I don't like organized religion. I don't like it as an institution, because

[boston bean]

it inserts itself into the personal lives of secular people using political capital.

It can and does corrupt governments and is used to oppress people.

And this goes for all organized religions.

This post is not a bashing on any religion, just a critique as to why I personally don't like it and wish it would just go the hell away and leave the world alone!

[shenmue]

1. I doubt it will go away.

[uppityperson]

2. Too often organized religion is not used to build up but to tear others down.

[boston bean]

3. Yeah, I could care less what someone believes privately.

But it is the institution of the organization that tends to wield power that inevitably causes people harm.

[Skittles]

4. well, it ain't going everywhere

but enough with this default respect it thinks it deserves, with zero accountability

[rug]

5. I feel the same way about scrapple.

Go figure.

[malokvale77]

6. Scrapple doesn´t make policy. (nt)

[rug]

10. You haven't read the republican platform.

[3catwoman3]

62. The Republican platform...

...would be "crapple."

[blkmusclmachine]

7. TAX THE CHURCHES!!!

[mountain grammy]

9. Yes, 100 times yes!

[Warren Stupidity]

8. I think part of helping it out the door

Is to ridicule, mock, and satirize the fuck out of religion and religious blowhards until people start understanding that there is nothing there except bullshit smoke and mirrors.

[rug]

11. Do you think people are stupid and have been stupid for thousands of years?

Has humanity been waiting all these centuries for your mocking (of sorts) to set them free?

Hallelujah! The great day is at hand!

[Major Nikon]

13. Belief in stupid things does not make one stupid

The lack of critical thinking skills and the inability to learn from new information makes one stupid.

[rug]

14. Sophistry does not mean one is smart.

[Major Nikon]

15. Neither does obsfucation

[rug]

16. Er, that's obfuscation.

[Major Nikon]

17. Post #11 was obfuscation

I was just playing along

[PassingFair]

32. No.Up until about 300 years ago they just lobbed your head off for coloring out of the church lines.

In some places they still do.

Criticism and satire is a wonderful disinfectant for brainwashing.

[rug]

35. Too bad neither are done well.

[treestar]

42. The reason they are not doing it any more is not because of satire or mocking

Then you could point right to who did the mocking that let people back off on killing over doctrinal differences.

[phil89]

33. Following a book

like the bible is not indicative of intelligence, at least not in that part of a person's life. Are you aware that being religious was required for thousands of years? Heresy was a crime.

[rug]

36. Are you aware that for thosands of years reading scriptures was the mark of literacy?

[treestar]

41. It's not like in the 15th century

people would be atheist if only they were not forced. People then were entirely different. They had little reason not to believe.

[tkmorris]

43. The answer to your first question is...

Beyond any shadow of a doubt, demonstrably and provably, yes. Were you really in doubt about that?

[rug]

44. Do you consider yourself the exception to your rule?

[Augustus]

47. In a word: Yes

Maybe not "stupid", but ignorant of reality.

Thankfully, the scientific method has set humanity free from the pointless and irrational superstition. But too many people still cling to religion because it was inflicted upon them as children.

[rug]

48. That post is ignorant of reality.

[Augustus]

49. Do you have something substantive to say?

.

[rug]

50. Reading the label on my tshirt wold provide more sbstance than the rehashed meme you posted.

[Augustus]

51. No? Okay then.

You have not contributed a single thing to this discussion.

[rug]

52. Perhaps not. But then I didn't propagate bullshit either.

[Kaleva]

12. If people are willing to die for their beliefs, I doubt mocking them will change their minds.

[Major Nikon]

18. Perhaps, but it's hard to imagine anything that would work better

[Warren Stupidity]

19. I can't think of anything else that even

has a chance. Certainly all the bombs of the greatest military power on the planet aren't having the desired effect.

All we are saying is give mock a chance

[treestar]

40. IMO that makes them dig their hole deeper

Stiffens their necks.

No, you'd have to reach out to them.

[Nye Bevan]

20. Did organized religion corrupt Jimmy Carter?

Former President Jimmy Carter has been called American's most famous Sunday school teacher for a reason. The former commander-in-chief just finished his 561st lesson at Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Georgia. Carter recently condensed those lessons into a 366-day devotional, Through the Year with Jimmy Carter, and the NIV Lessons from Life Bible (Zondervan). The nation's 39th President spoke with Christianity Today about how his personal faith contributed to his time in office and beyond.

