Is there any good to religion?

Some people take it so seriously that they want to force their religion upon others by different means. Some by laws that reflect the odd taboos of the religion (blue laws). Some by state religions. Some by the gun.

None if it would happen if they all had the idea that each person's beliefs are his or her own and so long as they're not forcing it upon you, it's ok.

Catholic school girls. that's all I can think of

eliotn:

My question is this:  is there any good to religion?  Why does Bill Maher attack it with his new movie, saying it has "harmed the human race"?

Because he has a personal agenda?

I don't find anything good about religion for me... so, meh.

Religion can serve a lot of good purposes...as charity...much better than having the government do it by means of theft. At least religion is voluntary. Religion only seems to do harm when it is paired with state power. In the minds of some faith will start to replace reason as a mode of thinking and I believe this to be very dangerous. I don't really care however, people can think how they want, as long as they leave me alone. Oh yeah...I used to watch Maher but I don't think I can anymore because his ridiculous rants and idiotic ideas make my blood pressure boil. On a somewhat recent episode the crowd was cheering the idea of nationalizing the oil industry.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Some people take it so seriously that they want to force their religion upon others by different means. Some by laws that reflect the odd taboos of the religion (blue laws). Some by state religions. Some by the gun.

None if it would happen if they all had the idea that each person's beliefs are his or her own and so long as they're not forcing it upon you, it's ok.

This is called proving so much that you prove nothing.

True, forcing your beliefs on others is bad. But you failed to explain why religion should be looked down upon as compared to atheism, which has been forced on many as well.

Bill Maher is for the war on terror because he is, quite literally, militantly atheist. Whether or not Muslims see this "global struggle" as a holy war, Bill Maher definitely does.

 

Says Adam Smith

"In the state in which things were, through the greater part of Europe, during the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, and for some time both before and after that period, the constitution of the church of Rome may be considered as the most formidable combination that ever was formed against the authority and security of civil government, as well as against the liberty, reason, and happiness of mankind, which can flourish only where civil government is able to protect them. In that constitution, the grossest delusions of superstition were supported in such a manner by the private interests of so great a number of people, as put them out of all danger from any assault of human reason; because, though human reason might, perhaps, have been able to unveil, even to the eyes of the common people, some of the delusions of superstition, it could never have dissolved the ties of private interest. Had this constitution been attacked by no other enemies but the feeble efforts of human reason, it must have endured for ever. But that immense and well-built fabric, which all the wisdom and virtue of man could never have shaken, much less have overturned, was, by the natural course of things, first weakened, and afterwards in part destroyed; and is now likely, in the course of a few centuries more, perhaps, to crumble into ruins altogether."

He probably had an axe to grind, but still...

Also, you can check out what Thomas Paine had to say about revealed religion : The Age of Reason

There is also Mises :

"Liberalism limits its concern entirely and exclusively to earthly life and earthly endeavor. The kingdom of religion, on the other hand, is not of this world. Thus, liberalism and religion could both exist side by side without their spheres' touching. That they should have reached the point of collision was not the fault of liberalism. It did not transgress its proper sphere; it did not intrude into the domain of religious faith or of metaphysical doctrine. Nevertheless, it encountered the church as a political power claiming the right to regulate according to its judgment not only the relationship of man to the world to come, but also the affairs of this world. It was at this point that the battle lines had to be drawn.

So overwhelming was the victory won by liberalism in this conflict that the church had to give up, once and for all, claims that it had vigorously maintained for thousands of years. The burning of heretics, inquisitorial persecutions, religious wars these today belong to history. No one can understand any longer how quiet people, who practiced their devotions as they believed right within the four walls of their own home, could have been dragged before courts, incarcerated, martyred, and burned. But even if no more stakes are kindled ad majorem Dei gloriam, a great deal of intolerance still persists."

I suppose there are some other libertarian critics of religion out there.

ama gi:

Calvinists also have a long and proud history of increasing personal liberty and political dissent:

Really ?

http://www.sntp.net/education/school_state_3.htm

"The first modem public schools were founded in the German state of Gotha in 1524; three years later, Thuringa set up public schools. In 1559, compulsory attendance was inaugurated in Wurttemberg. Luther himself drew up a plan for Saxony. The purpose of all those school systems was to impose Lutheranism. Similarly, in the mid-16th century, John Calvin set up mandatory schools in Geneva, which were used to stamp out dissent. Under Calvin's influence, Holland followed suit in the beginning of the 17th century. It is important to understand that the purpose of the schools was to indoctrinate the citizens in the official religious outlook, for, as Luther put it, "no secular prince can permit his subjects to be divided by the preaching of opposite doctrines.... Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard. " Unsurprisingly, it was in Calvinist New England that compulsory schooling first arrived in America. "

ama gi:

eliotn:

My question is this:  is there any good to religion?

According to a book I got from a relative, capitalism emerged directly from Protestant Christianity.  One sociologist by the name of Max Weber noted that Protestant (particularly Calvinist) areas outperformed Catholic areas economically.  A Harvard study confirmed the "Weber Thesis," suggesting that the prevalence of Christianity improves the economy.  Calvinists also have a long and proud history of increasing personal liberty and political dissent: rebels against the Church, legalized "usury" (interest on loans), introduced the doctrine of "limited war" which stood in stark contrat to the bloody Crusades, and executed King Charles I.  If I have my history correct, Calvinists influenced later religious movements which settled in the New World, and helped found the U.S.A.

This almost makes me cynical enough to posit the idea of wrapping libertarian and/or anarchistic ideals in religious flavor & packaging. 

But then again, I was never a fan getting up early on Sundays... :\

eliotn:

My question is this:  is there any good to religion?

I'm not a Christian (in case you couldn't tell from the avatar) but I think that religion, particularly in the Christian style, is actually rather anarchist in its essence. Jesus said "You cannot serve two masters". At the time he was referring to money versus God, but surely the State could be inserted there quite comfortably. The authority of God, in the mind of a true believer, ought always trump the authority of men, as in the state.

Christianity has been warped many times, in combining with the state (divine right et al), such that, as in many ancient pagan religions, the power of kings derives somehow from divine authority (Pharoh being a living god comes to mind). However, if you look at the life of Jesus as recorded in the Bible, we see clear defiance towards authority, and indeed, extensive associations with actual revolutionaries. Even in the Old Testament, warnings against the state are given.

1 Samuel 8:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the LORD. And theLORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day; with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods; so they are doing to you also.”

So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”

Religion, like any belief system which can be (mis)interpreted by men, can be good or bad. 

ricarpe:

Unfortunately, religion was affected by the axiom: power corrupts.

How is this an axiom?