What reform recommendations would you suggest to enable major world religions help serve mankind better?

An end to the indoctrination of children would be a start.

That would probably be the end of religion. I cannot see how religion could sustain itself when it has not been seeded into the gullible mind of children. I am yet to see the first person that didn't grow up in a religious environment and turned to religion later in life.

You both have not answered the question gentlemen - you've only vented your perennial pent up misgivings about religion, with the weathered appeal to "indoctrination of children". Diatribes like that fail to look at issues objectively.

I applaud jagunlabi's topic here; of late the gentleman seems to be quite astute in posing well reasoned topics for discussions, and another thumbs up in the hope that he didn't mean to be cynical (and I don't think he was).

As far as I understand it, the topic is not calling for an end to religion - rather, what recommendations would help ensure that religion serves mankind better? A few come to mind:

(1) Freedom of Religious Expression
One of the things that people have failed to understand is that calumny against people's religious sensitivity will always breed disaffection in society. Usually persecution is minimally expressed towards those without any religious affiliations than are expressed towards those who are religious. Religion of any label is a passionate cultural phenomenon. Whether or not you are a theist, deist, atheist, or agnostic, choosing to respect other people's religious sensitivity will go a long way to cultivating peaceful co-existence among the various peoples of any society.

(2) Accountability of Religious Practices
People should have a right to believe what they want to - even if they want to believe in "no god" at all, or in the devil himself. I know this will make some of my Christian brethren pelt me with heavy rocks, but slow down. What I'm calling for is that people should be held acountable for their religious expressions in a world where the general consensus is towards peace, security, economic stability, and general welfare among the citizenry of the countries of the world. Religious ideas may differ; but one thing should be agreed upon - the sanctity of life should be first priority. This is why I would not concede to a religious affinity that that calls for the murder of innocent lives and disrespect for human dignity. Not only the murders, but this accountability of religious practices should include the notion of conmen in religious garb (this is not limited to just one religion - for those who are quick to point at pastors in the Christian faith). People should be held to some form of accountability for their actions without infringing on peoples' religious tenets and dictates.

(3) Social Developments Should Be Encouraged
I personally know of many religious organizations working together or individually to bring aid to war-torn zones, give medical expertise to the afflicted, and establish educational projects and programmes to better the lives of the less privileged. This kind of initiatives should be encouraged; and perhaps the time has come for religious institutions to be involved in sponsoring some of these projects as a way of giving back to the economies where they reap from.

These are just a few I could think of at the moment. Some of you reading this may have something beneficial to fill in the blanks below:

              _____________________________________________

              _____________________________________________

              _____________________________________________

              _____________________________________________

And as many as have and will recommend something in one way or the other, TY 

Religion is not a bane to society; the wrong use of religion is. God bless.

4get_me:

You both have not answered the questions gentlemen - you've only vented your perennial pent up misgivings about religion, with the weathered appeal to "indoctrination of children". Diatribes like that fail to look at issues objectively.

You are correct, I did not reply to the question directly, but only added some context to exu's reply. That doesn't mean that bringing young children upwithin a religious framework while closing them off from rational beliefs is a good thing. Young children do not have the means to distinguish between truth and falsehood and these questions should be left for them to answer at an age in which they posses the intellectual maturity to answer them.

Anyway, I cannot see what reforms to religions themselves would do to better mankind. Reforms or changes to the way practitioners of religions behave towards people of other religions or without religious beliefs would improve things drastically. Tolerance and acceptance of different opinions is key here. It's not because people believe that they possess the truth that they should behave accordingly to others that are not sharing that opinion.

@nferyn, I'm sorry for having been forward; and yes, you're correct about having only added some context to exu's reply.

