Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H

Religion acts like a political entity and is a political entity



If religion is about some kind of idolatry or addiction to religious ideas, a spiritual fantasy, then what stops it falling apart in a free-for-all?  When there is no reality check you don't know what tomorrow will bring.  So religion handles this by causing an addiction - perhaps a mild one at times.  And it handles it by being parasitic on politics.  Believers need some kind of validation from politicians and then if the religion is powerful enough the politicians will need some degree of validation from religion. The religion does good works to get the political validation and clout. That is nothing to celebrate for politics is rarely decent and honest. That is why praising the social work of a religion involves the risk of validation and strengthening a political-religious arrangement. Religion gets its power to persist largely from the corrupt and vile political world. If religion is good this is certainly not good.  No matter what religion is, we cannot become part of the support mechanism.


Where you have anything at all you have politics in some form or another.  Where there is no religion there will be politics. So religion then to remain in power and to stay in existence must have some supportive relationship with politics and/or politicians.  Religion needs politics but politics does not need religion as much!  Being a person of religion means  having some sort of relationship with politics.


Religion is a huge ideology for it tends to persist and specific forms will not go away. This causes a marriage with politicians in some way for they want to use this persistence, this refusal to disband and let the religion die, for their own ends.  It is good sense - if a system of belief that forms a community is going to be around then form enough ties with it so that you can travel with it and use it.




Christianity bears the marks of politics, takes account of it and fitting in with it and is the creation of politics (Catholicism is created by the Roman Empire) which is why as Martin Dillon's book God and the Gun tells us its clerics to terrifying degree are pro-violence. Politics is inherently about fear. Fear is the Politician and the political party’s fundamental emotion. Fear gives birth to and accelerates other negative feelings such as envy, jealousy, greed, anger and disgust. For example you fear Person X. Then this leads to you being angry with how you fear Person X. Anger tends to run away with itself so soon you get angry at Person X and everybody who is nice to X.

If religion keeps away from politics it will not last and it would be suicidal. Religion has to wed politics and that is what makes it dangerous.  You cannot separate religion from politics for religious people are political and they are political with the religion’s endorsement or tacit permission.  Such endorsement or permission is itself political.


What does a religion do?  Maybe that is too narrow.  It is more important to ask what kind of ideology it represents.  An ideology is an idea or set of ideas that people act like they are addicted to.  How can you tell when something is ideology?  The hatred you get when you challenge it, and how its followers don't tell you the full story, and how they try to silence you (one way to do that is to put what they say beyond the realm of testing) and how they treat complicated matters as if they were simple (eg abortion is reduced to "The unborn person has a right to life" which ignores the countless different circumstances that make abortion a morally neutral or a wise decision).  We know people would die for the stupidest and most dangerous ideologies.  Ideology has risks so is it worth having religious ideologies?  No - for surely there are enough of ideologies that are not religious!


A serious and organised religion will:


- Filter information and lie and tell-half truths and thus manipulate the people just as politicians do and they are no example for the politicians they breed


- end up with leaders to speak for it who will be sought after by politicians and monarchs.  They will be recognised leaders even by non-believers. Thus they get influence in the nation


- Help people feel enough and sense enough that their lives are valuable to them and others and God and if it seems to deter suicide that is of grave importance to the state for it is the citizens who are being protected


-Be organised in such a way that it gets political attention and intervenes directly or indirectly or both in politics


-Keep up charities and hospitals and schools etc


- Not respect the separation of Church and state.  The law of the land may consider religion's views of ethics and what the law should do.  Some religious policy makers hide the fact that their religion is influencing them.  Religion always comments on politics despite telling politicians to keep its  nose out of its business


- Strongly assert and support its idea of family life


- Puts social responsibilities on people and gets them ostracised or pressured if they will not comply.  Social pressure leads to political pressure and is indeed a part of it.


- Controls social customs such as no work on a Sunday and rites of passage and even how women dress


Here are our concerns:


Many people worry about organised religion full stop for being organised means it has power and the state even if secular will take notice.  If the religion is man-made then it has no right to the power for it takes it on the basis that it is the truth and the truth is good for us.


If you dislike organised religion then organised state religion is a bigger headache for you.  A state religion carries the marks of being a political power.  In England not too long ago being baptised Anglican gave you special rights while "dissenters" were persecuted and downgraded.  A state religion that is one no longer still carries the marks of a political force and seeks to hold on to whatever power it has.  Catholicism and Protestantism tend to manifest as state Churches. 


