weekly question: Religion: when is it good and when is it bad

As I've been travelling a lot, I didn't get around to a question last week and the beginning of this week was spent in front of my monitor and tv.It seems that current events are close to us and not being able to get them out of my mind, I thought I would ask a question regarding when is religion healthy and when is it detrimental?The obvious example of the Tuesday is a bit of a strawman. While religion can certainly be the root of such acts, it is often the impetus to amazing acts of humanity such as in the Civil Rights Movement and Abolition. Bill Moyer has often discusses this subject and I think it is fitting here.What are the elements of religion that are beneficial and good, and when does it become dangerous or unhealthy?Larry

In a dialogue with myself I found this article interesting as a follow-up. It is by E.J. Dionne of the Brookings Institution:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47108-2001Sep17.htmlComments?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Faith:
[b]There seems to be some idea here that all "religion" is the same thing, whereas the differences in belief among the religions are as varied as their number. Some are not exclusivistic at all for instance. Hinduism is known to be very syncretistic, able -- or at least willing -- to absorb just about any other belief system into itself. [/QUOTE][/b]No, I made no such claim in the question. Religion though is a definable concept. [QUOTE][b]
And what if one of the belief systems just happens to be true? That would of course mean all those which disagree with it would be false, and it would also justify its sense of exclusivism. Methinks some of you prejudge the case with little in the way of facts at hand. [/QUOTE][/b]How so? Could you be specific? [QUOTE][b]
ShannonMay's "spirituality" is probably the most popular "religion" of the day, but what claim does it have to truth? Or does truth matter? [/QUOTE][/b]How is this relevant to conditions under which religion is positive and when it is detrimental? I'm not following why a claim on truth is relevant to the question necessarily. It may be, but the above isn't clear.

quote:

---

Meaning, I guess, that the question about whether "religion" is "healthy" or "detrimental" seems meaningless to me. The kind of question that could only be asked by somebody who didn't truly believe in any religion.

---

Can a system of faith and worship be healthy or detrimental? I think we can all identify examples of where it is either, so I'm unclear as to how you come to such a conclusion.And I am a Christian so you are wrong above.Larry

quote:

---

I believe the main point is, to me, that to raise this question is to treat all religion as mere myth, as I'm trying to say above, and as I believe the quote from Dionne also says, though he may not take that step himself.

---

I guess I'm unclear on how it treats all religions as myth. I'm not simply discussing it on the basis of its uses and misuses, but asking when religion has detrimental effects and when it exerts positive influence on people. This is a much more subtle question and one that Dionne answers for himself at the end.The logical result of not addressing the question is to remove reason from any consideration of faith. Faith isn't something that exists with no checks. Indeed, when unchecked you get rather horrific events from faith if it doesn't include reason. While skepticism may not be the same as reason, it certainly is a result of using reason.The traditions if Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have a great deal of scholarly work done to understand those faiths in more than a simple reading of each of their holy texts. And within all of these traditions are concepts of when faith can go to far. While such standards may all be violated from time to time, the faithful have asked these questions since the beginnings of the religions.

quote:

---

A pertinent example of this kind of difference in emphasis may be the very Great Debate itself. I could list some consequences of evolutionism that I believe to be very unhealthy and detrimental to the human race and to social institutions, but a confirmed evolutionist would certainly -- and rightly, I believe -- respond that truth trumps such questions.

---

Here you are confusing a scientific theory with something that approximates truth or a faith. Science describes a physical phenomenon using specific techniques. Saying evolution has negative consequences is similar to saying that gravity has negative consequences when you fall from a tree.

quote:

---

I'm trying to find a way to respond to this that is neutral and friendly. I think you may be a Christian of the Bill Moyers school?

---

Last I checked Bill Moyers doesn't have a denomination named after him. To put it simply, I'm a mainstream Presbyterian.

quote:

---

I have found out recently that I have to call myself a "fundamentalist" in order to have discussions about evolution and other matters of belief. To a fundamentalist Bill Moyers is a liberal who rejects a great deal of Biblical revelation. I doubt that you would identify yourself as a "fundamentalist" in this sense, am I right?

---

I do not accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, which is the historical meaning of fundamentalism in Christian sects in the United States.