Why don't we just ban ALL religions?

I frequently pose dumb questions on this blog but the one contained in my title above takes the prize!  Mind you, as the body-count, in the name of religion, rises all around the world it is tempting.  Of course, the dreaded 'Peeps', being the way they are, would soon find other reasons to slaughter each other.  Perhaps rival football fans would erupt onto the pitch at the end of each match and fight to the death in support of the Rovers or the Rangers!

Mind you, the various religions have much to answer for.  How can they continue to prate and preachify to the effect that there is, somewhere, a Supreme, All-powerful God who watches over all of us?  If so, He, She or It are pretty ineffectual 'Masters of the Universe' given the oceans of blood that has been spilled through the aeons.  Equally, the 'Peeps' themselves - that means you, and you and you over there trying to avoid my pointing finger - all of you who try to avoid the responsibility of thinking for yourselves and simply swallow whole the prating of the preachers.  Is it not obvious by now that religion is simply politics under another name?

Well, obviously it is not obvious to the vast number of my fellow 'Peeps'!

ADDITIONAL:  

Not, perhaps, the most thoughtful post I have made on this blog but I was in 'Grump Mode: Factor 10' when I wrote it!  Actually, it is not God who is infuriating me, it's people!

 

 

 

Comments

[backofanenvelope]

I don't want to teach you to suck eggs, but only two of four main religions think there is a giant sky fairy watching over us.

[Whyaxye]

Being a vicar's husband, I'm very glad that there is the dear old C of E. There's no way I could afford our current 4-bedroom detached house in the Sussex Weald. They are also kind enough to pay our council tax and removal expenses, and even cleaning materials are all tax-deductible. And, if Mrs W is keen on promotion, it's my only chance of getting to live in a palace.

I know there are a few minor downsides like genocide and bigotry and wars and the whole thing being made up, but you should try to see the whole picture here.

[Bob]

While it's tempting to agree, a "ban" would be a bit of an overreach. It would probably only harden opposition to infidels. At some point we'll just have to give up on the idea of "faith"; believing things on the weight of zero evidence.

[JK]

While we're at banning religions why don't we ban nutters getting firearms too?

And global warming. And scratchy underwear. Chinese intellectual property thievery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOgFZfRVaww

Hell why don't we just ban everything?

[Whitewall]

Ban all religions? Why we humans would take to worshiping idols and each other!

[Bob]

JK, if "everything" includes people who enforce bans, or bans themselves for that matter, we got ourselves a totally impractical situation. That's why.

[Jim Jones]

I think the Soviet Union tried that and the results were not so good.

[JK]

As if Bob, the ban David's mentioned and maybe one or two of the four I specified would be?

I know for instance many states ban nutters and criminals possessing firearms but you'd call 'em "practical" then? How so?

Practical in the sense of 'likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible.'

[Uncle Mort]

The trouble is, atheist and nutter are far from being mutually exclusive.

[Whitewall]

David, that's always been the key! People.

[backofanenvelope]

Let's make religion compulsory!

[Bob]

JK, that was a joke. However, banning nutters from buying guns won't work until background checks work the way they were intended. Even that won't catch all nutters, but it's unwise to make the perfect the enemy of "the best we can do".

[Andra]

I've been saying that for twenty years.
Won't help though.