Organized Religion should be dismantled

In the interest of not attempting to conduct multiple debates simultaneously, I will cede a shared burden of proof just for expediency's sake. I would, however, be highly interested in moving that concept to a separate debate, because yes, I do believe that those positing a flat earth did not have the burden of proof in ancient times. I would expound on that, but doing so would be unfair to my opponent since I'd be attempting to "sneak in a last word" after tacitly declaring that the topic should be tabled. My opponent posits that organized religion, by virtue of being a heirarchy, inherently contributes to wars and acts of terror because those "in charge" can call for it and be taken seriously by their followers. This is quite obviously true; world historical events from the Crusades to the Spanish Inquisition to the September 11th attacks can obviously speak to its truth. However, my opponent practically declares on their own that this is less about being religious and simply more about being a heirarchy; by this same token, governments are self-evidently even more destructive and warmongering, and even the most benign heirarchies have been known to terrorize communities (ever tried to tell a girl scout that you're not going to buy her cookies? Just kidding... mostly). Yet no one seriously talks about banning all heirarchies, probably because it would ironically have to be a heirarchical leader making such a call in the first place. Heirarchies are inherent in any human pattern of organization; no building gets built without a work crew under the command of a crew supervisor. In anticipation of that counterargument, my opponent cedes the good things that can come out of heirarchies (religious ones in particular) and gets to the root of his assertion: that the negative outweighs the positive. Putting aside for a moment how subjective such an argument would be and how difficult it would be to truly quantify, the simple truth remains that human beings are trained to highlight the negative. Nightly news programs don't frequently talk about simple acts of kindness, but they always cover terrorist attacks. That being the case, I assert that my opponent is understating the scale of positive impact on the world. People who are helped learn the value in it, and are more likely to reciprocate it. Their outlook on life is increased, which undoubtedly has prevented crimes and murders that would have happened if those people were left in desperation. How many lives have been saved by such action? How many children born who wouldn't otherwise have been? It's impossible to know for sure. To be fair, it's equally impossible to know what children were never born because of religious-sponsored acts of violence and terror, although we can ballpark how many lives lost. I would argue that the net result has been positive. My opponent would argue that the net result has been negative. Both of us could cite any number of achievements on the part of various churches to support our arguments, and neither of us could ever hope to paint a complete picture of church contributions in human history with only 10,000 characters to work with. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the overall contribution of religion in history balances out to exactly zero - as many lives lost as saved, and vice versa. Would that not prove my opponent's point that such institutions are ultimately unnecessary? This would essentially be the thrust of my opponent's second claim: that there is "no benefit" to having a moral authority in our lives. First, let's go ahead and state the obvious: if God exists, and organized religion exists to properly interpret His will for the people as it claims, then the benefit of organized religion can't be overstated. Expressing gratitude and love to an all powerful creator, to whom we owe all life, should be everbody's Priority One. However, since there's obviously inadequate data to scientifically prove the validity of that claim, let's assume, again for the sake of argument, that God does not exist and the only perceptual benefit of the church is its moral philosophies. My opponent makes two arguments here which, in my view, fall flat on their face: that organized religion fails to make people more happy, and that organized religion fails to make people more moral. I wholeheartedly cede the argument that organized religion doesn't make one more happy; in fact, I was delightfully surprised to find that the study didn't determine it made one less happy. Making its adherents happy in this life is something that organized religion has never claimed to do and is most certainly not designed to do. It is pretty much a universal truth that every organized religion comes with a package of obligations, extra rules, and higher standards; the Judeo-Christian religion, in particular, is filled with examples of early church leaders suffering for their beliefs, and promises suffering to all followers. Nothing about that is designed to make people happier, and the fact that the study did not determine religious people to be less happy strikes me as strong proof of the high value that can be placed on living successfully within a moral framework. Regarding the concept of failing morality, I reject my opponent's premise that examining the legal records of the faithful is an efficient metric for determining the success of organized religion in making one more moral. For one thing, legality and morality are not synonymous; per Doctor Martin Luther King's letter written while he was incarcerated, a moral person has a responsibility to violate unjust laws as surely as they have an obligation to follow just ones. For another, declaration of membership in a particular organized religion is often just an inmate's way of ensuring a certain type of diet; an inmate who loves fish, for example, might claim to be Catholic when they are not just to make sure they get fish on Friday, or one might claim to be Jewish just to avoid eating ham sandwiches. This is an extremely common practice among inmates, and the entire 11.9% difference in those statistics could not unreasonably be assumed to fall within that purview. But more scathing than either of those objections is the simple truth that failing to meet a standard once doesn't mean there's no value in promoting the standard. One might as well be arguing that there's no point in having laws at all because some people break them. My opponent's final point is that organized religion is undemocratic and subjects people to rule. To the extent that organized religion is actively involved in some Middle Eastern governments, this certainly is true, and I would stand in support of removing organized religion from the business of ruling countries, but that's not what is being debated here; my opponent has called for removing organized religion from the face of the Earth entirely. As a separate entity existing within a democratic state, organized religion is as democratic as you can get, because attendance and participation within the religion are not compulsory; anyone can quit at any time, simply by ceasing to go to service. Contrasted against living in a democratic country, where people would have to be able to afford to move to a different one and find a different one in which they can attain citizenship, there is objectively more freedom of choice in religious membership. As for who gives religious leaders their right to lead, it depends on one's point of view. Those empowered within the religion would eagerly point out that they are not the leaders themselves, merely laborers in the service of a Divine Monarchy. Again, we will assume this to be delusional, in which case church leaders have been chosen under the processes established when those churches were formed; most or all have some method by which the faithful can choose to elevate themselves. They are usually, indeed, better educated, with all Catholic priests, for example, completing four year seminary colleges before serving, thus making them at least equivalent to holders of a Bachelor's Degree. I (and they) certainly concede that they are not better at not sinning, with Catholic priests again, unfortunately, providing the most obvious example. So where does this leave us? With the impact on the world assumed to be zero, and the moral influence also balancing out to about zero, this brings us to the idea that organized religion is unnecessary if God does not exist, and indispensible if He does; most religious leaders would agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. Since the existence of God is an unknown factor, this alone would be enough argument for not dismantling organized religion. However, I'm sharing the burden of proof here, so I would take the argument a step further and argue that even if God were proven to not exist, organized religion does us a huge service simply by promoting the struggle. My premises for that argument are as follows:1) Good and evil exist in the world, with or without organized religion. 2) Organized religion holds people to higher standards, usually morally good ones. On the whole, without organized religion, there would be some less evil, but there would be a greater loss in the amount of good. Therefore, removing organized religion from the human experience would do more harm than good. Beyond that, to the extent that organized religion can be modified, it would be more beneficial to human society to simply maximize its positive aspects and minimize its negative aspects would be preferable to a complete removal.