Should a genuine question examining the motivation of people who start religions be censored?

Question

I recently posted a serious question asking for opinions about the motivations of people who started various religions, given the wealth and power they accumulate, and the subsequent wars they stimulate.

I also questioned the mind-set of the followers who seem unable to think for themselves and blindly follow religious laws.

It was deleted as being in violation of the Terms and Conditions of Yahoo Answers!

Do you think such opinion-seeking questions should be censored? Or should religious questions allow free thought and speech like any other topic?

Answer 1

Wow. That question is more responsible (and more interesting) than 95% of the questions in this forum. I'd like to answer it so I will:

Personally, I think the fault lies more with those who have exploited the various religions for personal, political and financial gain that those who started them. I am very much non-religious, but my reading of history suggest that most major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) are rooted in legitimate faith-based systems, looking for answers to unanswerable questions, etc. The problem has been when the powers that be have taken advantage of the vulnerability that faith breeds in its followers. More succinctly, its the administration of the religion, not the beliefs themselves, that causes the problem.

The second part is easy: organized religion is coercion. "Do what I say or else, [insert supernatural bad thing] will happen to you" Humans are largely sheep. They require life direction and will sacrifice almost any amount of reason or freedom to obtain it...

Answer 2

From what I have seen here tonight it seems to allow free thought...sometimes with no apparent brain function. I did not see your original question so I can not speculate why it was found to be offensive.
I know of those whom have prospered over time and what they went thru on the way to where they are. If you did not know the whole story I could see how you would develop an attitude toward their financial blessings and decide that it was just a quick trip to wealth. Nothing is without a cost.
Right now the scales often seem to be leaning on the side of the corrupt but all will eventually be weighed and balanced. Many of us do think for ourselves. Some do not for various reasons; they think they can blame their ignorance on someone else, they are just plain lazy, they are only playing church, etc. Hope you find the answers you are looking for.....keep searching.

Answer 3

Idon't thinkit shpould have beencensored. I have seen so much other bull on here, it's stupid to censor a real and true question.

But seeing as it DID get censored, maybe you maywantto find a new way to phrase it so that it doesn't get censroed?

Maybe this might work:

Motivations For People Who Start Religions/Cults?

Whatis your opinion on what could be the motivations of the variouspeople who have started various religions/cults (CChiristianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca, Etc.) give the accumilation of power and the wars that are consequentlystimilated in a response to opposing beliefes? What about their followers- mindless sheep, or loyal believers? DO they follow blindly,or in knowledge?


Maybe this would workbetter... you could give it a try. I hope this has helped you some!

Answer 4

I think that the problem is in the "loading" in the question. Your question appears to state that people who start religions:-
1. Get wealthy as a result of it
2.Start wars
3 Gain a great deal of power
The question also states that religious adherents:-
1. Cannot think for themselves
2 Blindly follow laws.
I think a large number of people would be offended by the above statements and , also, question the accuracy of most of them.
The answer to your question boils down to asking if its all right to express personal opinions in a way which will (almost certainly) hurt and offend a lot of other people who do not share your personal views. This brings you on to the question " Is it all right to hit others with a big stick if I think its all right to do so?"
In this instance Yahoo! is probably correct in censoring your question because it can be seen as a list of statements offensive to others. If you had phrased it differently eg. "Do you think people make a lot of money out of starting religions?" then you have an argument that Yahoo! SHOULD allow you freedom of speech.
I hope this helps clear things up.

Answer 5

In that case to hell with the censores e-mail the interested.
Take the course of least resistance and you will acomplish your directive in a more timely like manor in the long run.
The censored and dead acomplish very little go the way Petter and deniy deniy deniy.
If you used offencive toung thats another story no one should be offended by the language used. Some people can"t stand to hear the words god dammed. My guess is they understand the word God to be a name, while in reality is is only a tiltle as like saying prince damm it or Queen damm it. I would be interested in seeing what you tryed to say , or did you just say it.
With out being shure at this point i would have to say the answer to your 1st Q would be NO. Personally i cant answer the 2ndQ without knowing more of what it is your trying to say about mind set ATATUDES? Basicly sheep are sheep

Answer 6

rose_lin_uk,
You'll see if you hang around, many that post here are devil inspired. I don't know if you believe in the devil or not, but they are some of the worst sorts of in the world, and I mean that. Also here, you have some of the best.

Figure timing and experience. Get a good look at what kinds of questions that are coming out before you ask a question.

The Muslims are starting to show up in greater numbers. Just tell them that you love Israel and like it right where it's at. lol

Answer 7

actual? Bible actuality in comparison WITH what the WBTS teaches. actuality learn, i became into raised by making use of a mom who became into one in each of Jehovah's Witnesses. i became into baptized whilst i became into 14. whilst i became into 30, although i might by no skill easily left the Witnesses, i became into rather ambivalent and reported i ought to compliment to do what i desire now. A humorous undertaking got here approximately although. I studied the bible, then studied it some greater. Listened greater intently at bible discourses and so on. The greater I did that the greater confident i became into that what I had discovered and became into nevertheless studying became into the actuality. And this no longer purely from a spiritual perspective, yet one in each of nice judgment besides. I even have now been baptized 40 two years. i might upload, Jehovah's Witnesses fairly are the only ones that provides you with solutions to the main needed questions. i'll furnish you a real occasion. After 9/11 the obtrusive question became into why might God enable this sort of awful undertaking to take place. The pat answer from the clergy became into "do no longer question" or "this is a secret". One very straightforward member of the clergy, whilst interviewed a while later, admitted that the clergy had did no longer answer that burning question. we are able to respond to it, by making use of skill of the scriptures.

Answer 8

Free thought and speech should be encouraged provided no particular religion is targeted and no such things are written wherein the feelings of any one religion is hurt or offended

Answer 9

without seeing the question, it's impossible to answer. But I can speculate , based on what you describe, that maybe it had more to do with implicit insults to other participants - "I also questioned the mind-set of the followers who seem unable to think for themselves ...", so I 'm not sure you have given us the full picture.

Answer 10

Can we really debate this... Can we reach into the motivations of people dead for thousands of years? No, at least not with any sort of accuracy.

The corruption in the church is not of the message but the people who lead it.

I think debate on these issues is entertaining and shouldn't be deleted. But I doubt any clarity will ever be found on issues like this.