IEET > GlobalDemocracySecurity > Vision > Contributors > Valerie Tarico > HealthLongevity
Religion May Not Survive the Internet
Valerie Tarico   Jan 22, 2013   Ethical Technology  

As we head into a new year, the guardians of traditional religion are ramping up efforts to keep their flocks—or, in crass economic terms, to retain market share. Some Christians have turned to soul searching while others have turned to marketing. Last fall, the LDS church spent millions on billboards, bus banners, and Facebook ads touting “I’m a Mormon.” In Canada, the Catholic Church has launched a “Come Home” marketing campaign. The Southern Baptists Convention voted to rebrand themselves. A hipster mega-church in Seattle combines smart advertising with sales force training for members and a strategy the Catholics have emphasized for centuries: competitive breeding.

Religion in Decline - Please come back

In October of 2012 the Pew Research Center announced that for the first time ever Protestant Christians had fallen below 50 percent of the American population. Atheists cheered and evangelicals beat their breasts and lamented the end of the world as we know it. Historian of religion, Molly Worthen, has since offered big picture insights that may dampen the most extreme hopes and fears. Anthropologist Jennifer James, on the other hand, has called fundamentalism the “death rattle” of the Abrahamic traditions.

In all of the frenzy, few seem to give any recognition to the player that I see as the primary hero, or, if you prefer, culprit—and I’m not talking about science populizer and atheist superstar Neil deGrasse Tyson. Then again, maybe I am talking about Tyson in a sense, because in his various viral guises—as a talk show host and tweeter and as the face on scores of smartass Facebook memes—Tyson is an incarnation of the biggest threat that organized religion has ever faced: the internet.

A traditional religion, one built on “right belief,” requires a closed information system. That is why the Catholic Church put an official seal of approval on some ancient texts and banned or burned others. It is why Bible-believing Christians are forbidden to marry nonbelievers and Muslims are warned not to socialize outside the faith. It is why Quiverfull moms home school their kids from carefully screened text books. It is why, when you get sucked into conversations with your fundamentalist uncle George from Florida, you sometimes wonder if he has some superpower that allows him to magically close down all avenues into his mind. (He does!)

Religions have spent eons honing defenses that keep outside information away from insiders. The innermost ring wall is a set of certainties and associated emotions like anxiety and disgust and righteous indignation that block curiosity. The outer wall is a set of behaviors aimed at insulating believers from contradictory evidence and from heretics like you who are potential transmitters of dangerous ideas. These behaviors range from memorizing sacred texts to wearing distinctive undergarments to killing infidels. Such defenses worked beautifully during humanity’s infancy. They still work well for a child raised in an Afghani village and educated in a madrassa. But they weren’t really designed for the current information age.

Tech-savvy mega-churches may have twitter missionaries, and Calvinist cuties may make viral videos about how Jesus worship isn’t a religion it’s a relationship, but that doesn’t change the facts: the free flow of information is really, really bad for the product they are selling. Here are five kinds of web content that are like, well, like electrolysis on religion’s hairy toes.

Religion in Decline - RSA - EmpathyRadically cool science videos and articles. Religion evokes some of our most deeply satisfying emotions: joy, for example, and transcendence, and wonder. This is what Einstein was talking about when he said that “science without religion is lame.” If scientific inquiry doesn’t fill us at times with delight and even speechless awe at new discoveries or the mysteries that remain, then we are missing out on the richest part of the experience. Fortunately, science can provide all of the above, and certain masters of the trade and sectors of the internet are remarkably effective at evoking the wonder—the spirituality if you will—of the natural world unveiled. Some of my own favorites include Symphony of science, NOVA, TED, RSA Animate, and Birdnote.

Religion in Decline - Symphony of ScienceIt should be no surprise that so many fundamentalists are determined to take down the whole scientific endeavor. They see in science not only a critic of their outdated theories but a competitor for their very best product, a sense of transcendent exuberance. For millennia, each religion has made an exclusive claim, that it alone had the power to draw people into a grand vision worth a lifetime of devotion. Each offered the assurance that our brief lives matter and that, in some small way, we might live on. Now we are getting glimpses of a reality so beautiful and so intricate that it offers some of the same promise. Where will the old tribal religions be if, in words of Tracy Chapman, we all decide that Heaven’s here on earth?

