Wil we ever abolish religion?

Simple question. Not a simple answer.

I lean towards "no." Religion ahs been present in pretty much every human society or tribe since as long as there have human societies or tribes. It's always hard to say with prehistoric peoples (ie those who lacked writing and left no documents behind), but every single site in historic times (ie when there are written records left behind) show some religion. It's unlikely in the extreme religion developed along with cities and writing. It was obviously already there.

There are other near-universal practices, too, which we have largely done way with. Some entirely, some only in certain countries, and even a few going back to classical times: slavery, ritual sacrifices (of either people or animals), war as a means of gaining glory, etc.

But religion obviously fills a psychological need. Many people who do away with religion, including atheists, substitute it with something else: astrology, dianetics, numerology, generalized superstitions, belief in aliens, catastrophism, some would claim even sports (I wouldn't). Something rather unprovable, or even contrary to evidence, often accompanied by formal or informal rituals.

What Western society has achieved is severely reducing the power of religion over government and, more and more, over society as a whole, especially over social mores. One of my history projects is to try to discern how this happened. In part it was the further splintering of all Western religions, in part it was religious wars. But there has to be more.

This is a good thing, especially for religious minorities who now can find a place in the West.

But people still believe, including more than a few fervent believers.

Quote: Nareed

What Western society has achieved is severely reducing the power of religion over government and, more and more, over society as a whole, especially over social mores. One of my history projects is to try to discern how this happened.

A few thoughts (mostly incomplete, but maybe they'll jar something loose for you)...

Freedom and immigration. You were free to pursue anything you wanted. Maybe there was some stigmas attached to this exploration within your community, but that was easy enough to get away from. And the influx of all these different cultures and all these different beliefs sort of acted like a checks and balances. There was no One True Religion, not enforced by the gov, or enforced by the people. Maybe the Protestants took hold here, but on the other side of the city, there were a bunch of Asians who held to ways of the East. It all counterbalances itself, not letting any one become too powerful.

Technology. America has always been near the top, and with its allies have discovered more and more about existence by the day. The more we learn, the less we need religion to fill the gaps. So it never holds great power.

Comfort. How much of religion deals with struggle and how, through (insert deity here), you can overcome it? Pfft, this is #Murica. Struggle to us is the satellite dish filling with snow, giving you a blurry, pixelated view of "American Idol". Struggle is getting a diet coke when you asked for Pepsi. C'mon. Who needs gods/God when you have a Discover card and Amazon?

Quote: Face

The more we learn, the less we need religion to fill the gaps.

Very true. Most religions are just institutionalized
superstitions anyway. Science gets rid of superstitions
and the need for religion. Of course this panics
those in the religious business, and they say 'Oh
No!' you need religion even MORE now that science
is taking over.

But don't hold it against them, they have to say that.
They're like like the desperate buggy whip maker
when the automobile was invented. They knew they
were going under, time to double down.

Quote: Face

Freedom and immigration. You were free to pursue anything you wanted. Maybe there was some stigmas attached to this exploration within your community, but that was easy enough to get away from.

One thing which surprised me when learning ancient history, is how far people moved about back then. It was not uncommon for nations, or large groups of tribes, to migrate en-masse. For example, the Goths probably originated in what is now Ukraine, but eventually made it all the way to Spain and Italy. The Romans had procedures in place to admit large groups of people into the Empire.

But while this wasn't uncommon, it wasn't the everyday occurrence it is now, or even what it was 150 years ago. Then, too, immigration to the Americas by Europeans in the 16th to 18th centuries often involved religious freedom as a reason. Such people will tend to be more tolerant of other religions.

Freedom, though, is a contributing factor as well. A stronger one.

Quote:

There was no One True Religion, not enforced by the gov, or enforced by the people.

before the US Constitution, some of the colonies did establish a Church and enforce religious laws. Some of these remain to this day, though not as many as people think (and they mostly have to do with alcohol, gambling and prostitution).

That's one HUGE reason why the separation of church and state remains important.

Quote:

Will we ever abolish religion?

