Post
Region: The Leftist Assembly
I oppose organized institutions of religion, but I do not oppose individual people holding their own ideas of it. Ultimately it is more beneficial for society if individuals can develop their own philosophies/interpretations on the nature of existence and existential texts (except in the case of rejecting sound scientific theories like evolution), without being held to specific doctrines on these questions. Being able to both find agreement in and challenge existential texts at an individual level is valuable to society and public discourse on existence, because it promotes free thought, philosophical exploration, and develops a culture of tolerance in that "I may not agree fully with you, but I do agree with you on..." or "I mostly agree with you, but disagree on..." and so on. Being able to find agreement with others is key to keeping a society intact, and an approach of religious tolerance (enabled by the absence of religious institutions) makes this much more feasible to achieve and also longer-lasting overall.
Looking back on history, times when religious institutions held supremacy in different societies almost always led to widespread persecution or religious turmoil/conflict. And looking at now, many of these same institutions hold great strength in different parts of the world, and their strength helps to create the conditions for religious turmoil in many places. Thus it is therefore my opinion that by abolishing religious institutions, without abolishing religion altogether, religious persecution and religious wars would be much harder to coalesce and far easier to prevent.
