Besides bringing us language, writing, reading, education, art, music, moral values, justice, civilization, democracy, freedom, and order what good has religion ever done for us?
What Good Has Religion Ever Done For Us?
- Thread starter Brutus1964
- Start date
You gonna specify a religion(s) or are you going to vouch for the benefits of all religions ?(dusts down list of aztec gods)
This post has emigrated from its former home to this topic, reflecting the post it was intended to respond to.
Morally justified murder?
Actually, I'm wondering if you can prove the connection. Defecating on oneself in infancy doesn't seem to do much good, either, but in the terms of your regard for religion, it brought us language, writing, reading, education, art, music, moral values, justice, civilizaiton, democracy, freedom, God, and religion.
So does that mean everybody should be crapping their pants?
• • •
Brutus1964 said:
Morally justified murder?
Actually, I'm wondering if you can prove the connection. Defecating on oneself in infancy doesn't seem to do much good, either, but in the terms of your regard for religion, it brought us language, writing, reading, education, art, music, moral values, justice, civilizaiton, democracy, freedom, God, and religion.
So does that mean everybody should be crapping their pants?
Prester John
This thread was created in a response to a statement by One Raven in the "Why Are Athiests So Obsessed With God" thread. He suggested this question deserved it's very own thread.
I would say the statement implies religion in general.
This thread was created in a response to a statement by One Raven in the "Why Are Athiests So Obsessed With God" thread. He suggested this question deserved it's very own thread.
I would say the statement implies religion in general.
I will start with your claims, then add "what else it has given us" later (such as Tiassa's reply "Morally justified Murder".
OK?
Being the the oldest known books all seem to be religious in nature, I will give you written language, not language itself, but language in a written form.
For the rest...
Education: It seems to me that more often than not, Religion has stood in the way of Education (unless, of course, you meant specifically religious education). During the dark ages it was against the law to read any book other then the Bible. People that would try to teach anything, regardless of the evidence supoporting it, that stood against what the Buble taught were excommunicated at best and put to death at worst. Why did Galileo spend his final years under house arrest?
Art: Religion gave us art? Art existed outside religion, as far as anyone can tell, from the beginning. Sure, some art was inspired by religion, just as some art was inspired by sex. Sex, however, nor religion gave us art. If anything the Vatican takes art away from us by hiding it's mounds of art masterpieces and hisory away from the rest of the world.
Music: Music is art, see above.
Moral values & Justice: LOL! What moral values and justice? Please be specific.
Civilization: Are you saying that civilizations did not and would not exist if religion didn't? I don't understand.
Democracy: WHAT!! Since when was ANY theistic religion democratic? It is the EXACT opposite. You'r gonna have to qualify that one too.
Freedom: Man was born free. Religion places restrictions upon that natural freedom.
OK?
Being the the oldest known books all seem to be religious in nature, I will give you written language, not language itself, but language in a written form.
For the rest...
Education: It seems to me that more often than not, Religion has stood in the way of Education (unless, of course, you meant specifically religious education). During the dark ages it was against the law to read any book other then the Bible. People that would try to teach anything, regardless of the evidence supoporting it, that stood against what the Buble taught were excommunicated at best and put to death at worst. Why did Galileo spend his final years under house arrest?
Art: Religion gave us art? Art existed outside religion, as far as anyone can tell, from the beginning. Sure, some art was inspired by religion, just as some art was inspired by sex. Sex, however, nor religion gave us art. If anything the Vatican takes art away from us by hiding it's mounds of art masterpieces and hisory away from the rest of the world.
Music: Music is art, see above.
Moral values & Justice: LOL! What moral values and justice? Please be specific.
Civilization: Are you saying that civilizations did not and would not exist if religion didn't? I don't understand.
Democracy: WHAT!! Since when was ANY theistic religion democratic? It is the EXACT opposite. You'r gonna have to qualify that one too.
Freedom: Man was born free. Religion places restrictions upon that natural freedom.
One Raven
From the dawn of time it was man's belief in deity that gave them a reason to cooperate with each other. By man having something they valued more than their own personal needs of survival is what brought civilization into existence. Written Language was originally a method of recording man's belief in God and keeping alive their traditions. Music, and art were developed initially as a way of praising God.
The Greeks from their religious traditions conceived democracy. Our own founding fathers based The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution from the Ten Commandments and other religious traditions. Our system of justice is based on the Ten Commandments. Churches created the concept of education. Government educating the masses is actually a relatively new concept.