Religion might call itself the family of God or the kingdom of God or something else ethereal but it lives and functions like a society and societies impact on society which involves politics. Religion is a social entity and cannot avoid doing something to politics. It cannot live in a non-political vacuum.
Politics is doubtlessly the root of all evil. The root never looks that bad until the poisonous plant appears.
Even when politicians do good, there is a catch. People can kill each other over who owns a country that is little more than rocks and shrubs. Religion if it is a form of politics is therefore bad and dangerous as well. But it is worse in the sense that politics is a necessary evil but religious politics is not.
Religion often denies it gets involved in politics. Then the next thing it tries to use faith and religion as an excuse for urging you to vote a certain way. Catholicism says you cannot vote for pro-abortion candidates.
Religion plays the ethics card when it wants the state to sanction its idea of morality.
Religion expects its politician members to bring their faith into the government chambers.


Politics and religion both lie the absence of war is peace


Politics inherently is the lie that the absence of war is peace. It takes advantage of the people and the people cannot see that peace is deeper than that!


Christianity will see war as the absence of peace in the light of the doctrine that God is so good that evil is not real but is just good in the wrong place and time.  Evil is just good that lacks something.  Evil is the absence of good.  Health is not just the absence of sickness.  What use is having no sickness?  You want to feel wonderful as well!  Health is both the lack of sickness and on the positive side, a sense of wellbeing.  Peace is more than just a condition of non-violence or the absence of war. It is more than just not being at war. Seeing peace that way means that even when violence happens it is only a symptom of an illness that is there. It is not the problem but the sign of the problem.  This prevents diagnosis and softens the opposition to war that it deserves.  Its subtle permission.  Its lacking hope of real peace.  That sense of war being inevitable is too negative and hinders real peacemaking and conditions society and the next thing predictably it ends up at war.  It prevents proper healing in the aftermath of war.  We see now why any peaceful believers in God must be held to blame in some way for bloodshed.  They add to the problem and denying makes them a thousand times more culpable.

Religion is often indirectly political.
Religion that is directly political will also be indirectly political.  Religion that is is not directly political will be indirectly political.


You never know if a faith is good or bad/dangerous until you see how its members use the vote. People who claim to profess love and kindness and helping the poor would still vote in a vile person as the president of their country. It is as if they show their real colours at the ballot box and people like to back up evil people in the hope that they will do the evil for them. They want to feel good and smug while happy that the evil president they brought in hurts others.


In a free country a person who enters or stays in a religion that has violent scriptures and tends to produce too many religious terrorists cannot ask for the same rights as a person who keeps out of organisations that have any respect for violence.  It is not fair to ask people to believe that you are totally anti-violence.  You would not be in a bad religion or potentially bad one unless you are in some way pro-violence.


Decency, not to mention Christianity, says you must not look for praise for any good you do but as far as possible try to keep it secret. If individuals should not then neither should the religion as a whole for it is a collection of individuals. Thus the religion has no right to use the good deeds and sufferings of its martyrs or anyone to get praise even in the sense, “They are not all bad.” That is abusing the good done to get social leverage, and consequently political leverage, and to silence those who say that there is enough problematic with religion to justify dismantiling it.

Double standard
Religion cannot exist unless some people, usually men, are regarded as authorised by some kind of God to speak and decree for him. To blame politics for bad things and for violence and exempt religion is unfair for both involve respect and a framework of authority. Politics is about human authority too. Why would you condemn politicians and exempt religion? That is refusing to admit that religious leaders and thus religion can be dangerous just because they are religious. It is not fair to pick on politicians and leave religionists out.