However, I don't follow your meaning that children are brought up "within a religious framework while closing them off from rational beliefs". I don't think your assessment of religious training given to children is broad enough to be so generalized. Distinguishing between truth and falsehood is not merely a religious matter: even in the formative years of education at school, do they have the means to distinguish between historical truth and falsehood as taught to them in the classroom? In America, it has come to light that history books about America are being re-written so as to blur the real events in western history - and children don't possess the intellectual maturity to decipher the difference, do they? So, should we stop teaching American history altogether in schools? And you can apply this to just about any other subject.

"Tolerance and acceptance of different opinions is key here" - I could not agree more with you on that. On both sides of the fence, however, not many people (whether religious or non-religious) are tolerant: I've personally encountered atheistic young people who are as unbelievably bigoted as there are many religious young people. If we would all strive for this very needed ingredient of tolerance, things would indeed be improved drastically.

-I will definitely like to see the major religions stop demonizing other smaller religions to serve their own agenda of expansion.
-I will like to see a more profound cooperation between religion and science,instead of profound antagonism.
-I will like to see a black become a pope.

My suggestion wasn't brought about by a desire to suddenly end all religion.

There are a number of religions that do not accept children as full members- instead they focus on recruiting adults who should (in theory at least) understand the implications of a religious message.

Most children do not know how to ask the right questions when being taught religious beliefs.

Most parents (of a religious persuasion) do not know how to take into account the feelings of their children when it comes to religion.

The result of this is often confusion and subsequently conflict in later life.

@exu,

I somewhat understand where you're coming from. Yet again, it does not work like that in every facet of life experience. Whether religious or not, there are issues of youngsters that most non-religious parents don't have a clue how to address. What results from that is the same: confusion and subsequent conflict in later life. So, religious persuasions should not be perceived as often responsible for later conflicts in life.

Whether religious or not, there are issues of youngsters that most non-religious parents don't have a clue how to address.

I agree with you that irrespective of religion child-rearing can be a struggle.

But the second part of your statement on 'non-religious' parents baffles me.

Are you saying that these same issues are more easily dealt with by those of a religious persuasion?

If so, which issues are you speaking of?

@exu,

Sorry, I was thrown off the net for a few minutes. Lol.

First, what in your own view are the kinds of questions that children ask that result in confusion and subsequently conflict in later life?

Discussing issues that result in conflicts in later life is not simply a religious matter. It happens to non-religious people as well. As most children do not know how to ask the right questions when being taught religious beliefs, so in parenting in general: most children do not know how to ask the right questions about issues they are concerned about, nor are some parents of non-religious persuasions able to coherrently take into account the feelings of their children about these life issues. In a world where people want to blame every failure and conflict in later in on religiour persuasions, they fail to take into account that most conflicts in adults today have no religious connections but are based on individual development.

They can help by stop indoctrinating small children. If it is really God/gods intention for us to spread this religions, people would naturally gravitate to wards them.

If you look back you'll see that I already agree with you on this point:

Discussing issues that result in conflicts in later life is not simply a religious matter. It happens to non-religious people as well. As most children do not know how to ask the right questions when being taught religious beliefs, so in parenting in general: most children do not know how to ask the right questions about issues they are concerned about, nor are some parents of non-religious persuasions able to coherrently take into account the feelings of their children about these life issues. In a world where people want to blame every failure and conflict in later in on religiour persuasions, they fail to take into account that most conflicts in adults today have no religious connections but are based on individual development.

My issue is with your claim that there are problems that can solved by religious parents but not by those who are not members of a sect.

Nope, that was not my claim. Rather, the problems of life are not all just having to do with religion alone. Thus, to have earlier stated that:

exu:

Most parents (of a religious persuasion) do not know how to take into account the feelings of their children when it comes to religion. The result of this is often confusion and subsequently conflict in later life.

sounds to me like religion is to be blamed for these confusion and subsequent conflict later in life. My point is, these issues swing both ways for the religious as well as the non-religious. At the end of the day, it is a matter of how each person deals with the practical issues of life in the stages of development.

