[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The one thing all religions have in common is that they teach you to despise all the others. That's depraved and corrupt.

We can analyze religions like any other memes. The fact that some of them have survived for millenias suggests that they have some benefits for their societies, which outweigh their cost and flaws. One of their main benefits has been identified centuries ago.

On March 4, 1806, during a meeting of the national committee Napoleon said:

“Je ne vois pas dans la religion le mystère de l'Incarnation mais le mystère de l'Ordre Social. La religion rattache au ciel une idée d'égalité qui empêche le riche d'être massacré par le pauvre."

 translation: “I don’t see in religion evidence of the mystery of the incarnation, but rather the mystery of social order. Religion associates heaven with an idea of equality that keeps the rich from being massacred by the poor.”

Social disorder is not the only threat to the existence of conscious beings. There's another threat, which is natural disorder or catastrophe. The benefit of social order brought by religion would be overshadowed by its cost of inability to build protection against natural disorders. For example, if religion hinders scientific progress which makes the society incapable of preventing extinction by asteroid impact or global pandemic.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Texas Bans Abortion And Idiots Blame The Left

Many things we see as immoral actions only become obvious retrospectively. They are caused by miscalculation of risks.

[alancalverd]

Religion is what gives perverts the presumed authority to interfere in the lives of others. I'd be happy to be governed by a parliament of ex-professionals (soldiers, doctors, businessmen, trade union officers....)  deemed worthy by popular vote to represent their constituents. As soon as you allow parasites like priests and career politicians to stand and represent their party or professed beliefs, you get bad government.

[alancalverd]

Does it include Buddhism and Jainism?

It certainly describes the adherents I have met.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Religion is what gives perverts the presumed authority to interfere in the lives of others.

So do other ideologies like communism, capitalism, liberalism,  anarchism.
The CDC had to interfere in people's lives with vaccine and mask mandates to minimize the impact of the pandemic.

[alancalverd]

Difference is that most of the cited isms involve a degree of implicit or explicit public consultation and approval based on clear potential advantages. CDC is publicly accountable. Mullahs and bishops are not.

The general rule of a civilised society is that some form of parliament or soviet decides what should be prohibited for the public good. Anything that is not prohibited is permitted, and your duties are limited to paying taxes, sitting on a jury, or being liable for military service. If you don't like a decision, you can write to the newspapers or appeal to a court of your peers.

Theocracies (including many European countries) work the other way around: you have all sorts of duties (some imposed by the rights of others) and can only do what is permitted. You have no right to question or challenge the authority of whoever says he has read the book and been anointed by some mythical being.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Difference is that most of the cited isms involve a degree of implicit or explicit public consultation and approval based on clear potential advantages. CDC is publicly accountable. Mullahs and bishops are not.

What's clear for you may not be clear for others, and vice versa. What we think is clear might still be false in some circumstances.
They are also accountable, but use different sets of rules. Anyone in any position can be personally corrupt.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The general rule of a civilised society is that some form of parliament or soviet decides what should be prohibited for the public good.

The general rule of a civilised society is to encourage behaviors that would more likely bring good consequences to the society, and discourage behaviors that would more likely bring bad consequences to the society.
What makes the difference is the accuracy of their model for objective reality that relates actions and consequences. Some societies believe that human sacrifices can prevent famine and natural disasters. Some others believe that killing gays can save them from disasters. Nazis believed that killing Jews can bring them to prosperity. The Confederacy believed that keeping slaves can bring them to prosperity.

[alianawatson1990]

Classic and elegant interior designs elevate the look of your home to a whole new level. Modern interior design has outstanding features like wallpapers, colors, textures, spacing, lighting, etc.

[Colin2B]

Classic and elegant interior designs elevate the look of your home to a whole new level. Modern interior design has outstanding features like wallpapers, colors, textures, spacing, lighting, etc.

What on earth does this have to do with the topic?
Unless you are showing us that you have a very low moral standard by trying to spam us.
Doesn’t work
Bye

[alancalverd]

The general rule of a civilised society is to encourage behaviors that would more likely bring good consequences to the society, and discourage behaviors that would more likely bring bad consequences to the society.

That describes uncivilised societies, which have some kind of predetermined objective. Civilisation is about allowing people maximum freedom to do their own thing without upsetting others. Hence the incompatibility between English (it is an offence to...) and European (it is a requirement to...) law.

Amartya Sen was awarded a Nobel Prize for pointing out that there has never been a famine in a democracy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Amartya Sen was awarded a Nobel Prize for pointing out that there has never been a famine in a democracy.

So, Harvard economist Amartya Sen looks wise in his comment that "No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy."

If famine takes place in a democratic country, he can just say that their democracy is not functioning.
It sounds like no true Scotsman.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Civilisation is about allowing people maximum freedom to do their own thing without upsetting others.

Whatever you do might upset someone. Even when you do nothing.

[alancalverd]

That is why we have parliaments to decide what is so annoying as to be illegal. Thus civilisation happens by evolution, not revolution.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That is why we have parliaments to decide what is so annoying as to be illegal. Thus civilisation happens by evolution, not revolution.

People have different level of tolerance toward different types of annoyance.
In democratic societies, decisions made by the majority is applied to all members, including those who disagree with them. In representative democracy, it can be manipulated through Gerrymandering.

What is the difference between Evolution and Revolution?
• Evolution refers to the gradual development or changes in something over a period.
• On the other hand, the word revolution means ‘a turn around’; a sudden, complete, or radical change in something.
• Revolution is the fundamental change in something in a staggeringly short period.

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-evolution-and-vs-revolution/
French, and many third world countries, get their democracy through revolution.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Communism vs. Socialism: What's The Difference?

There's a lot of confusion surrounding the terms Communism and Socialism. The two are often used interchangeably, even by entire governments and political leaders, but they are not the same at all! So what’s the difference?

[alancalverd]

French, and many third world countries, get their democracy through revolution.

Hence the difference between the legal systems of France and the UK. The French revolutionaries imposed a model secular state, the Brits, as usual, meandered in the course of 1000 years or so towards a compromise vaguely associated with the Church of England and the monarch but ultimately ruled by an elected  parliament and an unelected senate, but crucially preserving the celtic ideal of the state serving the citizen, not the other way around.   

[alancalverd]

People have different level of tolerance toward different types of annoyance.

Which is why we have civil courts, English law is full of "normally" and "reasonable", and it is an offence to deliberately annoy anyone.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

People have different level of tolerance toward different types of annoyance.

Which is why we have civil courts, English law is full of "normally" and "reasonable", and it is an offence to deliberately annoy anyone.

What's normal and reasonable in one society may not be normal and reasonable in other societies.
Many comedians deliberately annoy politicians. Should they be punished?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Many comedians deliberately annoy politicians.

Here's an example from a few years ago.

Or this one.