Christian type Religion, Is it a Force for Good or Evil?
Politics and politicians are often intimidated by the
number of devoted people in a big religion. That is part of what the unjust
praise religion gets is about and why political language usually says that
religious terrorism is not religious terrorism but just terrorism! The
implication is that a terrorist religion should not be understood as a religion.
That prevents dialogue with it and keeps the problem prolonged. It turns
religion into another name for good.
A religion defining itself as good means nothing. Good is a vague term in a
world of relativists. A religion has to be good instead of defining itself. If
it is not good or good enough then it is a bad and false religion. A religion
defining itself as good proves it is not good for it has no right to do that.
Some say that when religion does bad it is not acting as
a religion. This means that if a religion is attacked or sued for evil doctrine
it cannot defend itself by appealing to the right of freedom of religion.
Interestingly it does try that route.
Why stop there? Why not say that when a religion ignores evidence and teaches false doctrine and dismisses disproofs of that doctrine that it is not acting as a religion then?
To define religion as being the same as good is
ridiculous. Nobody really thinks it is as good to be pope as it is to save a
baby's life or it is as good to read the Litany of the Virgin Mary as to read a
leaflet about child protection. And working out good is difficult and each moral
theory ends up hurting somebody for no theory is perfect.
Is it not dangerous if we tell ourselves religion is safe
if it is not? Some who feel that religion is dangerous feel that to say so
encourages believers to support the danger so they pretend the religion is all
lovey-dovey.
Now that we have all that cleared up let us ask if
religion is a force for good or evil. Some say religion commands only good -
that view is nonsense. If religion is man-made then there is a potential there
for creating violence especially when human rules and doctrines are claimed to
be God's when they are not. That is making an idol out of scriptures,
theologians, prophets and popes. And the scriptures of the religions all report
and approve evil that was endorsed by a higher power.
And far-fetched excuses and complicated "interpretations"
(usually politically expedient or politically correct distortions) are created
by theologians to get around the nasty and evil and stupid commands of God.
Interestingly the Bible never says a word to defend the evil it says God
commanded. Christians speculate that the Canaanites had to be destroyed but all
the reasons they come up with are guesses. It is sick to invent reasons for
murder that are not even endorsed by the Bible itself. The Bible just takes it
for granted that it was right for God's people to kill others. God never
explains exactly why say homosexuals must be destroyed nor does he justify
having them murdered by stoning. There are loads of other examples. Religion is
supposed to be for the ordinary person. The theological arguments to get around
the bad and the lies are too difficult, bizarre and improbable and the people
don't have the time and often the ability to understand them. The arguments are
not going to convince those who feel a call to ignite religious violence even if
they are intelligent. And why should they for the people who got the commands
would have known little about scriptures and religion and still God told them
through his prophets to slay and rape and maim for the greater good. God himself
demands that the men invested with his authority be obeyed and they certainly
did not think like theologians or understand religion well. Even the religious
leaders didn't - do you really think religious war-monger Moses or Muhammad was
a theologian? The theologians are just frauds - they are trying to defend evil
by a standard that was rejected by God and his people.
Some say that when a religion does bad, it may be
listening to and obeying the bad commands in its scriptures and not the good
ones. Their solution for this is telling them to follow the good commands. That
is only cherry-picking and hypocrisy. Corruption will soon ensue. The evil
commands are not to be belittled by merely being ignored. Doing that shows that
your respect for life and your concern for the harm they do or have done is
dimming. And you should be doing good for the sake of people not because a god
or book says so! The solution is artificial and just enables the lack of empathy
and integrity that draws people to commit atrocities in the name of faith.
If you start reading the nasty infallible decrees of the Catholic Church and
those of its God in the Bible calling for belief in stupid doctrines and for
holy war and the brutal execution of certain sinners and argue, "The religion is
a good religion when understood properly," that is desensitisation. The people
who obeyed the evil rules told themselves the same thing. If we refuse to face
our evil we will never get the chance to overcome it. Plus, a good religion for
one person allows abortion to save the life of the mother and a good religion
for another does not. A good religion for one person eliminates all who
challenge the veracity and truth of that religion - eg religious sceptics - so
that people will keep believing what God says must be believed to avoid a worse
fate than being destroyed - everlasting agony in Hell. A good religion for
another considers morality to be relative. The likes of Tony Blair who says that
Christianity is about love and who refuses to admit that its God and Jesus
endorsed religious fanaticism and cruelty is saying, "Christianity is whatever
agrees with me." The arrogance! He therefore lacks credibility and so by urging
people to become Christian he is saying, "Be stalwart Christians - I may be
wrong that it is a religion that forbids fanaticism and cruelty in the name of God
so if you think you should execute gays on scriptural grounds then go ahead."
