Create Unessecary Divide?
Yes of course
37.2% (55)
37.2% (55)
It does, but its not unnessecary
2% (3)
2% (3)
No, people divide themselves, not religion
52.7% (78)
52.7% (78)
It makes us unique
2.7% (4)
2.7% (4)
It shouldnt have to, but it always will
5.4% (8)
5.4% (8)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Can we all agree that religion creates unnessecary divide?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

This isnt an attack, many religous people would agree, that the idea that different opinions on theology is a ridiculous reason to segregate communitys/nations/groups etc. but it still happens, and I do wonder how much closer wed be if we didnt have religion at all.

Your poll is lacking options. Where is the "No, Some religions unite rather than divide" option? When you mean a few out of the thousands of religions of the world divide rather than unite, than " ALL the religions of the world" since you obviously have not studied upon all the religions or you would know they do not all conflict with one another in the first place, but instead teach unity with those who disagree with you.

If you are addressing specific religions, you should state which religions you are addressing rather than a blanket statement that does not apply to all.

Some religions actually teach that we are all family, all related and that we should not force our beliefs on others or try to " convert" others because they have their own promises to keep and it is not our place to decide that for them. That our purpose is take care of the earth and all that dwell upon it whether it be plant, animal, soil, water or the air itself, that includes those who disagree with you as well.

I think Lil Devils hit the nail on the head. Religion, in particular, doesn't divide people. Certain ideologies, including but not limited to certain religions, can divide people. This is especially true if the belief is very zealous or fundamentalist. But most religions aren't like that, and most believers don't take it that far.

I think most monotheistic religions do divide people, as you can only really believe in one, but then again they bring a lot of people together in churches and the like, so its not a simple question of yes or no. On a worldwide scale then yes, but at a local level no? I dont really know to be honest, but given the crusades fought over because of religion I think the net result is division.

Because your statement has no qualifiers, it is technically correct, in that some religion has created some divide (out of curiosity, what would you deem necessary divide?) at some point or other.

The 'all' that anyone reading the statement mentally inserts before the 'religion', however, is totally false.

/pedantry

It is a fact that there have been wars fought over the results of sports matches. We don't need supernatural beliefs to get at each others throats. Heck, we don't even need different ideologies. Blackburn and Burnley fans have pretty much identical culture, background, ethnicity and politics, but they still trash each others towns and get into fights if they play each other.

The fundamental flaw of major religion in a social standing is the fact that it inherently divides, because if you define yourself by your religion, and by extension believe the gospel of your particular holy texts entirely, then those who do not follow your faith are automatically devalued, even subconsciously, I will note that this extends to atheists as well, perhaps to an even greater degree due to the evangelicism of a larger portion of the movement.
What is worth note here however is that the problem is not unique to religion, it comes down to how you, as a character define yourself, for example, the republican/democrat divide in the US, in recent years, the divide between the two parties has gotten so bad that people who vote for one side, generally see the voting bloc for the other as either stupid, or evil incarnate, because accepting that the other side might have a point is anathema to someone so deeply ingrained in his parties ideology.

Anyway, the thing that makes the religious differences between individuals tend to be a problem is simply down to the fact that, as religious groups tend to affiliate themselves strongly with one side or another in politics, a lot of the time religion and politics are not divorced from each other when they really should be, for example: Obama's policy on healthcare including the requirement that insurance companies, paid for by employers, have birth control provisions for women, wherein religious employers cry foul that their "religious freedom" is being oppressed, which tends to, in election times, skew the religious voting bloc more republican, seemingly based on the idea that America is a "Christian country", which, if you know your Constitution, you will know is not the case (the state SHALL NOT establish a religion) so, in all, the problem of the divide between people extends from being just about religion, but also down to party differences as well.

Considering how you won't see a catholic donate money to a protestant church, I can assure you that it divides - even within itself.

The money flows upwards but only within the denomination. It might do well to keep up appearances and show that varying religious faiths "get along" with others. But in the back of the respective leaders' minds they're pissed the other faction is rustling their claim. For there are only so many gullible idiots to go around in this world today who will pay part of their income to the church.

Frokane:
I do wonder how much closer wed be if we didnt have religion at all.

We wouldn't be, something else would come up. Race, politics, sexual preference...

Abomination:
Considering how you won't see a catholic donate money to a protestant church, I can assure you that it divides - even within itself.

