The Religious Void

[John 6IX Breezy]

You posed the question whether a well defined religious structure diminishes religious behavior elsewhere. It seems not.

I agree with downbeatplumb that these individuals are uniting both structures into one. That wouldn't occur if my hypothesis was wrong; but it is a roundabout way of doing it that I didn't initially think about:

A well defined religious structure diminishes religious behavior elsewhere; otherwise the "elsewhere" must be incorporated into the religious structure to maintain consistency.

[Angrboda]

That's a big if.  It can be easy to see that (and specifically how) some forms of religion are, have been, or would inevitably be harmful.  Less so to insist that harm is a rule of religiousity.

Not that asserting that as a rule would settle any debates, ofc - we'd still have acceptable harm to contend with.

Which, even if I were to accept it, is a sword that cuts both ways.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I believe the unvoiced question was, does (harmless) institutionalized religiousness help divert energy from (harmful) religiousness outside religious institutions.

I agree that harm is a good addition to the question.

[The Grand Nudger]

Certainly, but when it comes to religion, are we talking about a maxim to reduce harm, or a sacred requirement to cause it?

[WinterHold]

No, leave people to do what they like where they want; except for behaviours that harm somebody.

eg: just like you allow people to wear bikini, allow people to wear Hijab.

eg: just like you allow people to drink, allow people not to drink.

Simple. But the moment you try to enforce your opinions and lifestyle; is the moment you lose the compass and turn into a tyrant.

[The Grand Nudger]

Except for behaviors that harm somebody is a pregnant caveat, don't you think? Particularly when a religious person insists that they must harm, or even must be allowed to harm. Ultimately, that a specific harm is right and must be done, no less.

With respect to the demands that religiosity (of any kind) makes on politics and others who have the misfortune to have been born in their vicinity, that's pretty much the only question. If people are compelled by their religion to lick their own doorknobs...that seems unwise, but have at it. If people are compelled by their religion to harm, we have a difficult problem. Difficult only in that free expression is a core item of western ideology. When they insist that their religion compels them to enact forced birth laws, compels them to deny children lifesaving medical care or harm and abuse them in any number of creative ways, when they engage in discriminatory hiring practices or predatory financial schemes.

...when they insist that they be made the law of the land............

I think that comes back to the question of the void. Some people might fill the void with whatever content would be required to reinforce their worldview in the absence of their ability to genuinely express it in what we might call traditional terms. Political religiosity takes this form. If it reduces religiosity in other areas it's probably only on account of it taking up a persons time, and vv, from the other direction or religious politics. The whole thing may be moot, ofc, since the two are generally aligned and sympathetic or literally identical. Your position on the chopping of hands for theft comes to mind as an example of pretty much everything above. Would that be a religiously political position, a politically religious position, or is there no meaningful difference?

In practice, the same thing happens here - a majority of religious people create a religious state, du jure or de facto - but in principle, it's something that we seek to avoid precisely because we recognize the great opportunity for harm that this sort of thing presents. Harm perpetrated by those actors - but also harm to those actors from our government.