Religion in Decline - Joseph Smith's HatCurated Collections of Ridiculous Beliefs. Religious beliefs that aren’t yours often sound silly, and the later in life you encounter them the more laughable they are likely to sound. Web writers like me are after eyeballs. We are attention whores, which means that if there’s something ridiculous to showcase then one of us is guaranteed to write about it. We may post a nuanced exposé or a snarky list or a flaming meme, but the point, invariably, is to call attention to the stuff that makes you roll your eyes, shake your head in disbelief, laugh—out loud, rolling on the floor even—and then hit Share. Mega-church ministers, televangelists, Mormon missionaries, and Scientologists hate that.

Religion in Decline - Pedophile PriestsThe Kinky, Exploitative, Oppressive, Opportunistic and Violent Sides of Religion. Of course, the case against religion doesn’t stop at weird and wacky. It gets nasty, sometimes in ways that are titillating and sometimes in ways that are simply dark. The Bible is full of sex slavery, polygamy and incest, but those verses used to be hard to find. Now they are catalogued at places like Alternately, a student writing about holidays can find a proclamation in which Puritans give thanks to God for the burning of Indian villages or an interview on the mythic origins of the Christmas story. Just-make-nicers who claim that Islam is a religion of peace have to deal with not only with articulate former Muslims like Ayan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Maryam Namazie, but also the many murderous commands of the Koran itself. And if the Catholic come home plea sounds a little desperate, it may well be because the sins of the bishops are getting hard to cover up. On the net, whatever the story may be, someone will be more than willing to expose it.

Religion in Decline - ExChristian.netSupportive communities for people coming out of religion. With or without the net (but especially with it) believers sometimes find their worldview in pieces. Before the internet existed most people who lost their faith kept their doubts to themselves. There was no way to figure out who else might be thinking forbidden thoughts. In some sects, a doubting member may be shunned, excommunicated, or “disfellowshipped” to ensure that doubts don’t spread. So, doubters used keep silent and then disappear into the surrounding culture. Now they can create websites, and today there are as many communities of former believers as there are kinds of belief. These communities range from therapeutic to political, and they cover the range of sects: Evangelical, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, and (despite the threat) Muslim. There’s even a web home for recovering clergy. Heaven help the unsuspecting believer who wanders into one of these sites and tries to tell members in recovery that they’re all bound for hell.

Religion in Decline - FBBLifestyles of the fine and faithless. When they emerge from the recovery process former Christians and Muslims and whatnot find that there’s a whole secular world waiting for them on the web. This can be a lifesaver, literally, for folks who are trapped in closed religious communities on the outside. On the web, they can explore lifestyles in which people stay surprisingly decent and kind without a sacred text or authority figures telling them what to do. In actuality, since so much of religion is about social support (and social control) lots of people skip the intellectual arguments and exposes, and go straight to building a new identity based in a new social network. Some web resources are specifically aimed creating alternatives to theism, for example, Good without God, Parenting Beyond Belief, or The Foundation Beyond Belief. Others are simply feisty or funky communities that leave tribal theism in the dustbin of history.

Religion in Decline - WisdomCommonsInterspiritual Okayness. This might sound odd, but one of the threats to traditional religion is interfaith communities that focus on shared spiritual values. Many religions make exclusive truth claims and see other religions as competitors. Without such claims, there is no need for evangelism, missionaries or a set of doctrines that I call donkey motivators (ie. carrots and sticks) like heaven and hell. The web showcases the fact that humanity’s bad and good qualities are universal, spread across cultures and regions, across both secular and religious wisdom traditions. It offers reassurance that we won’t lose the moral or spiritual dimension of life if we outgrow religion, while at the same time providing the means to glean what is truly timeless and wise from our old traditions. In doing so, it inevitably reveals that the limitations of any single tradition alone. The Dalai Lama, who has lead interspiritual dialogue for many years made waves recently by saying as much: “All the world’s major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.”

The power of interspiritual dialogue is analogous to the broader power of the web in that, at the very heart it is about people finding common ground, exchanging information, and breaking through walls to find a bigger community waiting outside. Last year, Jim Gilliam, founder of Nationbuilder, gave a talk titled, “The Internet is My Religion.” Gilliam is a former fundamentalist who has survived two bouts of cancer thanks to the power of science and the internet. His existence today has required a bone marrow transplant and a double lung transplant organized in part through social media. Looking back on the experience, he speaks with the same passion that drove him when he was on fire for Jesus:

Religion in Decline - Hands lifting earth

I owed every moment of my life to countless people I would never meet. Tomorrow, that interconnectedness would be represented in my own physical body. Three different DNAs. Individually they were useless, but together they would equal one functioning human.What an incredible debt to repay. I didn’t even know where to start. And that’s when I truly found God. God is just what happens when humanity is connected. Humanity connected is God.

The Vatican, and the Mormon Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Southern Baptist Convention should be very worried.

Dr. Valerie Tarico is a psychologist with a passion for personal and social evolution.  In 2005, she co-founded the Progress Alliance of Washington, a collective of future-oriented donors investing in progressive change.


I don’t see the internet as a threat to religion. It is a threat to the old school ‘believe what you are told to believe’ style religion. The funny thing is that very similar arguments were made about the printing press.

I think that religion is inbred. It is part of our make up to want to believe in something bigger than ourselves and to organize around that belief so we can talk with like minded individuals. The internet won’t kill that, but it will make those communities more diffuse and less likely to be centered on a big brick building on Main St.

Inbred is right.

We are decoupled from absolute authority; privy to maddening amounts of information; and hip to the fact that, for the most part, we are just information, mostly bad information.

Religion is boring

Religion as many people practice it is outdated software. It no longer fits well with the hardware that surrounds us. That doesn’t mean that we don’t need something that will function in the same way as that old software in our new situation.

Right now there is no legal way of boosting your empathy for others -except through meditation as Buddhist monks practice.

How many places can you find the cross generation interaction that a lot of people will tell you is necessary for full development? One of them is in a church.

Where can you find a place where you can introduce millionaires to street people and have them converse as equals? I think you are noticing a trend here.

Religious practice is technology for achieving change in human beings. It isn’t clean and it isn’t well used. There are lots of people abusing it. But most of us don’t blame the computer when someone uses it to spread kiddie porn or hate. Why do we blame religion when it is people who make a mess of it.

There will always be religious practice, it will just be disguised as something else.

What religion should do in case you ask.

Religion well used will create critical thinkers not blind followers. It will enable us to give our efforts to a larger cause than our own fleeting happiness. It will make us more empathetic and more ethical.

One reason to appreciate religion is that—taking a decent Christian church as an example—a house of worship can be and often is the closest one can get to socialism. For example, the Catholic church nearby here is indistinguishable from a social democratic organisation. Take away the pro- “life” boilerplate, the anti-gay rhetoric, and the hustle-bustle (probably more hustle than bustle) of the outside world pales in comparison. Here in the Midwest the burghers are quite practical, yet business Rules the secular world, commercial values rule Supreme.
Another factor: the intentional communities I witnessed beginning 45 years ago faded away—with the sole exception of religious intentional communities.

The caveat is the above is damning faith with faint praise, it is saying the public is so unintelligent and foolish the public often needs religion for guidance; such makes a virtue of necessity: people simply can’t along so they need the pretentiousness of a guy nailed to a crucifix in taking on the sins of humanity.

Presecular religion will die, but religion certainly is not limited to the presecular.

@Alex: “Religion well used will create critical thinkers not blind followers. It will enable us to give our efforts to a larger cause than our own fleeting happiness.”
Yes, and a car with a flat tire well used will get you home. The notion that people who accept claims that require a special, heightened level of credulity will be more given to critical thought and less given to blindly following than people who do not accept such claims… taxes my credulity.

“Presecular religion will die, but religion certainly is not limited to the presecular.”

Now you’re cooking with gas. Plus, one can upload into a presecular substrate if one wanted to- though it is difficult to imagine how one would want to do so; however there is no accounting for taste. Which segues into another critique of religion: what we call religion isn’t merely metaphysics and so on but also aesthetics, heuristics, etc; when we attempt to go into it we get lost in abstractions. It is of the heart not the head.
At any rate, if one were truly ‘dedicated’ (obsessive) one could colonize other planets to start religious communities off the Earth, free from intrusions. One can live in intentional communities on Earth yet the problem of interference from the outside will be ever-present. You could live a spiritual life in the Caymans, say, but later on satanists may conceivably move nearby.
Then there’s religious VR as well…

SHaGGGz, your credulity is being taxed as a consequence of your excessively narrow understanding of “religion”. Of course there are many stupid religious ideas. By far most humans are religious and have been for as long as history, so to the extent humans are stupid, their stupidity is more likely than not to be reflected in their religion rather than in its absence. This shouldn’t be even remotely surprising.