In what ways did faith impact your presidency?

I've always been fully committed to separation of church and state. I didn't permit worship services in the White House as had been done earlier. I was careful not ever to promote my own Christianity as superior in America to other religions, because I feel all religious believers should be treated carefully. At the same time, there's no way I could ever separate my Christian belief from my obligations as a naval officer, as a governor or as President, or from my work now. I can't say my commitments as President were free of my beliefs. We worship the Prince of Peace, and one of the key elements of my life as President in challenging times was to keep our country peaceful. I was able to deal with challenges without launching a missile or dropping a bomb. My commitment to peace was an aspect of my Christian faith. Also, basic human rights are obviously compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ, and I made human rights a foundation of foreign policy.

You wrote that you made every effort to keep a pledge that you would not lie. "Still, I was not able to keep 100 percent of my campaign promises," you said. Did you have disappointments or regrets about your presidency?

When you're campaigning, you don't really have an awareness of the limitations of a President in dealing with Congress. Sometimes I made promises, but I had four years instead of an anticipated eight years. I never did violate my promise to tell the truth. I've been asked if there was ever any incompatibility between my duties as President and my duties as a Christian. There was one thing that bothered me and that was the issue of abortion. I've never believed Jesus Christ would approve of abortion except when the mother's life is in danger or as a result of incest or rape. Of course, the Supreme Court ruled differently. Within the ruling, I tried to minimize abortion as best I could. On the issue of abortion my beliefs are contradictory to what the Supreme Court ruled.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/januaryweb-only/interview-jimmy-carter.html

[beam me up scottie]

21. It made him come out against federal laws making same sex marriage legal in all states.

Jimmy Carter doesn’t think marriage laws should be decided at the federal level.

“I’m kind of inclined to let the states decide individually,” the former president told WFAA, an ABC affiliate, in an interview that aired Sunday.

“As you see, more and more states are deciding on gay marriage every year,” Carter said. “If Texas doesn’t want to have gay marriage, then I think that’s a right for Texas people to decide.”

He also spoke out in support for the religious liberty of church leaders who do not support same-sex marriage.

“I don’t think that the government ought ever to have the right to tell a church to marry people if the church doesn’t want to,” he said.

“I’m a Baptist, and the congregation of our church will decide … whether we’ll marry gay people or not.”

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/27/jimmy-carter-texas-doesnt-want-gay-marriage-thats-right-texas-people/

I'm pretty sure he'd have a problem letting states decide whether or not slavery should be legal.

[F4lconF16]

23. Well damn.

I just lost some respect for the man. That's sad.

[merrily]

29. Your subject line does not match the quotation you posted AT ALL.

Until Loving v. Virginia, it was always traditional "wisdom" that things like wills, adoptions, marriage--the stuff of a "family" law practice were matters of state law that Congress had no business--or Constitutional authority--to touch in any way at all. (To simplify, I am ignoring military law.)

Loving did not alter that, except to the extent of saying that state marriage law could not deny recognition of a marriage if the denial was based solely on race, discrimination as to race being forbidden by the Constitution.

And Jimmy Carter was not the one who signed DOMA, which, IMO, violated Constitutional federalism by purporting to allow the federal government to disregard marriages that states were willing to recognize.

As to motive, bear in mind that states were granting equal marriage far more than the feds. Kennedy has said the same thing as Carter did. I don't believe either of them wanted to deny equal marriage, but wanted Congress to keep its homophobic mitts off states granting equal marriage, like Massachusetts.

Nonetheless, I do think Carter was mistaken. I don't believe that the Constitution allows a majority of voters of Texas or of any other state to decide whether anyone has an equal right to enter into marriage. I think Loving v. Virginia does cover that

However, my biggest fear around this is that a majority of the SCOTUS may agree with him that it is up to the states and not a constitutional matter. I believe that Kagan said as much before she was nominated and fake originalist Scalia certainly has, including in his vituperative dissent to Kennedy's majority opinion in the Windsor/Spryer case. If it comes to "intent of the Framers," it is quite difficult to prove that people in the mid 1800s ratified the equal protection with gay marriage specifically in mind. Then again, it should have been equally difficult to prove that people in 1789 did not ratify the First Amendment with free political speech by corporations in mind. But, I never said Scalia had principles, nor would I.

