UKMikey
Premium
- 17,763
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
I have no idea what you're talking about as I'm not a medical expert either but would appreciate some harder evidence that the two situations are equivalent. What you seem to be saying is that Islamic people are more predisposed to be violent. I'm saying the system of government in theocracies is at fault and we should direct our intentions towards that rather than the religion itself unless we can fundamentally determine that it's the root cause, otherwise we risk doing as much harm as good if not more.I think you're seeing it in the same way as like how HIV has to be present for AIDS to develop (i.e. all or nothing).
What I'm proposing is that religion is more like variants of the MAOA gene and its effects (in the MAOA case) on aggression, i.e. that it's more nuanced.
I'm not saying religion is perfectly fine, nor am I saying that people should be weaned off it. I'm saying that any attempt to do so by those outside the religion is almost certain to be taken as oppression and persecution and won't work. If one proposes such a solution then I think they should be both very sure of their facts and able to demonstrate them in a way that's very hard to dispute before they set about addressing how the people who follow that religion should practise it and expecting them to listen.Helping people to look critically at the bloody or immoral teachings of their holy book has and does help people escape from religion. But we can't do that if we pretend that religion is perfectly fine and it's just violent people who would be exactly the same (violent) if they were different (not religious) who give religion a bad name.
If people are so capable of violence as to set up a totalitarian society in order to provide the means of perpetrating that violence, then I'm not sure how taking religion away from them would change this.
Last edited: