Religion as a Means of Control

Borg Refinery · Jan 12, 2023

It strikes me that religion has primarily been used as a means of control and justification of imperial conquest in the past, just look at the crusades and the Catholic Church; the Crusaders ransacked Christian Constantinople for example.
I feel like anything can be used as a justification to impose your ideology on others, just look at the Tories over here using austerity as a way of justifying everything they do for now - saying that the opposition caused the 2008 financial crisis in UK by overspending - Tories are using that rationale to justify their programs from 2010-present. It's all used as a means of justification and nothing else by 'bad actors' [ to coin a US phrase]. If it's not a religion then it's a strong ideology or some cult of belief.

Anyway, my point is that none of this shows that religion is a bad thing, it just shows that people misuse it (actually I forgot that Stalin reintroduced the Russian Ortho Church in an attempt to unify the Russian people under a common ideology, but that doesn't mean that Orthodox Christianity is evil, but it's true that Stalin wasn't as militant an Atheist as I earlier suggested) (I think Hoxhaist Albania was a better example of militant Atheism).

It seems policymakers in the West are envisioning a world in which belief is strictly controlled just like it was in Medieval Europe, where belief in religion is strongly dissuaded (yes there are people out there who want to ban religion) and I see that as pretty dangerous; under coming social credit systems (and if you think that's not a threat, just imagine people like Trump in charge of such systems). We already have some semblance of ratings systems over here according to the Grauniad:

[..]
Nearly half of councils in England, Wales and Scotland have used or are using computer algorithms to help make decisions about benefit claims, who gets social housing and other issues, despite concerns about their reliability.

A Guardian freedom of information investigation has established that 100 out of 229 councils have used or are using automated decision-making programmes, many without consulting at all with the public on their use.

This is despite one council admitting that results from one algorithm showed it was only 26% accurate in some instances. The company behind it said it was because people often entered information wrongly.

Another council dropped an artificial intelligence tool to process new benefit claims, saying they were not satisfied with its reliability.

A range of private companies are selling machine-learning packages to local authorities that are under pressure to save money. The systems are being deployed to provide automated guidance on benefit claims, help decide who gets social housing, and allocate school places among a range of other uses.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/14/automating-poverty-algorithms-punish-poor
Concerns have been raised about the arbitrary nature of these programmes, which inform important decisions about people’s lives, and their scope for making mistakes. [..]

Imagine those same deeply flawed systems being used to make law enforcement decisions? Minority report style precrime stuff? It's already a reality to some extent in the USA & UK according to a documentary called Pre-Crime (The Indy):

[..] A new documentary that just screened at CPHDOX in Copenhagen, Pre-Crime, explores this controversial technique in law enforcement. The film captures an increasingly monitored world in which every step, action and transaction can, and often is, being monitored. “Why sit and drink cold coffee in a hot car when you can just track them on their phone?” one official says of modern-day surveillance.

The widespread monitoring doesn’t stop just at phones and location sharing apparently. The film even makes suggestions that in America they are in the stages of assembling a scoring system for individual citizens, such as the proposed Social Credit System in China or also literally the 2016 episode of Black Mirror, ‘Nosedive’.

Click to expand...

In Chicago, an algorithm has been created to predict its inhabitants’ potential involvement with violent crime, which creates a Strategic Subject List - known colloquially as the “heat list” - a comprehensive list of who it considers to be the most dangerous people in the city.

England is active in pre-crime too, with a predictive policing software known as PredPol being employed to predict areas where crimes may take place in order to deploy more officers to that area. Perhaps using data in order to identify crime hot spots and assign more police to those areas sounds like good, solid, preventative police work but, as the film explores, there are drawbacks.
[..]

Borg Refinery · Jan 12, 2023

(pt2)

Europe experienced a surge in government restrictions on religious activity over the last decade:

From national laws regulating religious dress to local laws banning public worship by Muslims, religious restrictions have in recent years become more common in Europe. Indeed, while the Middle East-North Africa region had the highest levels of religious restrictions in the world, Europe saw some of the biggest increases over the last decade in certain types of restrictions.

These findings come from a recent Pew Research Center report that analyzes restrictions on religion (by both governments and private individuals or social groups) from 2007 to 2017. The report measures various types of government restrictions and social hostilities across eight different categories on a scale from zero to 10.