Anything can be used for good and evil purposes. Religion is not immune. To throw out religion because some people choose to exploit it for their evil purposes is like throwing out your computer because some people use it for evil ends as well.
From the dawn of time it was man's belief in deity that gave them a reason to cooperate with each other. By man having something they valued more than their own personal needs of survival is what brought civilization into existence. Written Language was originally a method of recording man's belief in God and keeping alive their traditions. Music, and art were developed initially as a way of praising God.
The Greeks from their religious traditions conceived democracy. Our own founding fathers based The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution from the Ten Commandments and other religious traditions. Our system of justice is based on the Ten Commandments. Churches created the concept of education. Government educating the masses is actually a relatively new concept.
Anything can be used for good and evil purposes. Religion is not immune. To throw out religion because some people choose to exploit it for their evil purposes is like throwing out your computer because some people use it for evil ends as well.
Last edited:
This was initiated in a thread about why atheists seem pre-occupied with religion.Prester John said:
With that in mind. let's avoid the whole debate over whether Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism etc are religions and simply stick to thesistic belief systems in general.
Fair enough?
If that serves to be far too broad, perhaps we could narrow it down to the Abrahamic religions and Hinduism later.
BRUTUS, et al.
I think it is BS to narrow it down, although that would take less time probably. RAVEN has a good starting point.
Here are a couple of things Einstein said about religion, but please start a new thread, as I think one raven is correct in saying this should be a new topic. Go for it.
- "Being a lover of freedom...I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom, but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. Only the church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly." from a letter to an american bishop, Reported in The Evening News, Baltimore, April 13, 1979. (Einstein was there, saw it first hand, he would know, he was not just reading about it years later and making assumptions.)
- "Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." 1939 address to Princeton Theological Seminary, Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 46
Also, this is the link for those quotes, and an interesting read -
http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm
BRUTUS, You could look into Einstein. You could get a book about him. He's not unassailable, but is an inspiring person in every way. His type of intelligent design probably wouldn't fit yours very well, he seemed to think anthropomorphizing God was quite wrong, so I would recommend not going around claiming he supports your specific view. However, like I said he is very inspiring. You may know all this already, I'm just offering a suggestion. Also let me make another suggestion. Don't say "yea." It's 2005, man. Democracy might be good, depending on whether the pres starts the fuse on the "end-times" bomb. That much collateral damage is hard to justify...
I think it is BS to narrow it down, although that would take less time probably. RAVEN has a good starting point.
Here are a couple of things Einstein said about religion, but please start a new thread, as I think one raven is correct in saying this should be a new topic. Go for it.
- "Being a lover of freedom...I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom, but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. Only the church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly." from a letter to an american bishop, Reported in The Evening News, Baltimore, April 13, 1979. (Einstein was there, saw it first hand, he would know, he was not just reading about it years later and making assumptions.)
- "Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." 1939 address to Princeton Theological Seminary, Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 46
Also, this is the link for those quotes, and an interesting read -
http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm
BRUTUS, You could look into Einstein. You could get a book about him. He's not unassailable, but is an inspiring person in every way. His type of intelligent design probably wouldn't fit yours very well, he seemed to think anthropomorphizing God was quite wrong, so I would recommend not going around claiming he supports your specific view. However, like I said he is very inspiring. You may know all this already, I'm just offering a suggestion. Also let me make another suggestion. Don't say "yea." It's 2005, man. Democracy might be good, depending on whether the pres starts the fuse on the "end-times" bomb. That much collateral damage is hard to justify...
BRUTUS, et al.
I think it is BS to narrow it down beforehand, although that would take less time probably. RAVEN has a good starting place I think.
Here are a couple of things Einstein said about religion.
- "Being a lover of freedom...I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom, but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. Only the church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly." from a letter to an american bishop, Reported in The Evening News, Baltimore, April 13, 1979. (Einstein was there, saw it first hand, he would know, he was not just reading about it years later and making assumptions.)
- "Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." 1939 address to Princeton Theological Seminary, Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 46
Also, this is the link for those quotes, and an interesting read -
http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm
BRUTUS, You could look into Einstein. You could get a book about him. He's not unassailable, but is an inspiring person in every way. His type of intelligent design probably wouldn't fit yours very well, he seemed to think anthropomorphizing God was quite wrong, so I would recommend not going around claiming he supports your specific view. However, like I said he is very inspiring. You may know all this already, I'm just offering a suggestion. Also let me make another suggestion. Don't say "yea." It's 2005, man. Democracy might be good, depending on whether the pres starts the fuse on the "end-times" bomb. That much collateral damage is hard to justify...