@Lincoln: My understanding of religion narrows it to avoid diluting it to the near-meaningless notion that anything that allows humans to transcend themselves is religion. My conception emphasizes the sort of dogma that renders beliefs impervious to falsification, namely the kind that relies on closed information systems, as described in this article.

I don’t think that the internet will hurt religion. The whole theme of your article is that the internet spreads truth and once people know the truth they will abandon religion. That is surely not true. First, the internet spreads falsity and misinformation about many subjects including religion as much as it spreads truth. Second, I believe all religions have some truth in them and that people are blessed to learn those truths. Third, I have no problem with the internet helping to expose and get rid of scammers, con-artists, and abusers of religion for their own gain—this will make those who teach truth even more visible and precious. For sincere people, everything is about the search for truth. Does God exist or not? Does He have a loving nature or a tyrannical nature? Are some religions more “true” than others? Are some churches more “true” than others? These are questions that deserve a life-long search for more truth.

You indicate that “the Mormon Quorum of the Twelve Apostles…should be very worried.” I would not use the expression “very worried” but many of us in the Church are concerned that so many of our Heavenly Father’s children are not seeking to find and follow him. This was the same situation that existed when Jesus Christ, the God and Savior of this world, lived on the earth. He noted that the path to heaven and eternal life would be found in this life by but few persons. When many left Jesus on one occasion one of his disciples Peter said when asked if he also would leave “to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” (The New Testament - John 6)

Those of us who believe that we have found and are trying to follow the path that God would have us follow to find joy in this life and one day return to him and heaven of course sorrow that so few find it. We believe, nevertheless that it is the path that leads to true happiness. If this is right the final outcome direction is known and we only hope that as many as possible will find and follow the path to true happiness. That most do not in this life can be compared to those who choose unhealthy choices which eventually lead to unhappiness. We sorrow for rather than worry about these.

It is interesting that many of us who have rejected humanism like this as an answer,  also know that fundamentalism is humanism (in that man can find all in all in scripture rather than seeking Truth from the Author in a personal first Contact manner). The Bible is the truth about the truth not the Truth itself,  the Truth is a Person. Many of us still believe this truth came to earth as Jesus of Nazareth, 2,000 or so years ago, and we know the bible then to be a first contact manual replete with minor mistakes from the technical writers.
As an atheist you can reject this out of hand of course, nevertheless for those who still believe in the basic tenets of the church and know that the opposite is true of MS Tarico’s concluding statement, “God is just what happens when humanity is connected. Humanity connected is God.” Reality is that God wants humanity connected to Himself and everyone else (“love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself” is greatest commandment according to the bible). The bandwidth of this connection — love—simply, utterly and above all else — is the most open of all information systems. The internet has and will continue to help this truth to be spread in a global manner.

Have no idea what the Web will do to religion. Do know I will listen to what the religious have to say about moral codes. But whatever ethical coding they have to offer, I wont listen to speculation concerning for example Heaven or the Return of Christ (at any rate if Jesus returned He would probably be killed all over again).
Am no longer interested in hearing fairy tales; the religious can preach their fairy tales to their children- not those outside their families who have little/no interest in such fictions. The fact that men are so bloodyminded is what religion is all about: by pretending the world is filled with love (when the opposite is true) the Christian can transcend reality—with the caveat the world surrounding him can’t be entirely ignored.

Spray Lysol on a septic tank, it still remains a septic tank.

What I was attempting to say to Henry is that dreaming the impossible dream is acceptable if one doesn’t mistake the dream for reality. Upon waking in the morning, one quickly realises one’s dreams of the night were not real; one who is dreaming the impossible dream ought to realise one’s impossible dreams—impossible daydreams—have no materiality.

surely you knew this was coming.

Pastor Alex, you’re dead wrong. Religion is dying. Spirituality, which is what I believe you are actually defending, not religion, is going to be divorced from religion soon.

I’ve tried to explain this repeatedly, and no-one ever wants to comprehend the distinction.