In one of these categories – government limits on religious activity – Europe’s score doubled over a 10-year period. This was one of the largest increases in any of the five global regions analyzed. (An explanation of the methodology is available here.)

A number of factors contributed to Europe’s higher score in this category. To begin with, numerous European countries and cities have banned people from wearing religious symbols or religious clothing, either completely or in certain circumstances (such as at public service jobs or photographs for official documents). For example, France in 2011 outlawed full-face coverings, preventing Muslim women from being able to wear the burqa or niqab in public. And in Spain in 2010, several cities in Catalonia banned the burqa and niqab, as well as face-covering veils, in public buildings.

Other government actions also raised Europe’s score in this area. In 2012, several local councils in Moldova banned public Muslim worship. And in Germany, a court in Cologne classified circumcision as assault when not done for medical purposes. After protests from Jewish and Muslim groups, the federal government passed legislation allowing the practice for religious reasons.

Europe’s score also rose sharply in the category of government harassment of religious groups. In one year of our analysis, 2015, religious groups in 38 out of 45 European countries reported at least limited levels of harassment. Some of these incidents related to the increase in immigrants to Europe. For instance, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders campaigned against the growth of Muslim populations in the West, lamenting what he called “a tsunami of refugees from Islamic countries who threaten our women and our civilization.”

In addition to government actions, there also was a dramatic increase in Europe in some measures of social hostility to religion. Europe’s score in the category of social hostilities related to religious norms increased by a factor of four over a decade, exceeding the global average. The number of European countries reporting individual or group violence or threats of violence aimed at forcing people to adopt religious beliefs or practices different than their own rose from four to 15 (out of 45 European countries) over the decade studied.

Examples of this kind of harassment include a case in 2015 in Ukraine, where four Jehovah’s Witnesses were held at gunpoint, beaten and forced to confess Orthodox Christianity as the only true religion. In 2016 in the United Kingdom, a Sunni Muslim killed an Ahmadi Muslim for allegedly disrespecting the Prophet Muhammad. And in Germany, religious groups reportedly used the fear of deportation to encourage thousands of refugees to convert to Christianity. [..]

Related: 41 countries ban religion-related groups; Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baha’is among the most commonly targeted

One can only imagine the coming restrictions for Muslims and other non-Christians in Meloni's Quasi-Fascist Italy where Mussolini is openly praised for his supposed heroism; or in PiS Poland, or indeed Jansa's Slovenia, not to mention Orban's Hungary.

sear · Jan 12, 2023

Marx is often paraphrased as saying religion is the opiate of the people (the masses). Seems to me in Marx' case, sour grapes.

Borg Refinery said:
none of this shows that religion is a bad thing, it just shows that people misuse it

"The fact that somebody over-sells an idea doesn't make it a bad idea. It makes them a bad salesman." Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA ret)

Borg Refinery said:
I feel like anything can be used as a justification to impose your ideology on others, just look at the Tories over here using austerity as a way of justifying everything they do for now

There are similarities. I'd be meticulous about distinguishing commitment to the divine with political partisanship, despite the overlap you correctly cite.

Nearly half of councils in England, Wales and Scotland have used or are using computer algorithms to help make decisions about benefit claims, who gets social housing and other issues, despite concerns about their reliability.
A Guardian freedom of information investigation has established that 100 out of 229 councils have used or are using automated decision-making programmes, many without consulting at all with the public on their use.
This is despite one council admitting that results from one algorithm showed it was only 26% accurate in some instances.

There are numerous assumptions embedded here. I'd stiff-arm all that without precise clarification. For example:

"one algorithm showed it was only 26% accurate in some instances." #1

What is the criterion of accuracy? The non-computerized method? In this case computerization must surely be different. Not clear to me that it's worse.

Contrasting voluntary vs compulsory religion raises an interesting point. Excluding an ugly, sordid past, a necessity to make this suggestion, there may be some aspects of religion that are a net benefit. Obvious example, Catholic hospitals may have saved human lives.
This does NOT excuse pedophilia in Catholic boarding schools. Whether any particular religion, or religion in general has been a net benefit to humanity may on this date remain undetermined.

Borg Refinery · Jan 12, 2023

sear said:
Marx is often paraphrased as saying religion is the opiate of the people (the masses). Seems to me in Marx' case, sour grapes.

He had a point. But he also neglected to mention that some kind of utopian society or aiming for such can also be an opiate for the masses and can even be used to justify murdering millions.