The money flows upwards but only within the denomination. It might do well to keep up appearances and show that varying religious faiths "get along" with others. But in the back of the respective leaders' minds they're pissed the other faction is rustling their claim. For there are only so many gullible idiots to go around in this world today who will pay part of their income to the church.

You are only speaking of a very few religions based on the Abrahamic faiths, not of the majority of the religions in the world. Not all " religious leaders" even accept donations or "compete with" others for " followers". Those issues are limited to specific religions, religious sects, and does not apply to the many of the religions of the world.

The idea that " Islam, Christianity, or Judaism = all religions" is shortsighed and narrowminded considering there are THOUSANDS of religions in this world. Christianity and Islam both came from Judaism, you would think of course they would have some things in common, however, to say that those few religions speak for all religions of this world would be ludacris. The reason those religions are so widespread, is not because of issues with the other religions, it is because they were forced upon people through the Islamic and Christian crusades. The forced conversion of the masses is responsible for this, not the other religions that were persecuted by those carrying out these things.

Ending the crusades ( which have not really ended) would finally allow for freedom of religion to flourish, and also allow those religions forced into hiding to be able to flourish again as well. Islam and Christianity are considered "very young" religions by comparison to the majority of the religions, and certainly do not represent them all.

There are much older religions that have existed for much longer that do not practice any of these things you mention. The reason you don't hear about them all the time is because they do not cause conflict, so it is not news.

I know of zero religions that state that followers can't cooperate with people of other faiths. If anything, it's us that make the divisions between ourselves when we don't need to

I think the more pertinent question is: If not for religion, would something else divide people?

Assassin Xaero:

Frokane:
I do wonder how much closer wed be if we didnt have religion at all.

We wouldn't be, something else would come up. Race, politics, sexual preference...

This is unfounded. It is highly doubtful that there is some fixed level of strife which must occur, or that occurs independently of the apparent sources. You can't reason from the premise that race, politics, sexual preference have caused strife to the idea that strife will occur in the same quantities if religion no longer were able to cause it.

I hear this idea often, however. I wonder exactly how many people have thought it through. It really is a very presumptuous thought.

Yes, of course, but so do all sorts of things, both positive and negative. Love, money, politics, tastes in art and music etc.. That in itself isn't sufficient for religion to be a negative thing. It's kind of a "duh, sure"-statement, really. And I say that as a person who does think religion is a net negative.
Unless you mean "segregate" in a more specific, more "from top to bottom" kind of way, then I'd limit my little list above to various ideologies rather than include other things that divide us. You'd also have to limit religion to particular forms, though, because segregation due to religion in the sense of politically forced segregation rather than societal divides is a very specific effect of religion intermingling with politics, whereas mere division due to religion is something that can happen on any level.

Lil devils x:
You are only speaking of a very few religions based on the Abrahamic faiths, not of the majority of the religions in the world. Not all " religious leaders" even accept donations or "compete with" others for " followers". Those issues are limited to specific religions, religious sects, and does not apply to the many of the religions of the world.

The idea that " Islam, Christianity, or Judaism = all religions" is shortsighed and narrowminded considering there are THOUSANDS of religions in this world. Christianity and Islam both came from Judaism, you would think of course they would have some things in common, however, to say that those few religions speak for all religions of this world would be ludacris. The reason those religions are so widespread, is not because of issues with the other religions, it is because they were forced upon people through the Islamic and Christian crusades. The forced conversion of the masses is responsible for this, not the other religions that were persecuted by those carrying out these things.

Ending the crusades ( which have not really ended) would finally allow for freedom of religion to flourish, and also allow those religions forced into hiding to be able to flourish again as well. Islam and Christianity are considered "very young" religions by comparison to the majority of the religions, and certainly do not represent them all.

There are much older religions that have existed for much longer that do not practice any of these things you mention. The reason you don't hear about them all the time is because they do not cause conflict, so it is not news.

I'm certain there are a few very minor (demographic wise) religions that preach unity and harmony of all. But the serious, all-encompassing majority do NOT practice such things.

What is religion but what we have made it? When someone thinks religion it would be like ignoring the elephant in the room if your mind didn't consider the Abrahamic 3 - as they have had the most profound effect on the world and still do (unfortunately) to this day. They are a prime example of religion being taken to its logical extreme.

Abomination:

Lil devils x:
You are only speaking of a very few religions based on the Abrahamic faiths, not of the majority of the religions in the world. Not all " religious leaders" even accept donations or "compete with" others for " followers". Those issues are limited to specific religions, religious sects, and does not apply to the many of the religions of the world.