I think it is BS to narrow it down beforehand, although that would take less time probably. RAVEN has a good starting place I think.
Here are a couple of things Einstein said about religion.
- "Being a lover of freedom...I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom, but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. Only the church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly." from a letter to an american bishop, Reported in The Evening News, Baltimore, April 13, 1979. (Einstein was there, saw it first hand, he would know, he was not just reading about it years later and making assumptions.)
- "Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." 1939 address to Princeton Theological Seminary, Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 46
Also, this is the link for those quotes, and an interesting read -
http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm
BRUTUS, You could look into Einstein. You could get a book about him. He's not unassailable, but is an inspiring person in every way. His type of intelligent design probably wouldn't fit yours very well, he seemed to think anthropomorphizing God was quite wrong, so I would recommend not going around claiming he supports your specific view. However, like I said he is very inspiring. You may know all this already, I'm just offering a suggestion. Also let me make another suggestion. Don't say "yea." It's 2005, man. Democracy might be good, depending on whether the pres starts the fuse on the "end-times" bomb. That much collateral damage is hard to justify...
Cole grey
I used the word "Yea" in the other thread to make the sentence sound more sarcastic. It probably wasn't needed to get the idea across which is why I did not repeat it in this thread. If you saw Monte Python’s Life of Brian, they have a very funny sketch that uses similar logic.
I used the word "Yea" in the other thread to make the sentence sound more sarcastic. It probably wasn't needed to get the idea across which is why I did not repeat it in this thread. If you saw Monte Python’s Life of Brian, they have a very funny sketch that uses similar logic.
Brutus1964 said:
A bit of an overstatement, isn't it?
Nonetheless, can you show any evidence that the benefits you list would not have developed without religion?
Once upon a time, people mowed their lawns with these nifty little gadgets that had a handle, two wheels, and generally-horizontal blades attached to a rolling drum. These days, we use two-stroke motors to spin blades horizontally from a central axis. The latter method, evolved from the former, is much more efficient in terms of human resources.
Religion, at its highest, has looked something like science-before-science. One might look to Neil Simon's Brighton Beach Memoirs. Why can't you marry your cousin? Because you get babies with nine heads. 'Tis true that Biblical standards speak against incest, but how God hates incest is its own question:
• As an anthropomorphized monotheistic assertion, condemnation of incest comes down to a matter of will.
• As a representative context, yes, disfigured babies are the result of incest according to the ways of the Universe.
• As a representative context, yes, disfigured babies are the result of incest according to the ways of the Universe.
Were "God" left at the latter, and the religion built around that, it would be a practical religion, something not found in the modern period.
Religion, in recent centuries, is art, and in its primal form it was merely art with authority. What religion gave us? There are better tools for acquiring those things. Yes, we are all made in God's image inasmuch as we have evolved as we have, and if nature demanded anything else, well, we would have evolved that way or else died off. But to cram God into a shoebox and make a religion out of it is exceptionally inefficient by modern standards, and flies in the face of knowledge acquired over the centuries.
Religion has brought reverence to phallocentrism; this is perhaps its greatest damage, as so many of humanity's ills stem from penis envy.
Religion is problematic because the religious make it more important than reality. And religions generally encourage this.
Look at the state of the Church of Baseball. The guilty are saying, "We didn't know it was steroids!" The righteous are laughing off that notion, and the baseball fans in general don't seem to care much. They've known. And they didn't care, despite continuing pronouncements that baseball represents so much about society that is good. All of those "American values" embodied in "the American pastime" are hollowed. The houses of the holy still stand beautifully in the summer sun, but all the hopes and good feelings drawn from baseball, like religion, are merely myth in lieu of reality. The best thing baseball has done for those values in recent times is accept the resignation of a bloc of corrupt umpires like Durwood Merrill and Richie Garcia. And yes, baseball got better--for a while--with them gone.
So you're saying that religion developed before family. Obviously untrue, so the first basis for cooperation would be family ties. Do say Wolves require religion to cooperate. No.
No, written language was first used for record keeping.
Not so, democacy was concieved/implemented in Athens c508BC by Cleisthenes. It was political not religous.