"The fact that somebody over-sells an idea doesn't make it a bad idea. It makes them a bad salesman." Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA ret)

Overselling quotes can also do that..

There are similarities. I'd be meticulous about distinguishing commitment to the divine with political partisanship, despite the overlap you correctly cite.

Committment to Trumpism is a lot like a religion, same witht he church of DeSantis and they all pander to evangelical bases so..

There are numerous assumptions embedded here. I'd stiff-arm all that without precise clarification. For example:

"one algorithm showed it was only 26% accurate in some instances." #1

What is the criterion of accuracy? The non-computerized method? In this case computerization must surely be different. Not clear to me that it's worse.

The fact that 'one algorithim' is making bad decisions that have a direct impact of people's everyday lives (ie denying them housing) is pretty bad if it's only 26% accurate, I too would like more detail but I'm willing to accept it on its face given the poor tendering the Tories often engage in over here - it's often contracts to their corrupt mates for plenty of state dosh for an inferior product. Of course, not all councils are Tory-run, but I'm betting the ones that are have cosy deals..

Contrasting voluntary vs compulsory religion raises an interesting point. Excluding an ugly, sordid past, a necessity to make this suggestion, there may be some aspects of religion that are a net benefit. Obvious example, Catholic hospitals may have saved human lives.

That's probably the last thing I'd think of, Catholic schools? No to me it would be the nicer aspects of the religion, Catholic schools include beatings, rape, forced conversion etc, that's absolutely the last thing I'd cite as a good example of Christianity.

This does NOT excuse pedophilia in Catholic boarding schools. Whether any particular religion, or religion in general has been a net benefit to humanity may on this date remain undetermined.

Well exactly, so it's a poor example IMHO.

Borg Refinery · Jan 12, 2023

Surely the ongoing religious suppression in EWurope represents a grave threat? Other examples from UK include this from the other day:

This is the moment a Catholic woman who said she was silently praying outside a city abortion clinic was arrested. The suspect was held for allegedly breaching the council's 'buffer zone' that prevents protests from being carried out.

She was approached by several police officers outside the BPAS Robert Clinic in Kings Norton. Footage shows her standing on Station Road without a sign following a complaint made to West Midlands Police on December 6.

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, 45, a director of anti-abortion group March for Life UK, has been charged with four counts of failing to comply with a Public Space Protection Order and is due to appear in court next year. The city council order makes it illegal to engage in act of approval or disapproval, including prayer and protest, in an area around the clinic.

In footage captured on the street, a police officer is heard asking Ms Vaughan-Spruce: "What are you here for today?" She tells him she's "just standing here."

The officer responds: "Why here of all places? I know you don't live nearby." She replies: "But this is an abortion centre." The PC then says: "Ok, that's why you're stood here. Are you here as part of a protest? Are you praying?"

She denies carrying out a protest before adding: "I might be praying in my head, but not out loud." She is then searched by a female officer and arrested on suspicion of failing to comply with a public spaces protection order.

The order from Birmingham City Council states: "This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling. Interfering, or attempting to interfere, whether verbally or physically, with a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or member of staff.

"Intimidating or harassing, or attempting to intimidate or harass, a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or a member of staff. Recording or photographing a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or member of staff. Displaying any text or images relating directly or indirectly to the termination of pregnancy."

A West Midlands Police spokesperson said: "Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, aged 45, from Malvern, was arrested on 6 December and subsequently charged on 15 December with four counts of failing to comply with a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO).

"She was bailed to appear at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 2 February 2023. The PSPO creates a zone around a specific facility to protect women from harassment by any means if they are seeking a medical procedure or advice at an abortion clinic." [..]

Since when did silent praying equal intimidation of people exiting or entering the clinic? If she was shouting at them with placards that would be a completely different thing but silent prayer as a pretext to arrest someone? We're going insane in this country with the right to protest.

Yes I even defended the right of those people who believe tabasco cures COVID to protest and shout nonsense about how doctors were evil Nart-zis who are stealing their precious bodily fluids and selling them to Soros. The right to protest should be absolute - without it we have zero freedom; like I'm saying - this goes hand in hand with the reduction in religious liberty in this and other countries; it goes hand in hand with the concept of modelling citizen behaviours and forcing them to comply. You'll note I have cited no conspiracist nonsense to support my case but only clearly documented mainstream news sources.

