Is it possible to have religion without religious extremism?

[DetlefK]

I am wondering about religion as a mental/cultural/cosmological concept.

Nowadays, religion has the unwanted side-effect of some people being so extremist about their own religion that they do all sorts of horrible stuff.
Why?
Because, in their extremism, they do not recognize it as horrible stuff.



My question is:

Is it possible to have religion but with a safeguard that ensures that religious people do not take their own religion so seriously that they would put it above other morals?

Is it possible to have religion but with the additional safeguard of having something above/beside the religion that can reign in on religion?

Would this religion with an included safeguard still count as a religion? Could it still work like a religion?

Is religious extremism a feature or a bug of religion?

[Ilsa]

1. Of course it's possible.

I know many who practice their religions devoutly, but without imposing it on others. They see their religion and God's grace as something that cannot be forced on anyone.

[DetlefK]

2. But what keeps them from becoming extremists?

What guides them besides religion? And can it take precedent over religion?

[Ilsa]

3. What I said: they know faith cannot be foisted on

Others. You can't force someone to believe.

Being raised in somewhat democratic countries helps too, I think, plus growing up with an education that explores literature, history, that people have free will in reality. Those are just my thoughts.

[DetlefK]

9. So, they have other moral imperatives that can supercede religious commands?

[trotsky]

17. Interesting path this leads down, isn't it?

"You can't force someone to believe." - It's not like the religious haven't spent millennia just shrugging their shoulders and saying, "OK, we'll just kill them then."

[meow2u3]

19. That never stopped extremists from trying to foist their beliefs on those of us

who don't share their faith. Just look at the legislation pushed by religious extremists! All those way-out anti-abortion and "religious freedom" laws are designed for one thing alone--for religious fanatics to shove their religion down our throats, whether we share their beliefs or not.

And they wonder why they're so hated. These people come across as pushy jerks who won't take no for an answer.

[Ilsa]

4. And personality.

Maybe dna has something to do with it, too.

[MosheFeingold]

5. Unitarians

Seem pretty milquetoast about everything except politics.

That said, once I pissed a group of them off and they came over a burned a giant wooden question mark in my yard.

[Hoppy]

6. It is about fear. The same fear that causes gun nuts to arm themselves

to protect against intruders into their houses, Muslims, blacks, and so forth. Scare them enough and common sense goes out the door.

Remember, God is vengeful. You might be good but if you allow your neighbor to violate His law, you are just as guilty.

[SheilaT]

7. I also know some religious people

who, while happy to discuss religion if I bring it up, are not absolutists and would never try to impose their specific beliefs on anyone.

I think it comes down to just how fervently an individual believes that their beliefs are the one and only correct way to believe, and often behave.

I happen to have my own fairly strong beliefs and I'm slightly surprised not everyone views things as I do, but I don't feel that my idea of what's true is in any way threatened by different beliefs. And that may actually be the real core problem: if someone feels somehow threatened by any and all who believe differently that may well push them to extremism. Alas, a lot of people think that their religion's teachings, such as in abortion, compel them to require that everyone else follow their rule, as in No Abortion Ever.

Keep in mind that the religious fanatics have either been brainwashed from a young age, or later in life willingly adopted a belief system that allows others to dictate what they should do. That's not the same as someone who perhaps converts as an adult, finding their new religion a source of comfort, but not needing to force others to believe the same way.

And here's the most distressing part of religious fanaticism: The three major monotheistic religions all have at their core a strong belief in treating others well, of comforting the afflicting, aiding widows and orphans, and so on. Unfortunately, that good core is easily overwhelmed by fanaticism.

It's my opinion that the underlying problem is human nature. I can't imagine how you can force a religion to have a safeguard that ensures that religious people do not take their own religion so seriously that they would put it above other morals. The closest you could come would be strong secular laws that would help keep this from happening. One way would be to not allow any faith-based schools. None. Sunday school and instruction for various sacraments or rites of passage that a particular religion observes ought to be okay, but even in those the fanaticism could rear its ugly head. Various otherwise benign practices tend to reinforce the notion that "we are not only separate but better than those others who don't believe as they do."

Perhaps in the end in comes down to the fact that so many people prefer not to think for themselves, and almost all of our lives it's easy to let others do that thinking. Hence, religion.

