DON'T CONFUSE CIVILITY AMONG RELIGIONISTS FOR THE RELIGION AS SUCH BEING GOOD
Religion gets a free pass in society despite the harm it does and gets access to the vulnerable. The problem is that we are too superficial and admire its seeming civility. That is not enough. Dictators got to power on the back of civility.
Love the religionists
but not their religion?
Though people say you must hate the sin and love the
sinner, nobody seems to say you should hate the religion and love the people in
it when it is an error-ridden, bad and dangerous religion. Are those who say
that a religion is acceptable for not all the people in it are bad really
qualified then to assess? No.
To prefer to blame a religious person for the evil he
or she does in the name of faith in religion and say it has nothing to do with
religion is persecuting that person in the name of religion. It would be kinder
to look at how the beliefs ruined that person. If religion demands that it be
exonerated all the time, then religion is bad.
And loving the sinner and hating the sin is such a
basic principle to religion that it can be considered its bedrock. But it is
deceitful. Moreover it leads to people saying, "I love the sinner but do not
forgive his sin." Good people should not join religion when it is founded on a
bad and hypocritical principle. Hypocrisy is the seed of further and worse
hypocrisy.
The few bad eggs can justify condemning a
religion
Suppose there is reasonably good religion x and
reasonably good religion y. X has a few bad eggs and so has y. The bad eggs are
sometimes enough to justify condemning the religion and urging people to depart
from it. They justify departures when the evil they do outweighs any good done
by the religion. They justify departures when the evil they would do if able
outweighs any good done by the religion. We know Islamists and some
Fundamentalist Christians would wage nuclear war just to destroy other
religions. This justifies those who depart for there are signs and a real risk
that the disease of religious fanaticism will spread to the majority and make
them dangerous too. It is going to have a political impact and influence. If you
support say a fundamentalist evangelical religious and social structure, you are
creating the political religious crank of tomorrow. The disease of religious
fanaticism will spread to make most members enablers of the violent view.
Members usually let the bad people do their violence or make excuses for them
afterwards or demand that they be forgiven. You can convert to a religion you
would normally dismiss as crazy or stupid when you see it getting the
superficial credibility that comes from a seemingly big though albeit
superficial and hypocritical membership and by the fact that society seems
largely to permit the religion.
A country asks one person to vote to see if it will
introduce infanticide clinics or not. What if that person is you? You will feel
horrendous about voting yes. You will nearly certainly vote no. But what if the
vote was put to the whole country. Imagine that half the country if not more is
expected to vote yes. You will not feel bad about your yes vote then. Something
called diffusion of responsibility is at work. You don't feel as much to blame
if others are involved. Yet you are still the same kind of person as you would
be if the vote were given to you alone. Hypocrisy then is built into human
nature and is stronger than any desire for God. In fact claiming to be God's pal
is boastful considering how hypocritical human nature is. It is trying to put
God's stamp on your pretence. If you think God is ultimately in control of the
universe that means that if you murder babies you think you share the
responsibility for the deaths with God. That is diffusion of responsibility too.
"My leaving the religion will not help"
If a religion has a violent history, some violent
members and violent scriptures then it is the height of arrogance to reason, "O
I would never get involved in sectarian violence." The violent members once told
themselves the same thing. And you are unaware of how easily people can be
corrupted or misled. And you are involved indirectly in the violence for no law
forces you to support this religion or let your name be on its membership rolls.
To be arrogant and proud when people suffer and die or have done because of your
religion insults them. You have taken the baby steps to corruption.
If you claim to be in a bad religion because it will
improve or leaving will make it worse, then prove that. You would need to be
arrogant to think that your presence in a religion is indispensable to improving
it. It is too serious of a matter to expect people to take your word for it that
you have good intentions and are not a hypocrite or a coward. Anybody who sits
on a fence can say staying in helps or avoids something worse. The religion is
bigger than you if it is corrupt and your staying is only asking for to be
corrupted. And unless you are pope or something you cannot do much about the
corruption.
