Are there any positive qualities of religion as it's "done" in the United Statees? I understand that people see things such as commitment to charity or support of community as characteristics of religion as practiced in the U.S.; but I haven't seen anything to make me think that those wouldn't exist or occur in the absence of religion. Is there anything that religion in America brings us that 1) is good, and 2) arguably wouldn't be there without religion in the U.S.?
I think you’re too quick to discount the role religion plays in creating things like community and and especially charity we are generally selfish and self obsessed especially now that we need less and less human interaction to live our daily lives heck, I don’t even have to go shopping anymore, just get everything delivered
Except among all the people I have ever known in my life, I've seen more community activism, volunteering, etc. among folks who were/are not religious than among folks who were/are religious. That doesn't prove anything, of course -- but neither does someone's simple suggestion to the contrary. If you want to argue that religion in the U.S. results in more caring about the community and each other than there would be without it, there needs to be something substantive to back that up.
I stumbled across this. It seemed relevant. https://sojo.net/magazine/july-2022/what-happens-when-white-identity-comes-christian-faith
Trying to explain human behavior excluding religion is like trying to study fish and excluding water Some form of religion has always accompanied humans
setting aside the people who you know, as too small a sample society as a whole is so steeped in (for lack of a better word) religiosity as to be inseparable our very ideas of good and evil, charity, norms of behavior are to some degrees based on or influenced by religion so if you’re trying to find out if some ‘good’ (or ‘bad’ for that matter) behaviors could exist outside of religion, or independently of religion, I don’t think it possible to find out we do not have a control group large enough and for long enough to know
So here, it sounds like you're not giving some unique benefit of religion, but rather saying that the question is unanswerable? The problem is that I didn't ask "what if there was no religion?" I asked for the unique benefits of religion as it is practiced in the United States. I think it's fair to say that there are and have been plenty of alternative examples to the role religion plays in American society. Those examples need not involve atheism at all.
The benefit of being religious is when you are on your deathbed you assume you're going to a place where the weather is favorable....I guess!
Actually no. Religion is the conduit for them but it is not the determiner of them. How a culture understands nature and society is what determines their values, which are typically channeled through their religion. This helps to explain why, when a culture's understanding of the natural world changes, so does its understanding of right and wrong. But because it is often channeled through religion, the change is delayed, given religion is a naturally conservative force. It also helps explain why there is so much variation society to society. Once Western society learned how procreation works, and that women are more than equal contributors, women started to gain equal rights. Once Western society began to learn how sexual orientation works, LGBT started to gain equal rights. Once Darwin's theory of natural selection as the driving force in evolution became more broadly accepted, racism and other societal prejudices started to diminish.
are you a religious person? If not, are you allowed to talk about religion? has there ever been a society that had a concept of good and evil without religion? It’s so much more than a conduit, is the source of it
No, it is not the source of it. The values and morals associated with different religions don't just magically appear, they are determined by how the society understands the natural and social worlds. In other words, their values and morals derive from their worldview which is channeled through their religion. Different understanding of the origins of males and females leads to different values. For example, the Hebrews believed men were created first and women were created to be a "helpmate" to males. In other words, males have priority over females. The Hebrew values and morals are based in part on that worldview assumption. They believed they were given "dominion" over animals, to use as they saw fit - illustrated by God killing animals to make clothes for Adam and Eve to replace the plant-based clothing they made. The Hebrew values and morals are based in part on that worldview assumption. They believed in the agrarian view of procreation, that a man placed his seed in the woman who caused it to grow - but the important part, the seed, came from the man. Hebrew values and morals are based in part on that worldview assumption. The believed that animals were divided into different taxonomic realms, each of which was based on specific characteristics. The animals in the categories that held to those characteristics were "clean", while those that mixed characteristics were "unclean". Purity and pollution (clean and unclean) were important to the Hebrews. Hebrew values and morals are based in part on that worldview assumption. This is why the Hebrews only defined adultery based on the marital status of the woman, not the man; why the Hebrews did not condemn lesbianism but condemned male homosexuality as a purity violation (to'evah), not as sexual immorality (zimmah); why the Hebrews demanded if a virgin was raped she must marry her rapist; why lobsters are not kosher, etc. The lists of dos and don'ts in the Hebrew law are not random; they conform to the Hebrew understanding of nature and society. Contrast their views with Māori, for one example, who believed a woman was the first human created and then she gave birth to the rest of humanity. Logically, women were held in much higher regard, not subservient to men. They believed that they share a common genealogy/ancestry with other created elements (animals, trees, mountains, rocks, etc). Instead of seeing nature as there for exploitation, the practiced kaitiakitanga, they were guardians and protectors of nature, employing tapu and rahui to maintain balance. They did not define ancestry through patrilineal means, as is common in societies with an agrarian view of procreation, and therefore did not require women to be virgins at marriage, but instead viewed sex as a natural part of life. Religion is a conduit of values, it does not create them.
Think about it this way, the belief that pedophilia is a great evil and highly immoral does not come from the Bible. Not only is the Bible completely silent on pedophilia, it also never condemns rape. There is a good explanation for why - children were considered the property of their father and girls were typically married off when they went through puberty. Of course, if they weren't a virgin when married off, they would be murdered - a religious value we completely reject today. Instead, modern Western society believes each individual has inherent rights, even children. As such, we do not view them as property and do not demand, under penalty of death, that 13 year old girls be virgins when we marry them off, as was the biblical norm. The values and morals did not come from the Bible, but our understanding of how the world works, which is highly based on scientific understandings now. You'll note that it was after the scientific revolution started that the modern values really developed.
C'mon @Sounders78...you should know by now that cherry picking parts of the bible one supports clearly explains all!
I would say the LDS church's socialist/welfare programs are positive for their members. Of course, that comes with a catch that is not positive, particularly given their historical overt hostility to LGBT people and blacks. Otherwise, it's hard to identify positive qualities in American-style religion that is distinct from other places. Basically, most of it has passed its "use-by" date.
When I was on the religious right, I quickly turned against Packwood, which actually allied me with the feminists.
It's a bit different than what I think the OP is getting at, but the nature of religion and religious practice has been unique. I refer specifically to the Great Awakenings (1730s and 40s, 1795 to 1835, two others), periods of religious changes within American society that some historians argue had a significant impact on the American Revolution. Unique: no other society of the time would have allowed the sort of widespread and varied religious ideas, or - arguably - learned from the experience and shaped the free exchange of ideas and information. There are some great books about the period.