Whilst I agree in principle, it's unfortunate that the organised part isn't entirely necessary. I'm not unfamiliar with plenty of incidents whereby, very broadly, those in a position of power (notably parents) extend their beliefs onto (notably, their children) in a way that is not necessarily derived of organised religion. For instance, there was an incident of a mother refusing to allow her son to receive chemotherapy for leukemia on the basis that she was a spiritual person and wanted to heal him with crystal therapy/herbs (the extact details escape me).Kubanator said:To quote myself:Godheads_Lament said:Not that I want to speak for an entire group, but that's a nice thought, unfortunately even moderist religion impacts our lives in a big way - mostly in reference to the entire secularist vs. freedom of expression governance style, notably in public office.Kubanator said:...an atheist would not care about any words which held no power.
Things that Organized religion affects.Kubanator said:..any words which held no power. They would care about something that could change their lives, such as stem cell research, or gay marriage.
The same can be said for parents forcing veganism onto their children. Now, these are an entirely different debate but the reason I brought them up is to illustrate that concepts that may (or may not) be religious, but not necessarily derived from organised ideology (or religion). And therefore we do not need organised religion to demonstrate a detrimental effect on, at the very least, an individual scale - and potentially on a society-wide scale. Perhaps the veganism anaology wasn't a great choice.
...at least I think I've answered what you were trying to say.