Is your religion peaceful?

[toasterwater]

I had a debate with a coworker today about the possibility of world peace. My basic hypothesis was that if the whole world were to unite as one nation, then essentially, there would be no need for war (the only exception for this would of course be a civil war). His argument was that there are too many religions (specifically speaking about those religions in the middle east) that are aggressive/defensive in nature. He basically said that there is no way that these religions could live together in the same nation peacefully (of course i rubutted with a comment on how there is a least a representative population of most religions in the united states... and they seem to be capable of living in harmony).

I believe that those who start wars based on religion must be perverting their religious contexts in a manner to suit their own desire for war. I would hope that most (if not all) religions are peace oriented in nature. So this is my question: what is your religion, and do you believe that it would be possible for people of your faith to live harmoniously with people of another faith? Of course, this is assuming that the other parties will be peaceful as well... its not expected that you live peacefully if you are attacked, but the main idea is that everyone be peaceful with one another, regardless of beliefs.

also, do you think that it would be possible that the entire world live as one peaceful nation?

[WanderingOak]

In the context that you gave, yes my religion is peaceful. As for your second question, I do not think the entire world can live together peacefully under one government. At times, I am surprised that the United States has survived for as long as it has. I think perhaps a more realistic model would be a global alliance of independant nations. A single global government would be extremely dificult to administrate and manage, and would more than likely result in global homoginization of regional and cultural differences into cold, grey, concrete.

[JHL]

In my experience, religion per se is irrelevant: its people that are the problem.

Although I am not observant of my religion I have met several people who are. Some have been the epitomy of kindness, generosity, wisdom, warmth and lovingness. Others, however, have been downright narrowminded, judgemental and condescending of those who are not as observant as they. I'm guessing you would find the same thing in any religion.

But what does that say about the religion itself? Nothing, of course.

The principle remains that people make of things are they will, not as things are.

World peace will ensure only when every person reaches peace within themselves and they have no inner conflict to project out onto the world.

Until then, things like religion, race, politial affiliation (and just about everything else) will continue to serve as constant reminders of the warring disparities within ourselves.

[Mnemosyne]

Religions aren't violent, people are violent.

Every religion I've ever learned about teaches of love and harmony. I've never seen one that teaches violence. Not even the middle-east religion your friend referenced.

What causes violence is people's interpretation of their religion, and their ego. The ego is that which pushes you to survive, and it doesn't always align itself with the altruistic values that religion teaches.

[Michael Chui]

This discussion (I wasn't involved in it) might be worth reading by those interested in this topic.

Warning: It's long, and may require a dictionary nearby.

the_sinistral: The measure of Iniquity in the name of Justice

[Nicketas]

Is it possible? Yes.

Is it practical, beneficial, and desirable? NO.

Example: America is a melting pot of almost every major world culture, and while we're arguably the best country on the planet to live in, we still have a lot of problems.

[Angela]

[QUOTE=Mnemosyne;22885]Every religion I've ever learned about teaches of love and harmony. I've never seen one that teaches violence.QUOTE]

You kiddin'???? God's law, as outlined in the christian bible, says you must kill your child if he talks back. You must stone a woman who commits adultery. I'm talking the law part, not the parables, which would not leave it open to interpretation. And how about the muslim directive to convert or kill? and to murder apostates? (this one was recently almost carried out in Afghanistan, remember?) I'm glad people ignore some of the crazier poop, but let's not kid ourselves: religion is a nasty business.

[Michael Chui]

To reply properly to the OP, I pull a quotation out of the dialogue I just linked.

Without commenting on the usefulness of considering the ideas raised by the world’s great religions, which I grant are often sources of utility and deep fascination, I have frankly never respected the concrete rules and laws laid out for mankind by these religions, because all of them cut off human curiosity in some integral capacity. A religion cannot function amongst curious people, because religions rely upon absolute truths while humanity has a penchant for discovering new “absolute” truths to replace the old ones with the passing of every generation. In order to keep pace with the times, the religion must be reformed, and in my estimation that removes a great deal of its right to claim a monopoly on the truth.

Take this, and then take another basic truth: dead men tell no tales. The strength, therefore, of traditional religions lies ultimately in their means to wage war in order to implement their disagreements lethally. Every major religion in the world today has shed blood. Most religions have a kernel of organizational identity: if this were changed, then our entire belief system is invalidated. Such statements, which can be as simple as "God exists", are rarely verifiable. But if they were verifiable, you are suddenly greeted with the need to fundamentally change your identity. This is a difficult enough task for an individual; it is nigh impossible for a religion. Thus, you either fight or die.

Neither option is acceptable. The conclusion I would draw from this is to deny religion altogether: never claim a monopoly on the truth.

To reply properly to the poll, which I really don't see how it relates to the OP or to the question in the thread title...

It depends on your definition of a nation.

Identity is a very, very troublesome topic. If we were to bring about some Pan-Galactic Civilization, people would still say, "I'm a farmer from Tatoonine." Is that one nation? I mean, let's say we did have an Empire or Republic: immediately, you divide space into sectors, sectors into star systems, star systems into planets, planets into nations, nations into states, states into counties, counties into cities, cities into neighborhoods, neighborhoods into streets, streets into housing complexes, complexes into rooms.

So what I have to assume is meant by "one nation" is "one government". Can we live on Earth where we are all answerable to the same government? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is no.

You will always have anti-governmental radicals, I believe. But I don't see these people as problems, because the benevolence of the government will necessarily minimize their numbers; at which point, their dissent because negligible.

World government is one of those things I want to happen. The United Nations is a great idea, but I cannot help but see major flaws in its structure. One of my favorite depictions of this possibility is the Shadow Saga, by Orson Scott Card, from Ender's Shadow to Shadow of the Giant (4 books).

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

Religions aren't violent, people are violent.

Every religion I've ever learned about teaches of love and harmony. I've never seen one that teaches violence. Not even the middle-east religion your friend referenced.

What causes violence is people's interpretation of their religion, and their ego. The ego is that which pushes you to survive, and it doesn't always align itself with the altruistic values that religion teaches.

I don't really approve of the website this is on, but I was searching for a list of punishments, and this one fit the bill pretty well. It's hard to deny explicit quotations from the Bible.

Ten Commandments

These aren't teachings of violence, no. They're commandments.

[Angela]

Goodness! Well said, Michael.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I don't really approve of the website this is on, but I was searching for a list of punishments, and this one fit the bill pretty well. It's hard to deny explicit quotations from the Bible.

Ten Commandments

These aren't teachings of violence, no. They're commandments.

Wow, these are actual direct quotes? This looks very much like a rigid system for the control of the masses to me. Breaking any of these commandments is punishable by death despite the fact that killing is explicitly forbidden by one of them. And of course leaving the religion is punishable by death in itself. People wonder where extremist Muslim groups came from, but Islam has Judeo-Christian roots and those extremists simply take these things very literally. I think the only way humanity will come together is when religion ceases to exist (at least in its current form). Religion as it is today only serves to distance us from one another, not bring us together.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Baltar

This looks very much like a rigid system for the control of the masses to me.

To be absolutely fair, most Christians today probably have no idea this stuff is in their Bible. They've taken all those wonderful little books and condensed them into about a paragraph that sums up their beliefs. Maybe two paragraphs. To take a gander at it...

"God exists. He made the world in seven days. The Israelites went into slavery in Egypt, but Moses brought them out by parting the Red Sea. Then there were a couple kings. Later, Jesus, the Son of God, was born. Jesus talked about a lot good things, but because the Pharisees were haters, they got Judas to betray him, so he went and prayed in some garden, and then got nailed to the cross. He died, and then rose again in three days.

"All the important stuff comes after that. The sermons only cover that part, so the rest is irrelevant. Oh, and David had a bunch of songs earlier."

The irony is that the second sentence is only there because of the creationism debate, and the third only because they show that damn movie every Easter. No one actually reads the Pentateuch. Which is understandable. I tried once, and I barely managed to hold on through Leviticus and gave up when I hit Numbers.

[Mnemosyne]

So the Bible teaches killing your children over loving your neighbors? Is that what Christianity is about?

Seriously though, what are the major tennants of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Wicca? What is the ultimate goal?

Baltar's quote:
Religion as it is today only serves to distance us from one another, not bring us together.

Right, because people interpret their religion differently. Some interpret it very litterally, others very symbolically. As I'm starting to see in this thread, people become very defensive if you don't take their point of view about their religion.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

So the Bible teaches killing your children over loving your neighbors? Is that what Christianity is about?

No. I feel it's very important to make the distinction. The word "Christianity" is essentially meaningless, except in very broad strokes. You have to come to see Christians not as "members of Christianity", but as people who have a set of beliefs strongly aligned to that of their church, which is to say, a lot of other people.

The Bible does not explicitly teach a lot of what people claim it teaches. You have to realize that the vast majority of the Old Testament is a historical record, though not written by a historian in the modern sense. From memory, the only teachings to be found outside of dialogue are Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the epistles of Paul, James, and John. Maybe Jude; I don't feel like looking it up.

Noteworthy, for instance, is that the book of Esther does not contain the word God. What does that teach us? Don't speak the name of God while in exile? It doesn't teach anything.

The point is that people don't know what's in the Bible. People don't know enough paleontology, archaeology, or mythology to recognize the context of the historical settings in the Old Testament. People don't have any idea of church history, neither their own or in general.

But they believe that the Bible teaches good things, and that the Bible is true. It doesn't actually matter what's inside.

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

Seriously though, what are the major tennants of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Wicca? What is the ultimate goal?

I don't think a religion has an ultimate goal. I view religions as a set of rules for the way a society operates based on a mythological justification. I'm also too unfamiliar with the other religions to deliver an argument regarding them.

However,
Judaism draws from the same historical stories as Christianity. Another poster has provided a list of verses from the Qu'ran which sounds fairly deplorable (though we're promised a dissenting perspective on the same verses, so we'll see how that goes). Hinduism is rich with blood, though the blood itself is often a touch... symbolic. Buddhism and Taoism are decidedly peaceful, in comparison, but I can't claim to know enough about either to remark. Certainly both belief systems are central to a large number of martial arts, from the Shaolin to the samurai. And I know Wicca has roots in Celtic culture, which does involve blood sacrifice and such, but again, I'm ignorant.

I'm generally more lenient about non-Christian perspectives in America, because the overwhelming dominance of Christianity means that anyone choosing to not be a Christian is likely to have put enough thought into their religion that any random acts of insanity may be countered without reason. It's a probability thing.

Though, if you ask me, the absolute most hilarious product of Christianity has been Satanism, which is basically a carbon copy of Catholicism with a massive, massive dose of melodrama. Any Satanists reading are welcome to respond to that. Seriously, not even Catholics are that pretentious.

[Christian223]

It is so sad to say that most Christians dont read the bible, but thats so true, most Christian (i mean the more normal ones, not the cults or crazy sects around the world, wich teach to read not the bible but their own materials and texts wich teach very crazy stuff created by very crazy people...) are taught that you dont have to do anything because Jesus allways forgives you so thats why they do nothing, not even read what the bibles teaches, how can they do what their god likes if they dont even want to read what he likes or dislikes?, they are miss-guided actually...

Anyway, i read the bible often, and from what i have learned is that there are 2 main pacts between god and his choosen people, old and new testament as commonly known, the first one was very violent, they had to kill everyone around them to stay pure, if they got contaminated they where punished by god with wars, and many ugly things, then came the second pact, where we just dont have to do that anymore since god himself paid for all of the impurities of the world, we just have to forgive as he had forgiven us and have lots of patience trough love until the day we die, then he will judge us all in one day to see if we did what he asked to us, if not, then eternal torment awaits, if we did well, then eternal happyness with him.
No more violent acts are asked to us, they are forbidden, the bible says that we must not take revenge but leave judgment to Jesus so he will punish when the day comes, when he decides, not when we want it.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

So the Bible teaches killing your children over loving your neighbors? Is that what Christianity is about?

Maybe that's not what Christianity is about, but violence is a huge part of Christian teachings, as it is in most other religions. You had mentioned that you'd never seen violence as part of any religion.

Seriously though, what are the major tennants of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Wicca? What is the ultimate goal?

The ultimate goal of religion is to impart social order.

That's a pretty daunting task that's sometimes (of course there are exceptions) made easier for a small group of dominant individuals by declaring that there's a supernatural entity who has established a human heirarchy consisting of -- guess who? -- the dominant individuals (to whom advantages are usually funneled). Next, these d.i.'s make some rules, put together some documentation, hurt or kill dissenters, use psychological manipulation to help people fall in line, -- et voila! Social order.

[SteveG]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

As I'm starting to see in this thread, people become very defensive if you don't take their point of view about their religion.

Some people become very offensive, ie. they go on the attack, if you don't agree with their anti-religion viewpoints. I always respected other people's religious beliefs, no matter what religion they followed, even when I was an atheist.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by SteveG

I always respected other people's religious beliefs, no matter what religion they followed, even when I was an atheist.

Really? Do you respect the religious belief that calls for every young girl's clitoris to be sliced off? How about the religious belief that called for the murder of Salman Rushdie, do you respect that? Have you always respected the religious belief that mandates that the punishment for having doubts is being killed? I have no such respect.

[SteveG]

Originally Posted by Angela

Really? Do you respect the religious belief that calls for every young girl's clitoris to be sliced off? How about the religious belief that called for the murder of Salman Rushdie, do you respect that? Have you always respected the religious belief that mandates that the punishment for having doubts is being killed? I have no such respect.

Just because I respect someone's beliefs doesn't mean I agree with them or support what they believe in, nor does it stop me thinking that they're just plain wrong. I don't advocate any of the examples you've given, but then none of those are in the context of the discussion. Your post is a good example of someone that goes on the attack when they don't like something someone says.

[Cron]

One of the criteria I judge a religion and any given follower by is how they deal with people who will never become one of them.

[SteveG]

Originally Posted by Cron

One of the criteria I judge a religion and any given follower by is how they deal with people who will never become one of them.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Cron, that's a very good method of assessment.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by SteveG

Just because I respect someone's beliefs doesn't mean I agree with them or support what they believe in, nor does it stop me thinking that they're just plain wrong. I don't advocate any of the examples you've given, but then none of those are in the context of the discussion. Your post is a good example of someone that goes on the attack when they don't like something someone says.

I don't consider that I was attacking you. I was asking you an honest question: do you respect those particular religious beliefs; your first and subsequent posts let me know that yes, you do.

I don't understand what you mean by the word "respect." The dictionary defines respect as "esteem for or deference to" or "to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with." These definitions would lead me to believe that either you regard highly people whose beliefs advocate murder and maiming, or you refrain from intruding upon or interfering with people who advocate murder and maiming. Do you have a different understanding of what it means to be respectful? Again, this is an honest question for you.

If I sound adversarial in this matter it is because I certainly do not hold in high regard people who believe that their god requires clitoris's to be sliced off or for apostates to be murdered, and I most certainly would interfere and intrude upon anyone attempting to appease their gods in these ways, and I don't feel they should be "respected" and therefore tolerated by society. As Steve Pavlina put it in his article, Silent Approval, for problems (like violent dogma) to be solved, they must first be dragged "into the light of conscious awareness (kicking and screaming if necessary.)"

Additionally, you say that none of these examples are "in the context of this discussion," which I find offensive and inaccurate. Please note that the main query in this thread's opening post is:
"So this is my question: what is your religion, and do you believe that it would be possible for people of your faith to live harmoniously with people of another faith?" and that the examples I noted refer to my beliefs: that violence is an inherent part of much religious faith, and violence is an obstacle to people living harmoniously together.

[SteveG]

Originally Posted by Angela

I don't consider that I was attacking you. I was asking you an honest question: do you respect those particular religious beliefs; your first and subsequent posts let me know that yes, you do.

I'd like to now in what convoluted way you came to that conclusion when my post clearly states that I don't support the examples you gave.

Originally Posted by Angela

I don't understand what you mean by the word "respect." The dictionary defines respect as "esteem for or deference to" or "to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with." These definitions would lead me to believe that either you regard highly people whose beliefs advocate murder and maiming, or you refrain from intruding upon or interfering with people who advocate murder and maiming. Do you have a different understanding of what it means to be respectful? Again, this is an honest question for you.

You are making wildly exaggerated assumptions about me based on the use of a single word. I can see that you are one of those people that like to nit pick every single word someone uses to try and make a point in favour of your argument. Maybe I should look up every single word in a dictionary before saying anything to you. Better still, as every dictionary defines things slightly differently, perhaps I should only refer to the dictionary you use.

To me, you come across as argumentative. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. You are making a federal case out of nothing.

Let me try to put this in context as you are obviously having some difficulties. Muslims allegedly performed the 911 attacks. My neighbour is a Muslim. Based on that information, should I regard my neighbour as a terrorist? Of course not (unless he condones those acts). He doesn't believe in terrorism and abhors the acts performed by these extremists.

See, you are generalising everything, which is a dangerous thing to do. I didn't say I necessarily respect the beliefs of a religion as a whole. I respect the beliefs of an individual, insofar as those beliefs do not result in harm to others. Naturally, the examples you gave in your earlier post are harmful to others so I would not respect an individual that held those beliefs.

I have another friend who is a Buddhist, and I respect her beliefs as well. I don't agree with a lot of the beliefs she has in regards to her religion, but I still respect them. Of course, if those beliefs meant harm to others in any shape or form then I wouldn't respect them.

Is that clear enough for you? Do I need to provide a detailed list of exclusions when I make a statement? You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer, would you?

Originally Posted by Angela

If I sound adversarial in this matter it is because I certainly do not hold in high regard people who believe that their god requires clitoris's to be sliced off or for apostates to be murdered, and I most certainly would interfere and intrude upon anyone attempting to appease their gods in these ways, and I don't feel they should be "respected" and therefore tolerated by society. As Steve Pavlina put it in his article, Silent Approval, for problems (like violent dogma) to be solved, they must first be dragged "into the light of conscious awareness (kicking and screaming if necessary.)"

Absolutely. I agree with you on this. But don't pigeon hole everyone in the same group. It still comes down to the individual. Just because one person belonging to a particular religion commits atrocities it doesn't mean everyone else does or will.

Originally Posted by Angela

Additionally, you say that none of these examples are "in the context of this discussion," which I find offensive and inaccurate.

I'd like you to explain to me how my post was *offensive* and *inaccurate*.

Originally Posted by Angela

Please note that the main query in this thread's opening post is: "So this is my question: what is your religion, and do you believe that it would be possible for people of your faith to live harmoniously with people of another faith?" and that the examples I noted refer to my beliefs: that violence is an inherent part of much religious faith, and violence is an obstacle to people living harmoniously together.

Yes, but I was responding to another poster's post about how people become defensive. Topics can quite often have small threads of sub-topics.

I really don't understand your line of thinking. I made a simple comment about respecting an individual's beliefs (please re-read the above before ranting) and you just start making accusations that I support violent acts against others in the name of religion, which I definitely do *not*.

HTH.

Steve

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Baltar

Wow, these are actual direct quotes?

Indeed. I did a quick search on an online bible for confirmation. Here's but one of them:

Deuteronomy 17 (New International Version)

"2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you."

BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

[Adam]

Mod Voice: I'm closing this thread for a short time to let tempers cool off. It seems that some people are feeling like they are not being understood clearly, which leads to defensiveness. Before communications break down further, I would like everyone who has interest in this thread to take this time to evaluate what each other is trying to say, rather than concentrating on what you interpret the tone of their posts to be.

Nobody is in trouble... This is not an 'official' warning. I just feel like we could all use a short breather to let ourselves calm down and weigh each other's points before we come back for some healthy and constructive debate. Everybody is making good points, this is just a preventive measure to make certain that the good points aren't clouded by heat-of-the-moment replies.

[Christian223]

openeyes and Baltar, those are quotes from the law of the old testament, such law is obsolete because Jesus started another law, wich is superior, and different, where violence is not taught or supported, for more info start reading the new testament

2 Corinthians 12:10
That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

[Michael Chui]

The obvious response, Christian223, is Matthew 5:18...

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Also in the New Testament.

[Chado2423]

I know I'm out of place here, and there are already multiple detailed answers... but I think the better question would be: Are you at peace in your religion?If you are not at peace in your religion, then perhaps God is trying to tell you something. Just my personal opinion.

Religion is a hot topic... the problem isn't that there are too many religions... the problem is that people interpret their religion to their liking. The problem of any religious conflict, is not really a side effect of the religion itself, but rather often a problem of one's own soul and character (and uses the religion to justify the unjust acts.) We often act and then find something to justify the way we acted.

Originally Posted by openeyes

Indeed. I did a quick search on an online bible for confirmation. Here's but one of them:

Deuteronomy 17 (New International Version)

"2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you."

BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

This is the Old Law... the New Covenant presented by Jesus says "I have come so that ye may live and not die." In the New Testament Jesus often repeats "Ye have heard... but I say unto you..." It contextually would apply here through his example... he never killed any idol worshippers. He did overthrow tables at a temple, people selling merchandise in the hous of God was abhorrant to him... Think about that story next time your church tries to sell you something. Jesus wasn't saying that it was wrong to sell stuff... he was trying to make it clear that the Temple was meant to be a symbolic place of worship... In other words not the proper place and time, putting money before the True Father.

The new law states that ALL are welcome into heaven.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Chado2423

This is the Old Law... the New Covenant presented by Jesus says "I have come so that ye may live and not die."

...

The new law states that ALL are welcome into heaven.

Conveniently, I seem to have quoted a very nice verse in the post above, which reads, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Matthew 5:18.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Chado2423

The new law states that ALL are welcome into heaven.

Uh, actually, no it doesn't.

Christianity - well, pretty much any religion for that matter - states categorically that it is the only one true way. John 14:6: "Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (emphasis added) Everyone else will get sent south without an electric fan.

Doesn't sound too peaceful or inclusive to me.

Note for the purposes of full disclosure: I was really, REALLY involved in the Christian church for a while. Had my eyes cruelly and brutally opened by some of the astoundingly violent teachings in the Old Testament and some of the ways that some modern Christians use New Testament teachings to further their own financial, cultural and social aims.

I have yet to see any religion that doesn't ask their congregation to leave their brains at the door.