As to who decides who a church can refuse the "holy" rites of marriage, I agree that the First Amendment does leave that up to the church. More significantly, I think the whole discussion of federal or government forcing churches to marry people the churches believe the Bible forbids them to marry is a red herring. Since Loving, I don't know of a single church that government has forced to marry interracial couples. It's bs.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. He's opposed to equal rights, because he is a Baptist, but then again he was in that church when it

had openly racist teachings as well. I voted for him but he does not stand with me, because of his religion that is about hate and division.

[merrily]

34. Saying the states can decide for themselves is not opposing equal rights

because of being a Baptist. Please see Reply 25.

Opposing equal rights because of religion is saying same gender marriages should not be allowed because of what the Bible says or what God (allegedly) wants.

[nilesobek]

22. Those pastors like Robertson and Hagee

should lose their tax exempt status for pushing politics from the pulpit.

I don't believe in invisible, phantom beings from old stories, but on the other hand, if there is a God or Gods I would want them to help me, not like these organized churches who just want to condemn me. Works not faith.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Of course the Catholics are deep into right wing poltics as are the Mormons. It's not just the

evangelicals. Those who are anti gay, opposed to birth control and take part in politics around those objections to the rights of others are the same as Hagee and Robertson.
The Pope is now teaching the opposite of what Jesus said 'don't turn the other cheek, punch the shithead' so how they are even a 'Christian Church' is puzzling.

[merrily]

31. According to Ron Parsley, evangelicals mail the IRS videos of themselves

violating IRS regs about religion and politics every year because they want the IRS to act against them so they can take the IRS to court and get the reg declared unconstitutional.

Congress should drop the exemptions for churches and religious organizations, period, on grounds of separation of church and state, but don't hold your breath.

[JonLP24]

24. I agree but there is very little I like when it comes to organized, structured

institution.

Shit rolls down hill sums it up.

[RKP5637]

27. It's another form of politics / belief system with control and persecution. n/t

[rogerashton]

28. If I were the devil,

so my job would be to foment as much sorrow, conflict, and hate as possible, but for some reason I could do only one thing to promote those ends, I would establish a religion.

If I could do as many things as I wished to foment sorrow, conflict and hate, I would create two religions, then retire, knowing that my job was complete.

[merrily]

30. Chief among those inserting religion into federal law and practices are

groups like The Fellowship/The Family, yet another reason I, for one, am not ready for Hillary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/25/obama-the-family-and-uganda-s-anti-gay-christian-mafia.html

[valerief]

37. Anything with Organized in its name is a racket. nt

[stevenleser]

60. Disagree. Organized Labor. nt

[valerief]

63. My bad. You're right. nt

[BrotherIvan]

38. Jesus & Boogers

I think that spirituality and faith should be a personal thing and am rather appalled that we are now told that religion and the beliefs themselves are sacrosanct--above criticism even for those who don't believe them.

If you believe the tenets of your faith, what anyone has to say will not sway you. Christianity and Islam is famous for its martyrs, but it seems as though modern worshippers have gone quite soft if a cartoon or a snide remark is seen as some sort of persecution.

As Joseph Campbell pointed out, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are Bronze Age science. Those systems were devised by people living thousands of years ago to explain how they thought the world was made and man's place in it. It is now clashing with modern day science which has different explanations (that are being updated all the time). Some choose to reject parts of the Bible or Koran and accept science, evolution, family planning, etc. But the trouble is, most of the hierarchy, the powerful priests, bishops, elders and imams, have not. And using your support and money, they are trying to force outdated and demonstrably hateful beliefs onto the world.

One must live with one's choices. If I pick my nose in the car, regardless if I forget that I'm basically in a box of windows, I can't blame the driver in the next car if she sees me. Just like no amount of pronouncements will make detractors unsee the very long history of atrocities by organized religion throughout history and continuing into modern times. Being offended does not make what is true untrue.