[trotsky]

12. "The three major monotheistic religions all have ... a strong belief in treating others well"

But they also have at their core notions of being "god's chosen people," a duty to spread the message, and sexism and homophobia and all sorts of nasty shit. Those doesn't help reign in the concept of a problematic human nature, but in fact makes it much worse - which is exactly what we see.

[edhopper]

10. probably not

the answers so far seem to be saying that most people can easily be religious without being extremists. This seems obvious, (given that we are also talking about a religiously and socially liberal culture.)
But will some always be religious extremists? I think yes. I think it is the nature of religion that a minority will be extremist in their views and action (and this is not limited to religion by any means).
To use an analogy, it would be asking if we can have drinking without some becoming alcoholics.
Religion is an area where not only a certitude of ideas is prevalent, but a divine certitude. How could there not be extremists?

[trotsky]

11. I don't think so.

Because there is no inherent "check" on religious belief.

I keep posting this link but I've never seen anyone explain it better:

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/11/armor-of-god.html

Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die.

It therefore has no reality check.

And it is therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self- correction. It is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality... and extreme, grotesque immorality.

[Leontius]

13. That's not even the question.

It's a human condition. If religion was the only part of human interaction you might have a point but religion is not a singular facet of humanity it is one of many parts of society. The question is can you have humans and not have extremism?

[trotsky]

14. But does religion help mitigate extremism, or does it make it worse? n/t

[jonno99]

15. You could just as easliy ask if it is possible to enjoy sex without becoming a sex-addict, or

is it possible to enjoy wine without becoming an alcoholic?

In every human activity there is (generally) a bell curve distribution where most folks fall into the "normal" (acceptable) range of activity, with extremists - in decreasing numbers - as you move toward the edges.

In this day and age of instant reporting of news, it's easy to forget that "normal" activity seldom makes headlines.

[trotsky]

16. So religion is absolutely no different from any other human interest?

Nothing unique or supernatural about it at all?

I'm not sure a believer wants to go down that road.

[jonno99]

23. For the most part, yes.

So religion is absolutely no different from any other human interest? Nothing unique or supernatural about it at all?

IMO - "religion" is by and large a human construct - an attempt (at best) to justify ones-self - to be thought of or seen as a good person. At worst? Control, subjugation, tyranny, etc...

[trotsky]

24. "by and large"?

It either is a human construct, or it is not (i.e., there is an outside influence). Can you clarify?

[Brettongarcia]

21. But that's "Religion Lite." Watered down Religion.

Religion without much conviction or imposition, is pantomime religion. Modern liberal religion in fact, was always a compromise with humanism, science. And even atheism.

A religion that is true just "for me," jettisons the old absolutism. And what we really get is ... as close to religion as it is to say, Existentialism.

[Iggo]

18. Not if you're doing it right. (n/t)

[Albertoo]

20. By definition, religion opens the gates to extremism

Religion is believing in unprovable things.

It's a willful abandon of reason. From there on, anything goes.

As demonstrated by the Maya human sacrifices, ISIS, Hindu Sita, stoning of adulterers,..

[Lordquinton]

22. With God, anything is possible

or so I've been told.

[Brettongarcia]

25. Can God make a rock so heavy...

... that God can't lift it ?

[Lordquinton]

29. Did I stutter?

[tonyt53]

26. Stay out of churches except for weddings or funerals. Live your life by the words of Jesus.

A person doesn't need a building to make them a better person. They don't need a preacher to tell them what Jesus would think or say. The words of Jesus are pretty simple. I highly suggest that all Bible-thumpers read those words and try living by them.

[trotsky]

28. "The words of Jesus are pretty simple."

Are they?

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

Then said he unto them, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." - Luke 22:36

(Parable): "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - Luke 19:27

Now if we take those words "simply" they are pretty freaking scary. So I'm going to guess those words aren't to be taken simply, and instead have to be interpreted in a more complex way, right?

[Lordquinton]

30. Do we seperate Jesus from God?

Or is Jesus still god?

Or do we include the line where he says he's not here to replace the laws, but to enforce them?

[LongtimeAZDem]

27. Any belief system that short-circuits rational analysis will lead to extremism (nt)