A malignant and scheming political entity and a malignant and scheming religious one have one big difference. One does not necessary have to feel inspired by a supernatural force that knows better than man and the other does. No matter how much harm politics does, there is more potential harm with a religion doing similar evil. And there is no way to reason with a person who feels God is calling him to kill for some mysterious purpose. There is nothing you can do to prove the person wrong.
Is religion a form of politics? What has it got in common with politics?
#Religion like politics likes to have its charmers who lie and distort and still manage to get prestige and the vote of confidence from the general public.
#Religion like politics uses rationalisation and propaganda to get its own way. An example of religion's hypocrisy follows and its a good example for the political world engages in similar duplicity.
When a film or cartoon insults Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, there will certainly be trouble and violence from vengeful Muslims. The Church has condemned such films and cartoons. Of course the antics of the Muslims is not condemned at all. If you wait for the Church to say that the cartoon and films did not force Muslims to resort to violent protests you will wait forever. The hypocrisy is horrendous and is really just making the killing and rioting and violence implemented by the Muslims look more respectable than what it is. Such hypocrisy desensitises Christians to carrying out religious based violence.
Religion is about what may not be real. The state is about what is real. Therefore only religionists who will not colour their work with religious prejudices and unfounded suppositions should be eligible for political office. For example, you cannot appoint a dictator who is determined to enforce Catholic teaching on contraception. Ideally, religionists who are under suspicion of bringing superstition to their political careers should sign a statement that they will not do so and be fired or corrected should they contravene the agreement.
Christianity is very powerful as a political force. The hypocrisy of the members who do not take it seriously but who give it money and who support it publicly is its political impetus. Though its meant to be a religion, it is more politics than religion. A Catholic is made by a sprinkle of water. That is the religious equivalent of nationality. Eg if you are born in Italy you are Italian. Human personhood begins some time after conception so if your Italian parents were in Spain when the foetus became you then you are Spanish. Nationality like water baptism is just a label based on political divides. The Christian leaders engage in the same lies and manipulations as politicians do. The leaders treat other religions like other political parties. The supporter of same sex marriage or LGBT Rights is only betraying his or her cause by being listed as say a Catholic.
Politics treats nature as if it is running by itself without an input by God. For example, no political party agrees with putting gay people to death to please God. It acts as if God's wishes do not matter. It will not care to check if God wants that or not. And politics can spark off hatred and war and bitter dissension. It is doing that despite not being answerable to religion. It is dangerous despite the fact that it only considers non-supernatural things. Imagine how much worse it will be if that changes...
It is thought that just because say a Catholic believes in nonsense that does not mean he or she should be deprived of the civil right to join the government. The reasoning is that the Catholic politicians could still do an outstanding job. Now it is not that they could that matters but what they will do. The evidence must supply the answer. Do most do a good job despite believing nonsense? A case by case examination would be necessary for many who believe in nonsense get worse and soon become unemployable. It is necessary also because religion IS politics!
Public and Private and Religious Morality
The law is about public not private morality though through the mistakes and lies of powerful people it may intrude into the private sphere. For example, the law will not let you have sex in the street but its okay if you do it in private. An example of interference by the law is when consenting adults in the past were declared criminals for having gay sex in private. Anyway the law and morality are related. Religion gets its power by depending on morality in principle. In practice, it depends on its own version of morality - with some bizarre taboos. Most people gravitate towards a religion that they think is respectful towards and helpful towards public morality. The price they pay is to ignore the lies and hypocrisy. The state pays a similar price. It only endorses religion for it thinks it upholds public order and saves the state money. This is an odd assumption considering how anti-Catholic terrorists appear among the Protestants and anti-Protestant terrorists among the Catholics. The state has been fond of faiths that bluntly endorsed violence as opposed to enabling and facilitating the violent. Consider the power the Free Presbyterian Church had in Northern Ireland.


Does fear of God cause tyrant politics to save people by killing them?


There are stories that godless tyrants raged in anger against God before they died. But what if they felt they were better off killing people than letting them live under such a God? It does not matter if a tyrant is forced to permit evil and suffering or wills them positively. The tyrant is still a tyrant. So it is with God.

If religion were really thought to have supernatural rites and properties that made a good person a better person and put the God who overthrows injustice behind the person and which could reform bad people, politics and politicians would not be so keen to elevate it and even marry it to their policies and culture.  And the way religion expects this political honour shows it has no interest in being a force for real good.


In at least 70% of terrorism, the common denominator is Islam. That cannot be ignored. In the past, most terrorism was Christian. It will not do to blame man not religion. To say that it is man not religion is to say that religion is somehow superior to man and we must never let ourselves see if it is its fault. That religion demands such special and unfair and silly deference shows it is intrinsically manipulative. Those who say that religion is good and always good are ignoring the fact that a religion can be socio-political as well as religious. It can have “holy” politics. Nobody says that politics is good and that it is the people who implement politics who are the problem. To say that would be an excuse for supporting evil politicians on the basis that their evil is not reflective of "true" politics. While not all religions believe in governing a country, they do expect the state to take its values from them. For example, Catholicism makes no apology for trying to influence the nation to outlaw abortion even at a very early stage of pregnancy. That is an example of how the Church urges the state to make its own decisions about law but to do so in a way that reflects the values of the Church. It is similar to how a school might decide to teach religion to children. It makes its own choice but it has no choice when it comes to adhering to the Church’s regard for religious education.
The politician lets the people down and says he is sorry and makes mistakes and does wrong like anybody else does. He uses the fact that we all have faults to get away with what he has done. It often works! Religion has more "sins" than are necessary which helps it work for the members feel guilty and end up being taken for fools by people like the politician who may be feigning repentance!
Islam was heavily influenced by Christianity's violent politics, scriptures and doctrines so Christianity is as much to blame.


Religion has to go for it is more about politics than it wants you to think and the beast it rides is politics.   Fighting one legal battle after another with religion is too difficult and dangerous so it is better to strike at the sources: faith and lazy parenting.