If I decided to join an institution and accept its teachings, I must also be willing to justify why I support that institution even though I know it creates (in some cases great) harm. If I go to a KKK meeting because I like the friends that I meet there, or I think it does positive things in terms of charity projects or community outreach, I cannot deny that the KKK espouses racist, bigoted, harmful ideas. If I tithe my church/temple/mosque I cannot then claim that I don't know that I am supporting an institution that also seeks to take away the rights of others and oppress women, LGBTQs, and minorities when there is ample evidence that it does.

You may think you are giving your money to help the poor, but you are also paying to cover up sexual abuse, to wage campaigns like Prop8 and Hobby Lobby, preaching that women are second class citizens, homosexuals are criminals or mentally ill, those who blaspheme must be killed, and in general giving money to causes you don't support. I am forced to pay taxes, 59% of which go to the Pentagon, and believe me, I am incensed about it. I protest war and support anti-war candidates. So I don't understand why someone would willingly give money to an institution which also creates harm when there are so many charities and worthy causes to donate to that don't. If you really wanted to help the poor and unfortunate, there are a million ways to do it besides giving money to your church. Because you do it willingly, by choice, you are not allowed to skirt the criticism that may arise from your affiliation.

And lest we forget, (going by the story) Jesus himself was very, very critical of the religious institutions and power structure of his time. He criticized the entrenched rabbis, Pharisees and Sadducees for straying from the path. He told his followers to go in their rooms and shut the door to pray, not in public like the hypocrites do. He has often been called a Revolutionary because he advocated a break with the highly ritualized temple worship as well as from the oppressive Roman regime. So either you believe Jesus or you don't. It is only the powerful institution that demands faith and obedience without question. Most religions tell you that the gentiles & heathens should be left alone, so leave us alone. We're going to hell anyway, right?

[truebluegreen]

55. +1

[treestar]

39. There are probably several that are not that pervasive

It depends on the organization, of which there are so many, it should hardly be possible to generalize. Start with the Quakers - they leave everyone else be.

[WestCoastLib]

45. Well

To jump in on the current religious brouhaha

Whether fair or not, we see this every from nearly everywhere. African Americans are held responsible for black crime and must speak out anytime anything happens or be branded guilty.

All cops are held responsible for the actions of bad cops.

All men are held responsible for sexual violence and misogyny.

All muslims are responsible for the actions of the extremists.

I say, why should religion as a whole be exempt?

I don't care if your religion isn't oppressive or dangerous, so many are and have been that your religion is responsible too.

[branford]

46. Since you don't like organized religion,

it's great that our Constitution guarantees your right not to join or practice any religion if you do not wish to do so, all without government sanction. Not everyone in the world is so fortunate.

People have all sorts of views, some good, some bad, some that are considered "religious," other secular. People with similar beliefs have congregated together since the dawn of man. People will also attempt to shape their governments and relations based on these beliefs. Humans will be humans.

I have no more problem with organized religion as an institution than any other group,large or small, and I think deep down that you really don't either. You just disagree with the content of certain religious beliefs, and the unsurprising political influence they wield due to solidarity, size, organization and resources. There are many liberal and progressive religious institutions, and many here, probably including yourself, welcome their involvement in matters like same-sex marriage, abortion, and most anything else.

[notadmblnd]

53. ...

[Fred Sanders]

54. War, where would I be without you?

?w=490

[beam me up scottie]

59. Nice toon.

It's a keeper, thanks!

[Arugula Latte]

56. A lot of the founders of the country agree with you.

[hifiguy]

57. I love those quotes.

And I heartily agree with bb's OP.

[ZX86]

58. While religion is nothing but fairy tales and superstition.

The real culprit is monotheism, which is the root of, if not most, all evil.

[NaturalHigh]

61. That's a really cool story.

It's wrong in pretty much every aspect, though.

[kwassa]

64. Organized religion does all kinds of social good.

Catholic Charities is the third largest charity dispensing social services. I used to work for them; staying away from the obvious issues, they participate in many social services that governments would also participate. I worked in refugee services, and other participants were Lutheran Family Services and Jewish Family Services, as well as the County of Los Angeles.

Many religious organizations have much less political clout then they used to have, as they can no longer deliver the votes of their constituents. There is too much diversity in political viewpoints within many religious organizations.