We will never get rid of people selling pyramid schemes. We will always have sincere, or wily salesman, and will always have the too naïve or inexperienced, gullible or just a person who wants to believe something someone is selling because it sounds good to them.

Just the fact that everyone is young once, makes everyone a potential target, because you start off with limited experience, and you've not yet met all the people who have some gimmick or idea to sell you.

Not exactly religion, but it answers why we will always have religion to some extent.

Unless something else changes about people, at least.

Quote: Nareed

before the US Constitution, some of the colonies did establish a Church and enforce religious laws. Some of these remain to this day, though not as many as people think (and they mostly have to do with alcohol, gambling and prostitution).

That's one HUGE reason why the separation of church and state remains important.

I would like to see the US (can't speak for your home country or other places) enact a non-confrontational amendment that addresses one problem with religion.

It would avoid directly outlawing any religion, but it would be illegal to preach harm to others as part as your fulfillment of religion. It would not be illegal to talk about it in a historical sense, as something that happened before, but not in the sense of your religion meeting any current goals.

I know it's tricky, because this is an actual speech amendment. But you could still write fiction about murder, or any violence. But you couldn't teach it as coming from something that could be practiced.

I'm trying to get at the "kill the infidels" or people of other religions. No word of any god could command people to kill others to achieve their religious goals.

The preaching of it would be a crime.

Speech laws of any kind are tough, so you don't overstep. But I feel like undercutting certain practices without directly attacking someone's religion, now or future religion is more difficult to combat. Like, yes, you can practice religion, but no you can't preach about killing people that don't meet your standards to advance. You don't argue their religion is bad, but you argue directly against violence against people and stick on that point. Make that the point they have to argue against.

Killing will not be endorsed in this manner, No exceptions. Gods don't get excused.

Quote: rxwine

I'm trying to get at the "kill the infidels" or people of other religions. No word of any god could command people to kill others to achieve their religious goals.

The preaching of it would be a crime.

Unfortunately you're not asking for a law, rather an amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Stone the gays, kill the infidel, et al. are all Scripture. To demand they stop is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and would take 30some states to go along with you to change. Not to mention a metric ton of "slippery slope" argument you'd have to pile through first.

A noble thought, but hopeless.

Quote: Face

Unfortunately you're not asking for a law, rather an amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Stone the gays, kill the infidel, et al. are all Scripture. To demand they stop is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and would take 30some states to go along with you to change. Not to mention a metric ton of "slippery slope" argument you'd have to pile through first.

A noble thought, but hopeless.

Oh, I know it would be an amendment. It has to be (IMO).

Of course, I agree it is difficult. And it would need testing by the best of minds and circumstances. But I'm not convinced it couldn't be done successfully.

But if anyone has any better idea, I'm game.

Quote: rxwine

Oh, I know it would be amendment. It has to be (IMO).

Of course, I agree it is difficult. And it would need testing by the best of minds and circumstances. But I'm not convinced it couldn't be done successfully.

But if anyone has any better idea, I'm game.

As to changing amendments, just look at the next one on the list. How huge is the uproar about it? And how successful was it? Now compare the uproar and its effectiveness to the crickets currently surrounding the 1st. It's a long path that hasn't even been trod upon yet.

Better ideas? Just what we do now. Continue to hold to what is right and just and let the loons reveal themselves for who they are. I might find Westboro despicable, but I surely don't fear them or lose sleep over it. Plus, if those nuts lost religion, they'd just hate anyways in the name of something else.

Quote: Face

As to changing amendments, just look at the next one on the list. How huge is the uproar about it? And how successful was it? Now compare the uproar and its effectiveness to the crickets currently surrounding the 1st. It's a long path that hasn't even been trod upon yet.

Better ideas? Just what we do now. Continue to hold to what is right and just and let the loons reveal themselves for who they are. I might find Westboro despicable, but I surely don't fear them or lose sleep over it. Plus, if those nuts lost religion, they'd just hate anyways in the name of something else.

Acts of war, peace, and comedy work better with proper timing.

Attacking an evil person doing nothing doesn't get as much support as right after the horrendous crime.

The environment has to be ripe.

Like you say, nothing else may ever be necessary. I'm fine with that as long as it holds up.