Look at it in context and you have a whole new meaning outside of just religion.
"It is not religion per se, it is shared belief systems on such things as ethics, spirituality and metaphysics. These are imbibed to the individual through the small-scale associations of everyday life to a significant degree which when healthy help to socialise him to the larger goals of society. There doesn't have to be anything inherently religious in these although they tend to end up that way.
If this is missing then it will bring discomfort to the individual(such as anomie; see Durkheim's On Suicide.), he will look for ways out or for something to stamp that a shared belief system onto society. But this will not be an organic one that has grown up over centuries and relies on the coordination of the many small-scale associations in society, it will be a top down one that imposes itself on these associations. That is what De Tocqueville realised when he said: - Wessexman
No Lives Matter
Stalin saw the profanity of the church and decided to do away with it so that it couldn't challenge his power.
Hitler was co-mingling catholicism with the occult.
Mao killed the majority of his kill list through bad policies that caused massive starvation.
All of them were fascist tyrants. Fascists believe in the efficacy of torture.
You failed your history test.
I think we oughta waterboard religious people too. Wadda ya say folks?
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.
European civilization? Last time I checked I lived in America and not Europe.
But no matter.
When people demonstrate they are nothing more then animals they will be treated as such, call me a savage, call me a mindless barbarian I really don't care.
Let me ask you something, what would you do to prevent attacks on your fellow country men?
Talloulou, not to sweep the rug out from under you, but I agree with what Jerry originally said... although I think I had a different reading of it than you.
I interpreted it as... people without religion often lack the righteous black/white incentive to condone torture according to their beliefs. Religion provides a pretty clear clut moral compass (i.e. the Bible), whereas if you are not religious you have to actually think for yourself. The non-religious would be given pause at the idea of torture whereas the religious, if their scriptures condone it or even support it, would not have to hesitate because their scriptures decide the issue for them.
Hence... if you are non-religious the moral issue might be more muddled because some book or higher authority is not making it so black and white.
In general though, I find religion pretty immoral and the most morally balanced people I have come across have been non-religious.
I personally find the incessant reliance on scripture to determine one's every thought to be an outmoded carry-over from a time when the West was really innocent and didn't know much about the world aside from the idea of God.