Sorry for the double post.
Brutus- sorry thought you were being serious, but I just noticed it isn't even yea on this thread anyway, so I have to take that back, mostly. Also, Einstein was not inspiring in every way, as I wrote, that was not right.
Our system of "justice", is very much NOT simply based on the ten commandments. I'm sure just about anyone else here will be glad to expound on that, but you will have to dig deep to prove that one. Hammurabi's code is the first written law I believe. Was it religious? Was it "justice"? Is it the way our system of injustice "works"?
RAVEN, art might be a tough one. I'm not sure but wouldn't Lasceaux cave painting be the first documented use of art? If there is archeological evidence of musical instruments from before then for example, that would be good for your statement. Or we could say that they were just copying the natural world, and the purpose some ascribe to the paintings is inappropriately given. Even so, is that art? I think so, but could one say that religion "gave" us representational art, or cognitive art? If so, what are the repercussions for the development of our adeptness with the higher thought processes?
IF religion gave us thoughtful art (speculation).
AND thoughtful art helped our mental development (speculation).
The hominid family may owe its survival to it (speculation).
Also, the evidence could be, kind of, refuted, by the statement, "but doesn't it seem like they would have been singing or something?" But that could just be wishful thinking. And birds sing, we don't call them artists.
Also, the idea that the church tried to put away certain types of art, although true, would not have any bearing on what religion may have "conceived." There would be a good case that the church promoted much more art than it condemned anyway.
EVERYONE, the beneficial things religion MAY have brought us could, of course be outweighed by the bad, but I think we should focus on the possible benefits first, as they will be hard enough to prove. I thought we were talking about what religion birthed, not what it propagated. If religion gave us the idea of compassion (speculation), for example, then the fact that the church has shown the ability to act uncompassionately wouldn't take the idea away from society.
This is a strange topic for me, because I think it is very hard to put a cause behind many things that may or may not be attributed to religion, other than humanity itself.
Brutus- sorry thought you were being serious, but I just noticed it isn't even yea on this thread anyway, so I have to take that back, mostly. Also, Einstein was not inspiring in every way, as I wrote, that was not right.
Our system of "justice", is very much NOT simply based on the ten commandments. I'm sure just about anyone else here will be glad to expound on that, but you will have to dig deep to prove that one. Hammurabi's code is the first written law I believe. Was it religious? Was it "justice"? Is it the way our system of injustice "works"?
RAVEN, art might be a tough one. I'm not sure but wouldn't Lasceaux cave painting be the first documented use of art? If there is archeological evidence of musical instruments from before then for example, that would be good for your statement. Or we could say that they were just copying the natural world, and the purpose some ascribe to the paintings is inappropriately given. Even so, is that art? I think so, but could one say that religion "gave" us representational art, or cognitive art? If so, what are the repercussions for the development of our adeptness with the higher thought processes?
IF religion gave us thoughtful art (speculation).
AND thoughtful art helped our mental development (speculation).
The hominid family may owe its survival to it (speculation).
Also, the evidence could be, kind of, refuted, by the statement, "but doesn't it seem like they would have been singing or something?" But that could just be wishful thinking. And birds sing, we don't call them artists.
Also, the idea that the church tried to put away certain types of art, although true, would not have any bearing on what religion may have "conceived." There would be a good case that the church promoted much more art than it condemned anyway.
EVERYONE, the beneficial things religion MAY have brought us could, of course be outweighed by the bad, but I think we should focus on the possible benefits first, as they will be hard enough to prove. I thought we were talking about what religion birthed, not what it propagated. If religion gave us the idea of compassion (speculation), for example, then the fact that the church has shown the ability to act uncompassionately wouldn't take the idea away from society.
This is a strange topic for me, because I think it is very hard to put a cause behind many things that may or may not be attributed to religion, other than humanity itself.
Last edited:
I am 'guessing' Brutus1964 is speaking about the religion that came after and CRUSHEd the Old Religion of the Earth.
It was the original religion that was 'pre-litereate' and oral, and poetic, and associative. And that the upstart 'religion' was its usurper, APPROPRIATING the images, symbols in a way so as to subvert the spiritual understand and ethics to ensure their political oppression.
Of course, art and literature coming from the divisive religion has been powerful and creative in its own way, but as Campbell said "a Deeper Song can be heard"..or words to that effect
It was the original religion that was 'pre-litereate' and oral, and poetic, and associative. And that the upstart 'religion' was its usurper, APPROPRIATING the images, symbols in a way so as to subvert the spiritual understand and ethics to ensure their political oppression.