The idea that " Islam, Christianity, or Judaism = all religions" is shortsighed and narrowminded considering there are THOUSANDS of religions in this world. Christianity and Islam both came from Judaism, you would think of course they would have some things in common, however, to say that those few religions speak for all religions of this world would be ludacris. The reason those religions are so widespread, is not because of issues with the other religions, it is because they were forced upon people through the Islamic and Christian crusades. The forced conversion of the masses is responsible for this, not the other religions that were persecuted by those carrying out these things.

Ending the crusades ( which have not really ended) would finally allow for freedom of religion to flourish, and also allow those religions forced into hiding to be able to flourish again as well. Islam and Christianity are considered "very young" religions by comparison to the majority of the religions, and certainly do not represent them all.

There are much older religions that have existed for much longer that do not practice any of these things you mention. The reason you don't hear about them all the time is because they do not cause conflict, so it is not news.

I'm certain there are a few very minor (demographic wise) religions that preach unity and harmony of all. But the serious, all-encompassing majority do NOT practice such things.

What is religion but what we have made it? When someone thinks religion it would be like ignoring the elephant in the room if your mind didn't consider the Abrahamic 3 - as they have had the most profound effect on the world and still do (unfortunately) to this day. They are a prime example of religion being taken to its logical extreme.

Of course they have been taken to the extreme, I was tied to a chair and made to read the bible aloud as a child in the school the US government forced us to attend IN the United States, a so called " freedom of religion country" due to them viewing tribal religions as " Blasphemy". However, even I do not blame all religions, or even religious sects among them for the actions of the few, and yes they may have more members, but there are only a few actual religions that condemn all others as blasphemy. The vast MAJORITY of actual religions in this world do not.

If you are addressing the thousands of religions, you would address them indivdually, rather than lump them together because many are very different from one another, However, if you are addressing Abrahamic religions, you would address them directly by name as well, as to address their issues directly. If you actually studied upon all the worlds religions, especially the thousands that are not of the Abrahamic religions you would see the vast majority are nothing like what you speak of.

You have it backwards, the majority of religions do no such thing, it is just the few that were forced upon the masses primarily responsible for these things.

Oh please. Opinions divide people unnessecarily aswell.

Why does being divided have to be inherently bad? I voted for the fourth option because people are inherently unique and so they should be able to express their unique beliefs, otherwise life would be boring. Frankly I think that because of this a non "divided" human population would be impossible without some kind of mass form of brainwashing, which is why when I hear people talk about gathering the world under one belief system, even if it seems flowery and nice, I start to fear for human freedom.

Frokane:
This isnt an attack, many religous people would agree, that the idea that different opinions on theology is a ridiculous reason to segregate communitys/nations/groups etc. but it still happens, and I do wonder how much closer wed be if we didnt have religion at all.

Yes, religions cause unnecessary divides. So do races, values, cultures, geographic locations, jobs, social standings, hygiene standards, hair colors, clothing styles, music preferences, ages, and favorite hot-dog toppings. The question is where does "unnecessary" end and "inevitable" begin.

Not really. Not inherently.

Divisive people divide people.

Religion just creates a divide. Heck, any difference of opinion on a subject can create a divide between people. That being said, as large as a divide religion creates should be unnecessary. I don't agree with theists at all, yet I still get along with them fine 99,9% of the time. Well, in real life at least. Just a general mentality of 'if they don't bother me with religion I won't bother them with anti-religion' and such.

Seanchaidh:

Assassin Xaero:

Frokane:
I do wonder how much closer wed be if we didnt have religion at all.

We wouldn't be, something else would come up. Race, politics, sexual preference...

This is unfounded. It is highly doubtful that there is some fixed level of strife which must occur, or that occurs independently of the apparent sources. You can't reason from the premise that race, politics, sexual preference have caused strife to the idea that strife will occur in the same quantities if religion no longer were able to cause it.

I hear this idea often, however. I wonder exactly how many people have thought it through. It really is a very presumptuous thought.

I wouldn't call it fixed level of strife but it's quite obvious that there are loads of other topics to be devided on than religion. The US Civil War was fought over opinions on slavery (or rather, opinions on leaving the Union), apartheid and segregation were based on theories of inherently inferior races, the Russian Revolution under Lenin was about a socio-political ideology, homosexuality was seen as an illegal mental illness treated with chemical castration, ...
All of those are big non religious topics one can quarrel about.

