegis of fascism and communism, as it is today under the aegis of fundamentalism.

It is our job to undermine that rage aggressively with compassion, acknowledgment, anti-poverty plans, and inherent respect for cultural and religious diversity. If there is global religious rage then a global Marshall plan is necessary to undermine its roots. This is the ultimate way to undermine the violent potential of religion, and give voice to the majority in each religious tradition who tend to abhor the abduction of their religion by rage.

Or read the whole article:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/crdc/doc ... rance.html

Some folks just feel the need to get inner strength.
Be it emotional or spiritual.

For some other folks... it is just something else deemed worth fighting for.
To the death with which I disagree with.
The decimation of entire populations in the name of God never sat well with me...

Eg: The Spanish Inquisition...
"It is different,we shall kill it in the name of God!"

Other people , it is just an ordaned rite, creating a sense of belonging to society.

Too many gray areas in religion..

" Thou Shalt Not kill"

But then it becomes okay if you are at war.

"Thou Shalt not covet another man's wife"

Who's to say most of the Playboy models :twisted:

aren't married.

"Thou shalt not steal"

Right... talk to my lawyer.. :wink:

Hindrance, depends on whom you're speaking with...
Benefit... depends on whom you're talking to.

I agree, there are too many grey areas in religion. Weren't all the wars of the past due to religion? Even today, isn't it partially about religion? But that is our history. Religion is part of our evolution, whether right or wrong.

I'm more of a scientific thinker, and therefore don't agree with the persecutions based on religious beliefs. I think some people are just religious because that is what they were taught all their lives without being given any other alternatives. Not necessarily their fault, but IMO there are many more plausable reasons out there why things are the way they are, scientific reasons.

As long as their religion is not extreme, then by all means believe what you want if it makes you feel better.

I will not excercise dogma to things that are so self contradicting!

You could just as well ask if icebergs were a hindrance or a benefit to man's evolution.

(I stole it from Vonnegut, I know)

Religion or faith is okay, but the church is the real problem...

Religion is the opiate of the masses... Appropriate.