IMHO, it's not a good path we're headed down, but others may disagree and think it's desirable to model behaviour based on the 'ideal' citizen; one who is free from religion, free from strange unproven beliefs etc. That quest worries me and I will oppose it even if it sometimes means defending those with whom I have nothing in common and who oppose my beliefs absolutely.

PS: I don't like or at all agree with the Catholic Church especially regarding past evils in the Americas.

sear · Jan 12, 2023

"{The fact that 'one algorithim' is making bad decisions that have a direct impact of people's everyday lives (ie denying them housing) is pretty bad if it's only 26% accurate, I too would like more detail but I'm willing to accept it on its face given the poor tendering the Tories often engage in over here" BR #4

This may be true. But I find no conspicuous methodology, just some cognitive shorthand.
It's a fundamental blunder to conflate the severity of the consequence with the legitimacy of the criticism.

"Committment to Trumpism is a lot like a religion" BR #4

Faith has been defined as belief without proof. "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - Thomas Aquinas BUT !!
In case of either religion, or political party, it can be without a legitimate minimum of logical justification.

BR #5
I've puzzled over China's politburo opposition to Falun Gong. There may be some legitimate reason I'm unaware of.

"I don't like or at all agree with the Catholic Church especially regarding past evils in the Americas." BR #5

The Unitarianism I've been exposed to didn't seem so bad. I'm not sure Roman Catholicism is as bad as ISIL. "The Devil's in the details".

Shiftless2 · Jan 12, 2023

Borg Refinery said:
... none of this shows that religion is a bad thing, it just shows that people misuse it ...

First an observation. I've asked on a number of boards (some of which are far right) for an example of something positive that requires religion. That is, something "good" that couldn't be accomplished by secular means. So far, no answer. The most anyone has been able to come up with is "it makes me feel good".

And then we see things like this

https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-study-shows-half-think-religion-does-more-harm-good

Looking at a few specific countries

Religion increasingly seen as doing more harm than good in Canada: Ipsos poll - National | Globalnews.ca

Just over half of Canadian respondents say they believe religion does more harm than good in the world, according to a new survey.

globalnews.ca

Ipsos global poll: Two in three Australians think religion does more harm than good in the world

A poll shows international opinion split on the influence of religion.

www.smh.com.au

More than half of British people think religion does more harm than good

The majority believe that being religious does not make you a better person

www.independent.co.uk

In these countries, most residents think religion does more harm than good

In these countries, the popular opinion is that religion DOES in fact do more harm than good.

www.marketwatch.com

sear · Jan 12, 2023

Shiftless2 said:
I've asked on a number of boards (some of which are far right) for an example of something positive that requires religion. That is, something "good" that couldn't be accomplished by secular means. So far, no answer. The most anyone has been able to come up with is "it makes me feel good".

It's a loaded question S2. Analysis:
I've asked for an example of something positive that requires religion.

There are things that may not "require" religion, that none the less religion provides. For obvious example, prospect at a funeral. - Funerals are not for the dead, they're for the living. -
Does every person that ever attended a funeral believe as a certitude the deceased is in Heaven? No. But knowing there are so many millions that resolutely believe it may provide some comfort to the bereaved, even if only a minuscule shred of a dose of mental analgesia. Perhaps more to the point, this myth may provide some comfort to those near death.

Is it a lie? We don't know for certain, but for this discussion let's go with "Yes!"
Is a placebo a lie? For purpose of this discussion let's go with "Yes."
Should we decry placebo with the same atheistic self-righteousness we decry eternal life?

I've asked for an example of something positive that requires religion.

Whether or not it's actually "required" is somewhat beside the point. Do we REQUIRE Chevy's to get to work? Not exactly. A Hyundai might do as well, and perhaps in more comfort. So it's possible religion has displaced some secular processes that might otherwise feature more prominently in modern society.

"it makes me feel good".

The list of Roman Catholicism's 7 Deadly Sins doesn't "make me feel good". Yet on the margins it may provide a few potential miscreants straddling the fence motive to avoid a tempting wrong. And if that deters some, even a small amount of harm, is it not a net benefit to humanity?

Religion: More Harm Than Good

What would similar polling reveal about beverage ethanol, or chocolate, or coeducational government schools?

