How did controlling religion contribute to their power

A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence is applied to the analysis of religions as mechanisms of social control. The original six bases of power presented by French and Raven (1959)—coercion, reward, legitimate position, expert, referent, and informational—are expanded to include variants of these bases: personal reward and coercion and legitimacy of equity, reciprocity, and responsibility (Raven, 1992). Over centuries, certain sages, seers, and feeling that they knew what was best for their people individually and collectively, have attempted to utilize these power resources (e.g., to counter tendencies toward murder, theft, adultery, mayhem, or harmful dietary practices). To implement power strategies, various preparatory devices were developed, which include the establishment of a Deity, whose ultimate reward and coercive power is enhanced by omnipotence; whose omnipresence establishes necessary continual surveillance; and whose ultimate expertise follows from omniscience. Much of what has been developed in holy works, and in supportive art and literature, can then be seen as further preparing the bases of power for social control. Tensions result when a populace that is educated to expect informational power is faced with a religion that emphasizes extreme coercion, reward, ultimate legitimate and expert power.

Explanation:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

the punishment for breaking the law would depend on the conditions or the seriousness of the law being broken, if he or she breaks the law while doing some great discovery or invention then it would classify as a scientific fraud. there are other words to describe the crime but scientific fraud would be the harshest one.

answer by yourhope:

the speaker of which statement would be best served by joining an interest group?

i want politicians to make more of an effort for lgbt rights!

: )