[salawat]

Not quite. Religion, when taught properly, can serve as an innoculant against corrupt states, as it ingrains a kernel of understanding that man, and all his works are flawed, falling short of the perfection only attainable by the divine. There is always something higher worth maintaining loyalty toward. Like most things though, practicing that doesn't make you super popular with "leaders of worship" who wield their position in a human institutions as a tool to their own ends.

[yoyohello13]

I agree wholeheartedly. Religion, practiced as designed, is extremely positive in my experience. I think the issue is that religion is and has been abused throughout history. I’m really not sure how to deal with this issue though. It seems the Abrahamic religion are quite vulnerable to this kind of abuse, likely because a core part of the doctrine is submission to authority.

I’ve never seen a Buddhist led genocide for instance, and I think a big part of that is the emphasis on looking inward for answers instead of outward.

[shawn_w]

I don't know if it ever was labeled a genocide, but Sri Lanka has a long history of Buddhist lead attacks against Tamils and other minorities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

[yoyohello13]

Fair enough. Seems like the common thread is religion + government = atrocities

[terminalshort]

The common thread is groups of people = atrocities. Religion and government are two common properties that emerge from groups of people, but there are also countless examples of atrocities that involve neither.

[joquarky]

Centralized power + sentient beings who occasionally produce sociopaths = atrocities.

This is why no one person should have so much unilateral power.

[joquarky]

Not in the real world.

Religions are inherently centralized, and sociopaths are always drawn to centralized power.