Of course, art and literature coming from the divisive religion has been powerful and creative in its own way, but as Campbell said "a Deeper Song can be heard"..or words to that effect
Cole Grey
I am being serious about the question. I just thought I would bring it up in a humorous, thought provoking way.
Wolves run in packs, they do not form civilizations. A family is one of man's basic needs. Religion was the catalyst for men to cooperate, and go beyond thier own basic needs to form more complex communities and ultimately civilization itself.
This has been demonstrated in every civilization that has ever existed. Even today primitive people have the gods they worship and with that create a value system that allows them to live amongst each other.
I am being serious about the question. I just thought I would bring it up in a humorous, thought provoking way.
Prester John
Wolves run in packs, they do not form civilizations. A family is one of man's basic needs. Religion was the catalyst for men to cooperate, and go beyond thier own basic needs to form more complex communities and ultimately civilization itself.
This has been demonstrated in every civilization that has ever existed. Even today primitive people have the gods they worship and with that create a value system that allows them to live amongst each other.
Last edited:
Agriculture and trade rather than Religion is the more likely cause for civilization as we know it. Nomadic societies also had (have) religion yet did not form civilizations until the advent of agriculture.Brutus1964 said:
As to the great art and architecture that was inspired by religion, again the primary catalyst was economic. The great disparity of wealth in the feudalistic societies allowed some individuals and family to expend enormous sums of money to fund these artists and craftsmen. One might argue out that although these creations are indeed a wonder they were funded primarily at the expense of the less fortunate (a simplistic explanation, I agree). The primary motivation was political in nature as the main power bases were 'religious'. One has merely to look at the succession of popes, bishops, and cardinals to find the connection.
~Raithere
The crusades have been disparaged by history revisionists and of course it did have it's excesses. However, the crusades are what brought Europe out of a thousand years of stagnation that we now call the dark ages. It was the crusaders that established new trade routes. What they found in the Temple ruins in Jerusalem revolutionized architecture and established a new economic system. This was the catalyst for the renascence and the Christian reformation. If it were not for the Crusades we would all be living the same way they now live in the Middle East. Only worse because there would not be a United States or a western civilization to hold it in check and advance it as well.
Raithere
It was for a religious purpose that caused the Crusades. The Muslims from the Middle East had nearly taken over Europe. It was the Crusades that beat them back and saved Christianity.
Notice how the Christians did not attempt to completely destroy Islam unlike what the Muslims tried to do with Christianity.
You should thank the Crusaders every day for saving us from a Talaban type rule.
It was for a religious purpose that caused the Crusades. The Muslims from the Middle East had nearly taken over Europe. It was the Crusades that beat them back and saved Christianity.
Notice how the Christians did not attempt to completely destroy Islam unlike what the Muslims tried to do with Christianity.
You should thank the Crusaders every day for saving us from a Talaban type rule.
Last edited:
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
tiassa said:
It is a very modern mistake to suppose that ALL Religions at one time were simply those same sleezy little Churches on the street corner, only that the Church Officials were busybodies who went about overstretching themselves with Crusades and Inquisitions. To the modern mind, that all seems quite disproportionate.
However, the Truth is that Religion used to be so much more than an institution for collecting money from people on Sunday mornings. Religion used to subsume all of the other institutions of Society. Religion was placed above the Defence Departments and the Armies, and above the Judicial Systems. Even the Kings and the Emperors would need to answer to Religion.
So when modern people talk about Religion giving Murder its Moral Indorsement, they are only saying that Religions back then controlled the Military, the Courts, and the Police. Before any Modern Person can be morally superior to that arrangement, first they must argue that they think that the Modern Armies, the Modern Courts, and the Modern Police, who go about murdering people, are equally culpable with the past Religious Institutions. However, if EVERYBODY has always found it somewhat necessary to murder people, here and there, as a price of having 'the trains run on time' then I hardly know what your argument is. It has apparently been found to be a Universal Truth acknowledged by regimes both Secular and Religious, that some severe threats to the Social Order must be dealt with even with Deadly Force and with Executions.
Perhaps you can draw up a plan by which a Civilization could thrive without ever seriously protecting itself. With so many Atheists stalking about, you must suspect that there would be predatory threats to any Society that would let down its guard. Is that what you would want?