The Bible God commanded the death penalty. This was solely for getting rid of
the "sinful" person. God said that it is about purging the evil from your midst.
The Christian won't mention that and if a critic would then it would be passed
over.
Some Christians in their ignorance justify God's command on the grounds of
deterrence and ignore the fact that the death penalty does not deter criminals
and indeed makes society more inhuman. Imagine the damage that God's command
that the death penalty is the way to deal not just with murderers but kidnappers
and adulteresses and idol-worshippers and gay men must have done?
http://www.reprieve.org.uk/articles/2010_02_17_DP_campaign_deterrence/
The Bible says in Ephesians 4 that sin has tainted our understanding and claims
that we must give God the utmost commitment and learn about him from the book he
wrote, the Bible. None of this fits the Christian attitude which is really just
about inventing excuses to get around the teaching of the Bible. It will lack
credibility and fail to dissuade those who want to murder and maim because the
Bible God allows murdering and maiming. Politics unlike religion can never claim
the authority and right to tell people what to think. Religion is more
dangerous.
Christians allege that the problem of anti-Semitism would not disappear if
religion, specifically the Christian religion and Islam, disappeared. But
nobody can deny that the prevalence and the virulence of anti-Semitism would
diminish if religion vanished.
To hold that salvation can only be got through Jesus
makes it impossible to truly respect a person of religion or an atheist who
denies or ignores that. Christians sometimes answer that they have their
own firm belief and they can respect the right of the other to hold their belief
and even respect the belief. Also the claim that the sincere non-Christian
is actually getting saved by Jesus without knowing it is patronising and
arrogant and condescending. Would Christians like it if Satanists said
that Satan was doing what they think Jesus is doing for them? Saying Jesus
works to save people even if they think he is not is just another form of
intolerance.
Respecting the right of the person to differ is enough. We should all be mature
enough to agree to differ. But to go as far as to say that a belief even if evil
or stupid should be respected and celebrated is ridiculous. And if the Catholics
celebrate Islamic opposition to the worship of the communion wafer they pray to
they are contradicting their Catholic faith.
Respecting belief is a buzz thing today and the do-gooders love it. But it
necessarily implies disrespect for persons. Here is how. If you respect a
person's belief that is not the same as respecting the person. The person is not
their belief. You must respect the person by refusing to laugh at or ridicule
their belief. You should not feel right if a person says they are respecting
your belief - what about you? Things are not respected for their own sake but
for the sake of people. It is really the people who are respected. If belief
should be respected then belief is sacred no matter how stupid or bad it is.
Would the Christians hold that a person has the right to reject God so we should
not encourage anybody to accept God into their lives? No. They do not really
believe that belief should be automatically respected. Nobody does.
The modern insistence on respecting belief is really religion trying to create a
culture where it avoids getting criticised or debunked by scholarship. The
person for example who shows that religion is lying about its powers and
benefits is considered to be a sociopath. Respecting belief is really about
promoting not tolerance but skin-deep tolerance.
Those religionists who use that respecting other faiths and beliefs line are
irritating hypocrites. At least they are evidence that religious leaders carry
on like politicians - fake charm and craftiness and bending the truth. Such is
his arrogance that he does not want to notice how the likes of him defending
religion is only going to put people off religion. He sugarcoats religious evil.
Some people say we should accept people who have beliefs that differ from ours
because there is more than one road to God! The implication is that thinking you
alone have the way leads to intolerance! Atheists go a bit further and say that
trying to find God leads to intolerance!
If religion as religion is not at fault when its followers do evil, then maybe
it is the type of religion that is the problem. But as religion is all united in
its acceptance of the supernatural, it is intrinsically dodgy.
Even if a religionist is good, he or she has to take responsibility for the
silly and harmful beliefs of the religion. As long as you are a member, you are
taking on this responsibility. It does not matter that you didn't invent the
doctrines or preach them. You are sharing responsibility for them by supporting
the authority that makes the doctrines.
Religion is not a force for good and any good that takes place does not take
place because of religion but in spite of it.