Less getting pissed off at insults (real or imagined) to your deity. If your deity is real enough, one would expect he/she/it, wouldn't need you to fight she/it/he's battles for it/he/she. More of selfelessness too, might not hurt.

-Women should play more prominent roles in world religions,and not peripherial ones that they've been playing till now.
-A woman pope this century?

@mlks

Clearly you've misread what I wrote.

Here's what I said:

Most parents (of a religious persuasion) do not know how to take into account the feelings of their children when it comes to religion. The result of this is often confusion and subsequently conflict in later life.

WHEN IT COMES TO RELIGION.

Of course there's the possibility that conflict that arises from religious uncertainty will cause problems in other areas of a persons life but I haven't (until now) mentioned that.

Anyways, back to the point.

My point was that people shouldn't be spoonfed religion at a young age. Rather, religious groups should focus their efforts on those who are truely searching for 'spiritual fulfilment'.

@exu,

Of course, I read the context of what you meant and didn't miss "when it comes to religion". I only applied the reasoning in the broader sense of life and experience instead of leaving it in the narrow context of the idea that people from religious backgrounds face conflicts and confusion later in life because their parents were unable to provide answers to some of their questions. It applies as well to some people from non-religious backgrounds.

exu:

My point was that people shouldn't be spoonfed religion at a young age. Rather, religious groups should focus their efforts on those who are truely searching for 'spiritual fulfilment'.

Wrong. That's the whole point and it's not surprising you stated it here because I knew it would come to that. If people should not be taught religion at a young age for whatever reasons, they should not be taught anything at all. The yardstick for measuring whether or not religious ideas be taught to children should be applied to other ideas taught them as well; otherwise children should be taught nothing at all until they are truly searching for any kind of fulfillment. It is when you begin to be specific in the broader context of morality or whatever informs your perspective that you begin to realise that what you're calling for does not really answer the questions being raised here. If children are to be taught anything at all, they should be taught religion as well.

If children are to be taught anything at all, they should be taught religion as well.

Fine. So we're in agreement; children should be taught to believe in the tenets of all the major world religions?
How many parents would feel comfortable with their children being taught to accept (and give credence to) Scientology?

I guess we should also ensure that ancient Greek and Roman mythology are given their due.

Obviously they are as relevant as being able to spell your own name or take care of your finances. Or even wipe your own bottom.

@exu,

You're stretching things needlessly. Let me remind you of what you're missing in my earlier reply:

It is when you begin to be specific in the broader context of morality or whatever informs your perspective that you begin to realise that what you're calling for does not really answer the questions being raised here.

Does this sound like what you're taking beyond its context? -

exu:

Fine. So we're in agreement; children should be taught to believe in the tenets of all the major world religions? How many parents would feel comfortable with their children being taught to accept (and give credence to) Scientology?

Nobody's supposing that children be taught to believe in the tenets of all the major religions, so don't be too driven to suppose what was not inferred. I've earlier offered that when you begin to be specific (for example, in the broader context of morality or whatever informs your perspective) that you'd understand how you've been taking things out of context. Scientology, Greek or Roman mythologies are not about wiping your own bottom, are they? So, why that far-fetched and childish connection?

Ask yourself if you really know what religion is, or you're only reacting to what you think religion is. In your view, you may decry religion in preference for something else, whatever that may be; but does that really answer the question of this topic right from the start where you stated:

exu:

An end to the indoctrination of children would be a start.

You wouldn't sound like that if you're actually seeking balance in understanding issues; because more often than not, people just react without giving a moment's thought to what really is at the core of an issue. Again, you don't need to make those unwarranted inferences.

Nobody's supposing that children be taught to believe in the tenets of all the major religions, so don't be too driven to suppose what was not inferred.

The heading of this thread was (and still is) Recommend Reforms To The World Religions. Therefore it's only right that we take into account all the major 'faiths'.