Personally, I doubt that without religion we'd all be perfectly happy together. But do I believe that religion causes devides? I'd rather say it gives reasons to keep existing ones. The bible didn't invent hate on homosexuality, it was obviously already present in the society the writers lived in and got included thusly but it is still used as a justification to infringe a person's rights today, even decades after the mental illness approach became unsustainable.

Division is man's nature. It is hard coded into our DNA. From birth we learn to recognize those *like* us and those *unlike* us. We have fought long battles over race, country, philosophy, class, gender, sexual preferences, money, power, justice, honor, lies, truth -- in our bottomless purse of things we quarrel about, argue about, kill about; why would the religion of men be any different?

Religion is no cause; it is an excuse. Supposed 'men of God' have long and often forsook their 'faith' (if they truly had any) for a chance at power over their fellow men -- to liken as to gods in themselves. But the same has been done by other men who make no such pretenses as doing the work of God. Mao, Stalin, Amin: these people murdered millions and made no bones about who it was all for: them.

Division is man's nature. The very question of this OP is meant to divide. Innumerable things one does in his day-to-day life sets bounderies between he and others. So to answer the question: yes, religion does divide. But it is hardly unique in that regard.

Fundamentalism causes unnecessary division, it does not matter whether the harshly enforced ideals are in terms of gods, politics, and/or social stigmas.

In these cases, religion is an excuse and a common gathering point, but not necessarily a cause. I would like to remind you that several of the greatest conflicts in the past century occurred largely thanks to atheistic ideals and organizations.

Speaking as a strong agnostic, I have yet to encounter a religion that is not, in my opinion, inherently flawed in concept. However, there is one thing I have learned over the years I feel that more should keep in mind. Every single religion I have studied, from Hindu to Abrahamic, from Shinto to Hopi, as flawed as they are, has something to offer the world, some concept/philosophy/ideal that society would be greatly improved by if we would just learn. Do not be so quick to dismiss them out of hand.

hey, suppose we did invent a way of wiping out all religion in a second, we would still be left with our powerful yet unanswered questions that religion had tried to solve, and people would inevitably come up with different opinions as to what the answers to those are, they would likely cling on to them for the sake of comfort, and religion would be born again.

so I don't think you're looking at a big enough picture here, or maybe you're trivializing the role religion has had in human history a little too much.

People have always found (and will always find) ways to divide themselves. Having something that bound us together and strengthened us against enemies has been a major reason why humanity has survived to this day. It's no longer a useful strategy, of course (now we ought to shift our strategies to full-on cooperativism), but old habits die hard.

Religion is just an excuse, and makes the Us-vs-Them thing very easy. After all, religion is all about the cosmic and metaphysical underpinnings of all of our realities. What could generate more hatred than someone implying your entire worldview is wrong? Also, that's why pursuing objectivity sucks, because it purports that There Can Only Be One truth. How are we not going to fight over who's got The One Truth?

Lil`Devil hit most of the nail on the head - but the problem is that your limiting it to religion.
Anything could cause a divide between people, look at the 'devoted' Star Wars fans who heard about J.J. being the future director. Science creates divides as well, on what should and should not be considered 'the line' for science, what even makes 'science' 'science' -
anything in existence could possibly create a divide. If you want to blame something for 'divides' blame individuality.

'I say toe-may-toe, you say toe-mah-toe.'

Religions are generally forces of unification; even the dreaded Abrahamic Faiths are no exception.

Religion molds culture, and culture is what brings people together. Religion had brought together massive amounts of people.

Dear sir or madam,Frokane. You have a narrow and uneducated view of religion and its impact on humanity throughout history.

*sigh* Liberals. What can you do?

@TheLion

Religions are generally forces of unification; even the dreaded Abrahamic Faiths are no exception.

That's debatable. Only with massive political force does, say, Christianity unify, through something like the power of the Catholic church in medieval times (nowadays the Catholic church is far from unified, too). Once people are freer to follow their own interpretations (sometimes because they violently revolt, sometimes because a leader has an agenda in dividing the groups, sometimes because they live in more egalitarian societies etc.), the religious split into smaller and smaller subgroups; they continue to diverge. While the "umbrella" of Christianity may hold a lot of the world's populace, it has absolutely splintered (and continues to do so). Hell, Catholics and Protestants fought wars along religious (and thereby political) lines. Similarly, Islam and Judaism are split into various groups such as Sunni and Shia or Reformed and Orthodox or whatever else. I don't really see any sort of overarching unifying effect, unless you mean on a very localized level.

Frokane:

Glasgow:
Religion molds culture, and culture is what brings people together. Religion had brought together massive amounts of people.

