Brain,

>>Except for the cloak of religion, such beliefs and actions would
otherwise cause an individual to be judged insane, and committed to an
institution for treatment.<<

Generally speaking, religion improves one's ability to function in the
world. In fact, religion has historically been the major force for
social control, encouraging people to conform to social norms (mores
and folkways) - even if those norms are not always those of the
majority (though they usually are). Insanity, on the other hand,
diminishes one's ability to function in the world.

>>The study of history will further justify the theory that religion
is a form of insanity.<<

You then refer to "bloody religious wars and crusades" and to the
Inquisition.

I would say that religion is sometimes, but not always, a source of
social oppression (not insanity). That is because religion has
frequently represented the interests of the elites. For instance, as
Marx observed, American slave owners would, on occasion, encourage
their slaves to practice religion so that, rather than rebel, they
would be content in their suffering and, in so doing, identify with
the Passion of Christ.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net


Brain,

>>It is not those that are actively involved a form of religion that
are harmed most times, it is those who are not that have to live with
feelings of guilt and regret that has been taught to them by
religion.<<

I am afraid that I don't see your point. Aren't you just talking about
conscience?

Generally speaking, religions teach people to do things which most
people would regard as "good" - even if they are not supernaturalists.
(Of course, not all religions are inherently supernaturalistic, e.g.,
Neopaganism, Unitarian-Universalism, and Ethical Culture.) Therefore,
if folks are not behaving in the way they were taught, is it a bad
thing that their consciences will bother them? Moreover, one's
conscience might might be provoked for reasons other than religious
nonconformity.

>>You cannot deny than a majority of the wars and conflicst across the
globe and throughout history can be traced back to some conflict
revolving around religion.<<

The concept of religion is a creation of modernity. It developed as a
result of the (initially) Western tendency to separate the sacred from
the secular (and the profane), i.e., the process of desacralization or
secularization. Most historical societies made little or no
distinction between religion and civil life; and the majority of the
so-called "religious wars" were actually based on factors much broader
than religion (usually economic or territorial).

For instance, does the contemporary conflict between the Catholics and
the Anglicans in Northern Ireland have much to do with theology
(Papists vs. nonpapists)? Were the Crusades primarily about converting
the Muslims to Roman Catholicism? Obviously, what we now call
"religion" played some part. However, it was usually a secondary
consideration.

>>Other interesting facts are that 95% of prison imates in for violent
and non-violent crimes identify themselves with some form of religion,
mostly Christianity. It is interesting that less than 1% of prison
imates across the country identify themselves as athiest or
agnostic.<<

Yes. However, that needs to be looked at in more depth. First, the
percentages you gave are roughly similar to those of the general
population! Second, there does appear to be some correlation between
religious affiliation and crime. However, it is limited in its effect.
For instance, Southern Baptists are more inclined to homicide than
Roman Catholics.

(Likewise Roman Catholics are more likely to develop bipolar
psychosis; Protestants are more likely to commit suicide then either
Roman Catholics or Jews; and Baptists are more likely to become
alcoholics than Episcopalians.)

>>But at the end of the day I guess if it works for you and you are
happy then go for it. However for some of us, religion brings up more
questions than answers.<<

Interesting. However, that is quite a bit different from your earlier
statement that religion is a form of insanity.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net

Brain,

>>Well Mark let's just say that I think the world would be a much
better place without religion.<<

It depends on how one defines religion. As a sociologist, I use what
is called a functional definition of religion. (The other common type
of definition is substantive.)

A functional definition of religion is one which looks for a set of
religious functions and then classifies anything which conforms to
them as being a religion.

A substantive (essentialist) definition is one which looks for a
shared religious "essence." The most common one is supernaturalist.
The problem with it is that non-supernaturalist systems (e.g.,
Neopaganism, Unitarian-Universalism, and Ethical Culture), which often
define themselves as "religions," do not get classed as such for
purposes of sociological analysis. Moreover, no matter which essence
one chooses, one is bound to leave some systems out.

The Durkheimian functional definition goes something like this:

A system of beliefs and praxes (practices), focused around the sacred
(that which is extraordinary), which unites people into a moral
community (one which shares similar values and norms).

Durkheim's definition, the most common one used by sociologists,
includes virtually all systems generally regarded as religions (except
personal, nonsocial ideologies, which have little sociological
relevance) plus systems such as Maoism, which also fit the criteria.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:
http://markfoster.net