• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

The UN would opppose organized religion

Status
Not open for further replies.

eschemat

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
241
The topic that I'll be putting up for discussion is whether or not the United Nations would oppose organized religion. I'll put up my thoughts in the OP, and I hope I can start some discussion. This debate is not intended for whether or not god exists, but whether or not the principle of religion should be protected in it's current form. It is also not to propose any specific plan to overturn current legislation, and is not about the logistics of how much money you'll spend on changing the system or how you'll get outreach, but whether or not in principle organized religion is good or bad.

What's The Problem?

Religion has historically caused the largest wars in the world, led to the mistreatment of people, and one that has manipulated political choices to the utmost degrees. The topic at hand is not of destroying religion all together, but all organizations of religion, stemming from churches to the Vatican. While it's perfectly fine for a few friends to look at a religion together, a church is hierarchical and tells people what to believe.

The first large problem that I've identified with organized religion is that of large scale conflicts. Religious conflicts happen frequently, and in this modern day and age, Al-Qaeda is the perfect example of that. In the past, it's caused even larger conflicts, such as the Holy Crusades. It's unavoidable to have conflicts over religion and we can see conflicts all over the Middle East, specifically the murder of Christians due to the head of hierarchical Muslim organizations, be it political such as the Muslim Brotherhood or idealist such as Al-Qaeda. These conflicts are stemmed by religious groups, and largely religious groups who misinterpret what has been in their religion, such as jihad, something that has been seen by Muslims all over the world as giving Muslims a bad name, and furthermore, not even being part of their religion. We have been left to mitigate these issues, and surely enough, religion will cause more conflict internationally in the future as well.

The second problem that is seen with organized religion is persecution. Because religion has such a political influence, especially in countries like the United States of America, Middle Eastern countries and African countries, we see legislation that actively persecutes minority groups, such as the LGBT community, to Jews, not just in WW2 but today as well. This persecution leads to society ostracizing these groups, and even worse, can lead to death by law in countries such as Uganda. In a country like the United States of America, one that publicly declares itself as secular, religion destroys secularism and causes legislation such as banning gay marriages, or banning abortion. While I think that it's alright for a government to make it's own choices, when those choices are influenced by religion and by something that is intrinsically not meant to be part of the government system in that country, I see a major problem with allowing organized religion. Organized religion has the most influence in the world, and can pull the ear of any government. If a government is consistently listening to religious lobbyists, how are proper choices being made in government?

Lastly, I see the problem damaging their own religious groups. Organized religion causes some of the worst domestic crime possible, such as cults where they imprison the woman and force them to be impregnated by the cult leader. The problem lies intrinsically from the layout of any religious group; hierarchy. There is always a leader of a religious group and cult, and that leader tells everyone what to do, and what to think. Aside from cults and ****, there is a larger scale issue; religion can only be interpreted one way in one church. Religious groups tell people how their spiritual book should be interpreted, not letting them interpreting it themselves. Some people believe that gay marriage's are alright, but they are religious, so they oppose it on a spiritual level. Other people interpret homosexuality as a non-issue within religion. The problem with organized religion is that it tells people how to think about their religion when people should interpret religion themselves. Once you enter a religious group, however, it's almost impossible to leave it; the consequences are of being ostracized, by not only your family, but your friends who are based around those religious groups. More often than not, the worse a religious group is, the more your life will be centered around it, such as in cults.

So I've shown my personal opinion about organized religion in three different points; firstly, that of major conflicts, secondly, that of persecution and secularism, and lastly, that of how religious groups are harmful to individuals within the religion.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
The UN opposing organized religion.

OK.

The first absolutely safe, totally uncontroversial argument I can make for why it's a terrible idea is that any sort of actual opposition would cause all sorts of backlash. Heavy opposition would undoubtedly cause holy war.
 

eschemat

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
241
The UN should.

I tried to word the resolution in a way that it's both international, but it's not actually taking action yet, it's just the principle of opposing it because it's bad. If you guys would rather debate it as in actual action would happen, that's fine too, just tell me.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
The UN opposing organized religion.

OK.

The first absolutely safe, totally uncontroversial argument I can make for why it's a terrible idea is that any sort of actual opposition would cause all sorts of backlash. Heavy opposition would undoubtedly cause holy war.
How does this fit with your "US should police the world" stance?

One of the reasons I disagreed in that thread was that the US policing the world has led to heavy backlash.
 

Alacion

Sunny skies
Premium
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
8,061
Location
Vancouver, BC
NNID
Alacion
3DS FC
0216-0918-5299
Would the UN actually be able to do anything? Certain members of the UN security council may have the power (ie. the members of France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, and China) to do something but they themselves may be religious but those five representatives have the power to veto also.

If any action was taken, would there be any fruitful result? Many religious people are so deep rooted in their faith that letting go may be next to impossible. Congregation would be done anyway. They could rebel leading to a great backlash.
 

eschemat

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
241
Didn't you read my post? The intention of this debate was to talk about the principle behind it, as in whether or not organized religion should be eliminated because it's bad.

Anyways, taking that kind of stance won't incite any harm, and it's just giving a stance, similar to how the Pope says that abortion is wrong. It's what your belief system is.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Hold on, are we debating whether religion is bad or not, or are we just assuming it's bad and debating over whether to abolish it based on that reason?
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
eschemat:

I think the title of the thread is misleading. When I read it, I had thought: "The UN is thinking of passing a non-binding resolution stating its opposition to organized religion. What do we think about that?"

I also want to you to clarify something that probably a lot of people are thinking: There's a big difference between "opposing" something, and actually wanting it to be illegal.

I "oppose" organized religion as well. I agree with all your reasons for why. But I would never support a movement to make churches illegal. To the contrary, if today Catholicism were made illegal in the US, and there were a protest tomorrow, you would find me in it. In America, we value freedom over short term harm or benefits.

So I want you to clarify what "oppose" means to you. Whether you're proposing that organized be made illegal? Or merely that it does more harm than good. I suspect that you're talking about the second. In which case, the thread should have a title more along the lines of "Is organized religion a force for good in the world"
 

eschemat

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
241
I'm talking about the latter, so I'm sorry everyone. I hope this doesn't kill the discussion that could have happened. How do I edit the title?
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
How does this fit with your "US should police the world" stance?

One of the reasons I disagreed in that thread was that the US policing the world has led to heavy backlash.
There might be backlash to US policing. If we do it like we did in Libya, with lots of good reasons and a lot of countries backing us up- not so much. But taking a stance against organized religion? You're offending probably 70% of the world or whatever. The US would probably withdraw from the UN. It causes so many problems- and for what? I certainly don't agree that religion is inherently bad or worthy of censure. I guess arguing that isn't the point of the thread though, so I'll stick to why (given that religion is bad) the UN still shouldn't oppose it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom