Why religion should not vanish

[SteelCurtain]

Not always, in Ireland for instance the Catholic Church, more or less being the government unofficial education department even now the Church puts in far more cash than it receives from grants and revenue. I couldn't comment on other countries but there most of the cash originated from the Holy See's banking investments or Peter's Pence; the states input while not negligible (there are secular schools after all, just not that many) was far outmatched by what the Church was willing to offer.

I didn't ever say that this money that the Catholic church sucks in (in Ireland) would in total pay for education. That was my response to you saying that all the church asked in return for providing this was a "wink and a nod" or some such nonsense. It asks for a lot more. My point here was not the money. My point was that if there is a void like "our children need to be educated, and there is no more church to do it/pay for it, we'll find a way."

Then in the wake of the sex scandals where all of these children are thought to be at risk why does no-one else offer to take up the mantle?

The only reason the Catholic Church hasn't been booted out of the Irish education system is simply because it couldn't function without them.

Are you really saying that if the church wasn't there to sweep under the rug a terrible atrocity that they themselves created, who would?
And, for the record, there are many organizations that are there to help people, all in spite of the church.

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

And to your second point: if they had to, they would function without them. The trouble is, they don't have to. And part of the reason is that the church fosters that codependent relationship. To suggest that the church leave the business of educating our youth to educators would be to incite the wrath of the Church, and history has shown that to be a bloody venture.

They are always going to exist, but what we can do is either reduce their numbers or frighten them into submission which religion is often quite excellent at doing.

Again, some of them are, but then others often testify to the peace of mind faith and religion brings them; you may scoff at the notion of a comfort blanky but to some people it's the only thing that gets them through the day. That's a whole other point to explore.

So your answer to bad people is blanket fear for the masses? Stamping people into submission is a good thing? You don't see the license that this gives the religious authority? My point is that the damage that this blanket fear does (Sharia law, stifling discovery, genocide, condoms) FAR outweighs the small number of people who truly would go around raping people and stealing things without the fear of a sky daddy.

Indeed, I daresay this was considered ethical at the time. Give it another three hundred years and I'm sure we'll all be painted as immoral barbaric whores or something.

This is exactly my point. Morality is not in the slightest sense governed by religion. It is governed by society and culture, as is clearly evident by the constantly evolving ethical rubric that we see.

What would you say to the notion of a religion like Confucianism or Taoism where there is room for constant adaptation to make way for changes in ethics? As we learn new concepts, they can be easily taken up to upgrade the core belief. It's why the system has remained nigh on indestructible in China since it was first formulated.

It is also a system, as I said before, that is natural in society, without (and despite) religion.

It is, but I couldn't think of a better one really. All political or ethical philosophies are ideals, the world is not black and white and will not fit in with our pretty pre-prepared expectations. What we can do however is discourage as many as feasibly possible to do what is constructive for the society.

And what if what is most constructive for society is to marginalize religion?