Shiftless2 · Jan 12, 2023

sear said:
... For obvious example, prospect at a funeral. - Funerals are not for the dead, they're for the living. - Does every person that ever attended a funeral believe as a certitude the deceased is in Heaven? No. But knowing there are so many millions that resolutely believe it may provide some comfort to the bereaved, even if only a minuscule shred of a dose of mental analgesia. Perhaps more to the point, this myth may provide some comfort to those near death.

In other words, it makes them feel good.

sear · Jan 13, 2023

Shiftless2 said:
an example of something positive that requires religion. That is, something "good" that couldn't be accomplished by secular means.

I've never been to an Elks Club meeting. I've never been member at a tennis club.
Do they routinely sing there? Developed social skills may make some "feel good". I think there's more to it than that. It enhances if not improves, benefits society, even if it also makes some "feel good" along the way.
Tennis club membership is whatever the traffic will bear. Religion club membership is open to all, and payment is voluntary, though 10% tithe is recommended in some cases.

If your intended point is religion by and large makes people feel good in contrast to secularism, I wouldn't attempt to contradict you.
In any case I appreciate the insight. In all my adult life I don't recall having such a favorable outlook on religion. It is a lofty achievement.

- Trust those that seek the truth, distrust those that claim to have found it. - paraphrase of words attributed to the Buddha
- "I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief." Gerry Spence, Attorney at Law

Religion may close some minds. Yet it may open others.
Secularism may close some minds, including someone posting @CV. I'll go w/ M*A*S*H 4077 Dr. Charles Emerson Winchester III (David Ogden Stiers) "A closed mind is an empty mind."

You and I probably equally share the degree of disbelief in the familiar pseudo-omniscient guy in the sky poised to punish you whenever you go astray. BUT !! Just because they define god (WILDLY !!) improperly doesn't mean there aren't things we don't fully understand about how we got here.

"Evolution". It's a well known word. And anatomical similarities like matching bones between seemingly dissimilar species like walrus and human may be a clue.
Evolution like a mechanical joint like a knee may make sense. But an eye is not merely a focusing lens, but a photo sensor, an optic nerve, and a visual cortex to interpret the input and reconstitute 3D "reality" from the 2D images. Not easy to explain that evolutionary process.

Shiftless2 · Jan 13, 2023

The human eye is somewhat of a holy grail to creationists (and to intelligent designers). They claim that it's irreducibly complex so couldn't have come about "naturally" (i.e., via evolution).

But science disagrees.

Early Evolution of the Vertebrate Eye—Fossil Evidence - Evolution: Education and Outreach

Evidence of detailed brain morphology is illustrated and described for 400-million-year-old fossil skulls and braincases of early vertebrates (placoderm fishes). Their significance is summarized in the context of the historical development of knowledge of vertebrate anatomy, both before and...

evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com

sear · Mar 24, 2023

Shiftless2 said:
I've asked on a number of boards (some of which are far right) for an example of something positive that requires religion. That is, something "good" that couldn't be accomplished by secular means. So far, no answer. The most anyone has been able to come up with is "it makes me feel good".

I've dropped the ball on this S2, my apology. I occasionally stumble upon a useful example.
This AM, your example #486: https://citizenvoice.us/threads/photos-vids-etc.143/page-25

This "Holy Scripture" many of the book-banners may pay lip-service to. It exposes their hypocrisy. COULD this hypocrisy be exposed otherwise, without religion? Perhaps. But the practical reality, religion is accomplishing that in this case.

Shiftless2 · Mar 24, 2023

Are you suggesting that "religion proves that religion is bad" is the answer to my question?

sear · Mar 24, 2023

Shiftless2 said:
Are you suggesting that "religion proves that religion is bad" is the answer to my question?

Not that I'm aware of.
Truth is I'm having a difficult time aligning your #13 with the meanings at issue here.

First of all you may be presuming as a premise that "religion is bad". It's not clear to me we've established that yet. Certainly religion has been used for detriment. Also true, religion has been used for benefit.
So it's not a question of either or, but the ratio, or more simply, which is the net affect.

Perhaps you're suggesting that this use of the Holy Bible as defense against the book-banners is fighting fire with fire, for some book-banners may justify their censorial ambitions on scriptural misinterpretation.
If that was your intended meaning, thank you for making clear that you recognized the intended irony of my originally citing this example. As you know, using the opponent's own argument against him in debate is often a persuasive debate technique.