This kind of reminds me of the nature of militancy itself. For example, the feminist movement convinced young women that they *might* have been, or *could* have been raped by males–and then proceeded to indoctrinate these fearful young women into the ways of bisexual, or lesbian anti-male militancy.

We hear these militants yapping endlessly about womens rights and “FGM” Yet seldom if ever do we hear any of these “progressives” advocate for the rights of young arabic males–many of whom are truly the victims of buggery and circumcision.

Makes sense now.

http://www.ennaharonline.com/en/news/173.html

Trust the fanatics, religious or others, to make the ugliest use possible of an already heavily repressive patriarcal, homophobic culture.

Banning it is as futile as trying to exterminate cockroaches.

I’d like to now discuss another aspect of banning religion: What does it really mean? What is the actual effect of banning religion, and what does it mean to live in a country where the government has the power to do it?

1. Banning religion is banning thought.

2. If you are going to ban thought, you have to pick which thought to ban. It could be religion. But it doesn’t have to be.

3. In a democracy, any form of thought repugnant to the masses is the next target.

4. And, because we’re here on scienceblogs: Science isn’t always popular with the masses.

There is no power you can give government that cannot be turned against you. Taking back a power, once delegated to government, is nearly impossible; controlling it, devilishly difficult. The power to abolish religion is the power to abolish thought itself. It’s a tyrannical genie that you don’t want to let out of the bottle.

Religion is not like other ideas in some very important ways. As an idea, toast is yummy does not carry the authority that religion does. It does not promise a reward to its defenders. It doesn’t demand specific behaviors. It does not devalue those who think, “Toast? Meh.” It doesn’t devalue life in the here and now.

In short, there is a very small group of ideas that can be used to coerce others to do bad things that aren’t in their direct interest. Religion is right up there at the top of the list.

I think you are conflating the tool with its user, in the same way that those who wish to control crime confuse the gun with the criminal. Religion is not what organized and then committed those rapes. Religion was the unfortunate instrument of the animals who perpetrated those crimes. Get rid of that religion, or even of all religions, and you’ll still find people like that in the world. All they need is an idea to rally behind, and lots of hate. It doesn’t really matter which idea. It could be the great spaghetti monster. Heck, it could be the abolition of the great spaghetti monster.

This is the human condition. We will always have criminals, and we will always have inhuman monsters willing to use others to commit acts of unspeakable cruelty. Getting rid of the tools of their trade won’t stop them. What’s worse, by going after the tools, you end up depriving innocent people of the benign or benevolent uses of those tools. You have to focus on the evildoers themselves.