Originally Posted by Ned Flanders

*Legitimate discussion, not just religion-bashing*

Now obviously I'm a bit biased, considering I'm among the least religious people on a forum that's predominantly godless to begin with, but I was thinking recently about where human kind has currently failed itself with regard to potential progress and I came to the conclusion at virtually every juncture that some form of religiosity was to blame for opposing new developments. Some examples:


Stem cell research: Without fundamentalist spiritualism/religion that regards microscopic, non-cognitive cells as sacrosanct life forms, we'd likely have far greater progress towards dozens of medical developments and potential cures. The religious are seemingly the only opponents of this research.

Mid-east stability/democracy: Again, fundamentalist Islam, with it's oppressive tenets of female subordination, strict adherency laws, the absolute authority of Muslim doctrine and Allah in the realm of politics, and its advocacy of Jihadist pursuits (and thus violent, often suicidal opposition of one's political opponents) has led the region toward steady instability. Governments subsequently land somewhere along the spectrum between absolutist Muslim affairs like the Taliban (who suffer not only from oppression and disregard for human rights, but also the ills of a stifled economy) or some form of authoritarian/dictatorial regime with a strongman like Musharraf/Hussein. Democracy is typically out of the question (Turkey the exception) as certain freedoms stand in opposition to prevailing religious sentiment and education is limited and ammended so as not to conflict with the Qur'an. This is not the Islam that was a bastion of scientific enlightenment during Europe's dark ages.

Reponsible environmental policy: I'll admit that this one is a bit of a stretch, as it's easier to point to an overall prevailing sentiment among the Evangelical/literalist contingent opposing environmental protections (presumably because of an impending apocalypse) than it is to cite specific examples of religious groups directly protesting a policy. One of those examples can be found however in the Bush administration's alleged subversion of NASA's global warming research, as well as his loosening of restrictions on emissions standards (asking for "voluntary" compliance from industrial polluters). Now you could likely point the finger to Bush's alliance with big business as the culprit in this scenario before you point to his religiosity, but there is a considerable echoing of his retrograde mentality toward environmentalism among religious conservatives. Greed in an understandable impetus when standing in opposition to responsible treatment of our environment. In fact it's relatively rational (if morally bankrupt) to say "I won't be here in the future, so why lose out on a buck today that won't be worth anything to me when I'm dead" if environmental policy cuts into your profits. But to oppose environmentalism because of your presumtions of the second coming of Christ, particularly in the face of religious views on the sanctity of life and the earth as God's creation, is just mind-boggling.

Education: I don't want to paint too broad a picture here, but even in the "enlightened" US, certain areas of education are consistently under attack from religious groups. Backwards communities have recently tried to make instruction of evolution an optional part of the cirriculum, while theology-masquerading-as-science affairs like intelligent design receive endorsements from the president himself. Responsible sex-education is stifled by calls for abstinence-only instruction (a proven failure, statistically). Why? Because God doesn't want your children fornicating, despite statistics that prove that adolescents, religious and otherwise, are universally likely to engage in sexual activity at a certain percentage, as well as the self evident principle that suppression breeds curiosity breeds irresponsibility with regards to sexual behavior (Catholic priests, anyone?). But still we have "God" setting the policy..

Equality: Gay marriage/unions are seen as a threat to the "sanctity of marriage", so much so in fact that it's somehow the government's responsibility to try and legally define marriage for us, yet divorce rates have long hovered at or above the 50% rate in spite of the fact that most married people are, in fact, religious. Yet no protests are held at divorce courts, and no one pickets over "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" and other cheapenings of the sanctified practice, virtually proving that those in oposition to same-sex marriages are in fact more interested in limiting the freedoms of others than glorifying their religious unions.


Now I realize that blind progressiveness (both in science and politics) would also obviously have its own ills, but in a responsible society with a sound democratic process and a defined sense of human rights (and please don't give me any crap about religious exclusivity on morality), wouldn't we be far more advanced as a people and a civilization without these religious impediments? Science free of faith-based dogmatic repression? Reality-based politics where politicians could stand on their principles without pandering to a religious base? A world in which education is stressed as paramount to even religion...a better one? Is this self-evident to anyone else or am I John Lennon?

Originally Posted by ToBeY

Why is this in the debate forum? There is nothing to debate.

yes.

Originally Posted by TeH 3quivocat0r

Schools are seeming to move more and more away from religion.