As for the question of morality, that isn't even an issue. No matter where you are there are laws enforced by the state. Contrary to what a lot of religious groups teach/imply, people who lack religious persuasion are not more likely to commit a crime. The sheer fact that even the most religious people cannot refrain from wrongdoing shows that.

@exu,

1) please when replying, pay close attention to contexts. Thank you.

2) I saw and have tried to maintain a balance in my replies to issues related to the topic.

3) Taking into account all major "faiths" does not mean that people "believe in the tenets of all the major world religions" (did you notice the emphasis in bold?).

4) discussions could be helped by making sound inference that are not based on imagined connections where they shouldn't be.

5) as for the issue of morality, you have your views. It would only be fair for you to have taken my offer to be specific and state "whatever informs your perspective" (I've said so how many times now?).

exu:

Contrary to what a lot or religious groups teach/imply, people who lack religious persuasion are not more likely to do wrong, or commit a crime.

Tell that to the communist leaders of China - they don't need religious persuasions to maltreat, imprison and persecute the Chinese citizens who have a religious persuasion or the other. Preach that as well to the non-religious Russian governments in the Chechnyan, Bosnian, Albanian and Kosovar experiences against Muslims and other religious citizens of their own.

What is happening in today's Russia and some parts of Europe among non-religious youths who proudly attack blacks or Asians in broad daylight, and the law enforcement agencies limply shrug it off?

"People who lack religious persuasion are not more likely to do wrong." Indeed - that's if you've been sitting indoors for that long as to not realise what's been happening in the real world.

Read this thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-2026.0.html

I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

@exu,

Where do you think I missed your point?

You're constantly making it sound like religious people are the bad and backward guys of society, to the extent that you predictably left a link I'd seen before. What you should understand is that Gregory Paul's study at best conveniently ignores important factors in his study, and only arbitrarily polarised to those that would confirm his hypothesis. I know - we used that trick in our undergraduate thesis/project and scored A's after embellishing them with "creditable sources".

I may not help your case much if that's what you really want to believe, especially because discussing Gregory Paul's individual 'research' is not my present interest. The point is that Gregory's unconfirmed study does not take away from what I said earlier, nor does it confirm your assertion that "people who lack religious persuasion are not more likely to do wrong." You can make statements like that especially when you ignore the cases of communist China, the Russian experience, and the racist tendencies among young Europeans who lay no claim to "God on their side" for their actions in contemporary times. I'm sorry to disappoint you this way, but if you're ignoring these conspicuous expressions of non-religious persuasions, then what's the basis for a balanced discussion on this topic?

You can make statements like that especially when you ignore the cases of communist China, the Russian experience, and the racist tendencies among young Europeans who lay no claim to "God on their side" for their actions in contemporary times

This is waaaay off topic but there are a number of groups in Europe, America and South Africa who profess faith in Jesus Christ whilst espousing idiotic/racist ideologies. How do you explain that? There are groups in Israel who link their anti-Arab stance with their Jewish faith. Likewise there are Muslims who use their religious dogma to justify the wrongs done by Islamic fundamentalists

p.s.
Gregory Paul is by no means the only person to conduct a credible study on the correlation between religion and social ills.

Do not spread what you cannot prove.

@exu,

Good. So now that you've calmed down to re-state your cliams, how have you proven that "People who lack religious persuasion are not more likely to do wrong" against the backdrop of what I posted?

You're making it sound like a lack of religious persuasion makes saints of racist or communists people; or that, non-religious people are less likely to do wrong because they do not have any religious persuasions. If that's what you believe, good for you. That in no way represents what is going on today in the real world.

I want religions to stop claiming to possess absolute truths that cannot be invalidated through human judgement.

Reforming a religion, at least christianity, would change its identity and then it wouldn't be the religion anymore. Maybe what we need is to follow the precepts laid down by the founders of these religions better and more closely.


Freedom to, or not to, believe in whatever God is important. People should not be forced into serving God.