Religion is the dogma, the mythology, and the fables, which you are demanded to believe no matter how nonsensical they may be.

Spirituality is a scientifically based set of practices and disciplines that enable individuals to grow and harness abilities that we all share but have largely never learned how to use. Divorced from the mythology, these practices can enable “super” human capabilities.

Religion, as pointed out by the article, is a system of control imposed by a memeplex intended to perpetuate the memeplex. it effectively enforces a social control mechanism that prevents individuals from questioning, and does so by “providing all the answers” to every question.

Science is INHERENTLY fatal to such systems, because it is a system to discover TRUE ANSWERS, and as such, it provides alternatives to the “complete world view” of religion. As the “world view” of science continues to discover the actual mechanisms of how “reality” works, it continues to disrupt the “virtual reality” of religions.

Does this mean that religion has nothing good in it? Not at all. merely that the “good” is mixed up with the “bad” and BECAUSE the religion INSISTS that you cannot selectively choose which parts are beneficial or non beneficial, to accept the “Religion” requires a cognitive dissonance that is becoming harder and harder to reconcile with reality.

Take Christianity for example: To call yourself a “Christian” regardless of denomination, you MUST (no exceptions allowed) believe that Christ a) existed, b) died for man’s sins, and c) rose from the dead.

Is there ANY Christian out there willing to dispute that these are 3 ESSENTIAL INDISPUTABLE FACTS that you MUST BELIEVE in order to claim to be a Christian? 

The problem is, to accept these as facts requires you to ignore the reality that there is ZERO evidence for the existence of Yeshua Ben Josef. Not one single credible historical source exists that mentions him, or any of the events of his life, such as the massacre of the infants or even his crucifixion.

Secondly, to believe that Yeshua “died for our sins” requires multiple other secondary beliefs, first and foremost, that “sin” even exists as a concept. I won’t even go into the ridiculousness of accepting the existence of sin, as it would take far too long to do here (I might write an article on it soon) However, to accept that Yeshua was a sacrifice, you have to accept that there is a vengeful deity who will ruthlessly condemn all humans to a “lake of fire” for their “sins” and only through an act of human sacrifice can he be appeased.

Thirdly, you have to believe that in the absence of any form of medical care, a badly abused and broken human body somehow repaired itself fully within 3 days, against all known evidence to the contrary. And that’s giving Yeshua the benefit of the doubt that he was actually deceased, instead presuming that he was merely comatose and appeared dead.

These are MYTHS and to accept them as REALITY is ABSURD and contrary to ALL ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT.

But they are what make up RELIGION.

That believe Yeshua taught love, forgiveness and non-judgemental acceptance of every human being as your “relative/family member/sibling” is not even in the same category as believing that he “died for our sins” and yet, you are expected to accept both as equally factual by religion.

And note, I am fully willing to accept the existence of beings of a “god-like” stature, especially since we as transhumanists are working towards turning humanity into them, but to believe that such beings would demand the worship of humans is just silly.

I’m sorry Alex. I know that you feel an urge to defend “religion” or else you would not call yourself “pastor” but the reality is that “religion” and “spirituality” are not, and never have been, the same thing. And Valerie is 100% correct that the internet is it’s deathknell.  The myths will be put where they belong, and the useful psychological techniques for disciplining ourselves and understanding our connections and place in the larger universe will be extracted. We don’t need the “just so stories” anymore.

Ice wishes to distinguish dogma from spiritual effectiveness; fair enough.  But in reality (this thread’s word of the day), there is nothing more liberal than dogma (to gloss Chesterton), and therefore nothing less imposing.  Forced belief would contradict the freedom of man that religion endeavors to highlight.  Dogma glimpses the incredible, and announces that which man plainly lacks the authority to change or contravene.  To insist upon this coherence is not to force anything, but to maintain the integrity of a definition:  a safeguard which science is unable to provide.

And so to Intomorrow’s “materiality.”  This is the distinction Ice also overlooks.  Science can say nothing about the materiality of the instruments it uses to discover “true answers” about materiality.  To insist that science-as-spiritual will uncover truth, is to adopt for science the kind of teleology that is rejected when offered from the lips of the religious.

Agreed, Henry. Religion is dying (and always has been dying) only if we understand it as dogmatically as have religious fundamentalists throughout the ages of human history.

Materiality does greatly matter at a transhumanist site.

“... many of us in the Church are concerned that so many of our Heavenly Father’s children are not seeking to find and follow him. This was the same situation that existed when Jesus Christ, the God and Savior of this world, lived on the earth. He noted that the path to heaven and eternal life would be found in this life by but few persons. When many left Jesus on one occasion one of his disciples Peter said when asked if he also would leave ‘to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.’ (The New Testament - John 6)
Those of us who believe that we have found and are trying to follow the path that God would have us follow to find joy in this life and one day return to him and heaven of course sorrow that so few find it. We believe, nevertheless that it is the path that leads to true happiness. If this is right the final outcome direction is known and we only hope that as many as possible will find and follow the path to true happiness. That most do not in this life can be compared to those who choose unhealthy choices which eventually lead to unhappiness. We sorrow for rather than worry about these.”

My judgment call is that religion someday will die and that the Web will have a role in ending religion. I agree with Valkyrie that religion offers ‘Just So’ stories. Until persons can be returned to life through science I will presume Jesus is thoroughly dead, only his legacy remains. Though Jesus’ legacy must be important or Jesus would not be discussed so much notice how writing such is damning Christ with faint praise: writing Jesus is important because we refer to Him frequently is well-nigh tantamount to saying because J. Lo and Jennifer Aniston are mentioned so much they must be important.
Lincoln, the following also damns religion with faint praise

“By far most humans are religious and have been for as long as history, so to the extent humans are stupid, their stupidity is more likely than not to be reflected in their religion rather than in its absence”

It is saying:
stupid religious people would be just as stupid—or even more so
—without religion than with religion.

What I dislike intensely about the religious is their smarm, esp. how they talk down to the homeless:
“you poor wretches, too bad you are down and out in the gutter; but our consciences are clear, we give you homeless shelters and soup kitchens.. so tough luck and better luck in the future. We have our families to worry about, we do not really love you or even care all that much about you—but that is the way the cookie crumbles.



Intomorrow, did you intend the irony in your post? Just-so stories expressed condescendingly? In any case, only among the religiously anti-religious is such a characterization of religion considered objective enough to justify anti-religiosity.

I do appreciate religion, however am not obliged to like religion for the same reason you or anyone else does. What is appealing is religious escapism, succor given to the sick/dying, and so forth. Nothing more.
Don’t want to underestimate relgion yet also do not want to overestimate.

No one can predict the future, but IMO as religion is less important today than it was in 1913, it will be less important in 2113 than it is now—and the Internet will have something to do with the diminishment. That is my judgment call. A thousand years ago, in 1013, religion was real, believers would look in the sky ad see God’s face; later on, Joan d’ Arc actually thought God was speaking to her.

Intomorrow, religion is less important today only when understood from a presecular perspective, and I don’t see much justification to insist on a presecular understanding of religion.

It isn’t actually religion itself I’m worried about, it is the religious themselves; don’t know what they are thinking—if you don’t know what someone is thinking then how can you assess what they say?

... Lincoln, must hasten to add nothing whatsoever against you personally- but I am sick ‘n tired of Midwestern stagnation. To put it baldly: if these ladies and gentlemen want nature and the past so much, by golly, let them keep it. Arguing when one is young is virtually unavoidable yet who wants to argue with luddites when one is in his or her Golden Years? For brevity’s sake, this is what I wrote at; it sums it up:

“there’s no promises, only encouragement. Religions can promise, not us. As Churchill, we promise blood sweat toil and tears—the rest are options.”

For the Internet to help people escape from churches,
they need to be able to use it anonymously.
This demonstrates how identification requirements (such
as those of Facebook and Google+) are dangerous.

Good point, rms, men do in fact want power even more than freedom, thus anonymity is crucial in evading the clutches of the many (millions) of control freak churches.

My point is how when we change religion de novo—and we do—we change the definition of religion. Same goes for socialism: the definition of socialism in 2013 is not the same as it was in 1848.The LDS church of today is not the church of Joseph Smith; Smith would not recognise today’s LDS. If he were to return to life he would not consider it to be LDS—at least not at first—it would take him quite a while to get used to it.

YOUR COMMENT Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Sexy Robot Massages Your Body

Previous entry: Indefinite lifespan possible in 20 years, expert predicts