To stay in a harmful or lying religion while claiming
that you feel it will change for the better is just an excuse unless you have
strong proof that it will change or you are doing something serious to change
the religion. It was the ordinary Catholics of the Dark Ages that empowered the
Church's reign of terror and some of them told themselves that the evil Church
would change so it was worth staying. When the Church was murdering and
butchering and persecuting truth, some kings/rulers and some of the populace
said, "They are sinners and not a reflection on our holy religion." They told
themselves that to feel good about the fact that they were complicit in all
that. It is like how Eve tried to blame Adam for what she did.
The Church ran a few hospitals and orphanages and
bragged about some of the saints and that made the populace willing to overlook
the bloodletting.
Your staying in a religion is bad if it is not going
to change anything. And if you are honest, you will stay in the religion even if
your support helps make it worse! And in a small way it does - there is strength
in numbers and in big membership lists. Your membership is support.
You do not see humanistic or secular organisations
trying to justify evil behaviour (and enabling evil to happen is evil
behaviour!) done by members the way religion does. For example, the humanist
cannot say that she let the child molester run rampant for she had the feeling
that he would miraculously see the light. The secular politician will not let
terrorists roam free while claiming that he is saying prayers that will prevent
them from doing any harm.
Finally
We conclude that a religion from a loving God will
produce something better than civility. It would be arrogant to attribute your
civility to God. It suits you to be civil. There is no remarkable goodness in
any religion or non-religious entity in the sense that you can find a person
better than Mother Teresa in any camp. And any goodness comes from within not
from religion. When you join a religion with a dark side you must take
responsibility for helping that dark side to exist. The "not all bad" argument
is a reason for rejecting religion not accepting it.
What bad people in
your religion do makes it right and a duty for
others to say of you, “Not likely that she is as bad but maybe?”
It may be a slight maybe but it is still there.
And if it is not it should be. If you
refuse to admit this you only compound your indirect role in the evil of the
religious bullies and religious terrorists in your religion.
A religion being mostly filled with good people is
only mostly good. It proves religion can be bad and if something is mostly good
then it is true to call it partly bad. You cannot ignore the bad members and the
bad side and thereby condone them by saying the religion is essentially or
totally good! You close off any discussion if people are willing to be corrected
if they are contradicting their religion. That cannot happen if you treat them
as outsiders of their religion and it creates a new us versus them fiasco.
Religion is stronger and gets better commitment when
it is demanding and nasty. That says a lot.
People tend to believe lies they
hear over and over again or they think they believe. If that is the reason for
religion's success it makes it to blame for the harm it does as a religion and
also to blame for the harm done by that tendency. People who are
conditioned to let themselves be conditioned by lies only end up as prey for
sharks other than religion.
Those who praise your involvement in a harmful
religion while saying all people in it are not bad are actually one-dimensional.
They won't challenge your faith and allegiance and so are to blame for the
spread of the disease.
Real goodness is rooted in an extreme respect for
human life. Extreme as in you will not give up promoting whatever helps life
thrive and thrive happily. If religion is not needed to help people become good
it is superfluous. The person who is not religious but who goes among the lepers
to be the “god” that cares for them in the absence of divine love is better than
the whole system of doctrine and scriptures and authority that makes up the
religion. The religion that is superfluous is to blame for the badness in its
flock for it pretends to be able to treat it with prayers and sermons and
sacraments and it cannot. To make people think they are helped when they are not
is to hinder not help.
Religion when it claims to connect you to absolute
goodness and give you power to overcome your dark side must live by and be held
to a bigger standard than a secular body should be. It never is and it does not
want to be. It would not last if it did.
It is stupid to point to religious people as religious people and say any problems their religion causes are one thing but the most important thing is that they are not all bad. Not all being bad is not enough. They need to be good as well. Moreover they should be seen as good people not good religious people. Good is natural and letting a system of religious belief steal it is in fact bad. The goodness they have has nothing to do with the religion which is why it is only fair to look at the harm the faith does.
All guns could in fact be loaded. We know that despite that they might not be. But if we carry on as if we know they are, at least we are safe and protecting others as well. It about survival. If we refuse to believe then soon there will be many many murders. The same goes for any religion you can name. Treat its beliefs and ideology as a threat and more people will be safe.