Dear sir or madam,Frokane. You have a narrow and uneducated view of religion and its impact on humanity throughout history.

*sigh* Liberals. What can you do?

just trying to get a convo going,and not all culture is based on religion, asshat

Sure it is. Religion of god, religion of celebrities, it's all the same. Vogue or the Bible, religion shapes culture - and vise-versa. Religion isn't always organized, as it can be a collection of rituals, traditions, etc. (Like how Voodoo is a mish-mash of different African tradition imported to the Caribbeans). Culture is comprised of language, religion, traditions, shared history, etc. etc. Religion is a very integral part of our culture. See how Judeo-Christian terminology is pervasive throughout the western cultures. When you say "Hell", most people will know exactly what you're talking about.

Same goes for angels, demons, etc. You get pretty much the same picture in mind. This is how commonplace religion is in our culture. No matter how you want to look away in shame, it will always haunt our yours and our past as a people. Our culture is based on current religion and also religions of the past - see the revival of mythological tales through the unhealthy obsession of European aristocracy of Greece after Napoleon made the deal popular. Same goes with Norse myth that was partially revived through the works of Tolkien. Egyptian religion is also iconic in our culture.

Don't call me a asshat.

*sigh* Liberals. You can't live with them, you can't live without them.

Frokane:

Glasgow:
Religion molds culture, and culture is what brings people together. Religion had brought together massive amounts of people.

Dear sir or madam,Frokane. You have a narrow and uneducated view of religion and its impact on humanity throughout history.

*sigh* Liberals. What can you do?

just trying to get a convo going,and not all culture is based on religion, asshat

I don't think there is ever a time when "asshat" is an acceptable way to get conversations going. Just because someone else decided to start throwing mud doesn't make it alright for you to jump in the pit and start flinging it back.

And really, there isn't much to discuss beyond what's already been said. Yes religion causes divides in many ways, but a lot of the greatest divides it's caused were not caused by religion itself, but rather people using religion as a way to stir up an "us VS them" mentality. While religion is an easy way to do this, it's not always required. Just look at the huge frenzy Joseph McCarthy was able to stir America into during the red scare. He's the one who turned "communism," "socialism," and "liberals" into dark and fearful words that stir up fears that still grip the older generations today, all by targeting their fear of losing freedom.

On top of that, as much as some people hate religion, it is pretty inevitable and while it's fading in some ways it's not going to be totally leaving society anytime soon. Waiting for the day when religion decides it's done enough and just walks away is rather like waiting for a storm to appear over the Grand Canyon and fill it with gumdrops. It's not a hope that is going to go anywhere anytime soon, which is why many people treat threads like this with a patronizing tone. There isn't much of a point in pretending religion is going to vanish someday, at least within any of our lifetimes, so threads that are based on the hope of that come across a bit naive. Also, using the sweeping word "religion" while almost certainly referring to the Abrahamic religions is also a sign of low credibility.

I'm not saying you're stupid, and neither is most everyone here. We're just saying you could stand to learn a bit more about religion and its many and complicated effects on society. It's rather hard to talk about the effects of "religion" on all societies throughout the world without going into Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, and the many flavors of Buddhism (Mahayana, Vashrayana, zhen, etc). While their effects on the Western world, unless you've suddenly decided Southern Asia, China, Korea, and Japan don't matter if you're going to talk about "religion" as a whole they are just as important as the Abrahamic religions.

It certainly creates a new justification for dividing people, but it's nothing we haven't done before for different reasons. We've been telling stories about those other people for ages.

Take the Romans for instance. Religion wasn't a major reason they considered themselves above other peoples. On the contrary, they pretty much thought everyone worshiped the same gods they did, but they just used different names. Tyr was Mars and all that. They created a separation by considering them uncivilized brutes who needed to be conquered to become better than that(arguably true, but I wish they wouldn't have been so damn through in destroying their culture). Same idea, these people are not the same as us, they need help, as religion but a different execution.

In the end, yeah, it does create an excuse for division, but we create those divisions ourselves.

Religion isn't necessary for completely different reasons, but I'm not going into that right now, I'm not a fan of leaving walls-o-text.

Sure it does. So does skin color, accent, country of origin, ancestry, country of residence, history of country of origin/residence, taste in media (hi console wars!), etc. etc.

People divide themselves over anything that is different. It's the way they are. Pick any issue and it can divide people. religion is an issue so it fits, however its not really the problem.

nah its ideological conflict not religious conflict.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked