this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
311 points (96.4% liked)
Asklemmy
54379 readers
675 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Organised Religion, sure
But you're coming at this from an incredibly colonial-centric POV
There's plenty of none-organised religions that are more akin to philosophy than to faith.
And plenty of faiths that are not from colonial powers with an entirely different focus such as "protect the land"
Maybe we can think of religion as a multi-tool. Such a tool can be used as a screwdriver, a nail file, a bottle opener, etc.
OP is saying religion has always been used for control. However, religion can be used for many other things as well, like spiritual fulfillment, moral guidance, and providing a social community. It being used for control doesn’t mean it can’t also be those things, just as a multi-tool used to open a bottle can also be used to tighten a screw.
At least, that’s the way I interpreted this situation.
What makes you think I’m not fully aware of that?
I’m talking about the dangers of exploiting religion, which remains one of humanity’s most serious problems, as is currently and undeniably illustrated by the monstrous regimes in the U.S. and Israel, for example.
I never said that religion should be rejected outright or that it cannot also do good.
I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion.
Probably cause I read the words you said
Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me
You’re reading into my statement that it somehow implies I’m making some kind of fundamental claim about religion here. I’m sorry, but it’s simply a fact that religion is being misused for political purposes. I can’t help it if you’re turning that into a fundamental claim that isn’t there at all.
I guess I assumed always meant "in all cases, without exception"
But I guess my dictionary was wrong
What else is there to say? This statement is correct: religion has always been misused for political purposes - that’s what the sentence says, not that religion itself is always misused; that’s your interpretation.
Besides, if you’d read a little further, you probably would have figured out what I’m trying to say.