Free will according to religion is a gift from God that we supposedly abused and wrecked his all good creation with.

It gives religion a good excuse for saying that those who engage in anti-social or dangerous acts in the name of faith are not representative.  It goes, "We are not all bad."  This actually assumes we should be optimistic against the evidence that religious people will use their free will better from now on!  It is crafty.

It is easy for commenters to say, "There are harmful variants of Islam and Christianity—specifically the rigid fundamentalist versions." We note that the Qur'an commands and revels in violence and enables violence by not saying, "Love your enemy as yourself".  So it is surprising that no Christian group today uses the vicious laws of God given in the Bible to the same extent that ISIS uses the pro-violence commands of Allah in the Qur'an. Why do many Islamists carry out the murderous directives of God in the Qur'an while the even crueller and more detailed horrors commanded by God in the Bible [which even Jesus hailed as divinely inspired] get ignored by Christians? Every religious extremist starts off nice and indeed the extremist might reason, "Maybe I am going too far but there are so many wonderful people in my religion so it is not all bad for we are not all bad." The not all bad excuse is part of the reason why religion is bad.

Christianity says the humanist view that human nature is basically good was definitively refuted by the Nazi Holocaust. Read between the lines. This is a rejection of the “some not all” logic. The faith condemns itself!
What does the excuse mean?
Some say that when a religion does harm that it is not all bad meaning that it has good teachings and/or produces good people.
Some argue that even if you cannot show a religion really made somebody good you can say the religion is not all bad for there are some good people like this one in it. Sorry that will not do. A religion needs to be able to produce some good people otherwise it is nothing. Good people just being in a religion have nothing to do with making the religion in any way good or partly good.
If a religion does not produce good people, then the good people in it is irrelevant. Why? Because their goodness belongs to them as good people and is independent of their faith and religion. They were going to be good anyway. If the excuse refers exclusively or mainly to the goodness of religious teaching, you end up looking ridiculous and arrogantly insulting by saying that that the Jehovah's Witnesses who kill children through banning blood transfusions are as good as the Quakers who do nothing harmful. You end up condoning religious evil unless you are only applying the excuse to one or some religions but not all.
If man creates religion so that he can be good, how good is he? A really good person does not need a prop and cannot use one. Religion then cannot be really good if it exists as a prop.
The excuse that religion is acceptable or even terrific because its people are not all bad has to admit that there is a dark side. Religion is not all good either and that is important. The excuse wants you to dwell on the good instead and that is dangerous and irresponsible and shows supporters of the faith have something to hide.

Religion may present its harmful members as intruders not members or insane.  It calls them medically insane.  It calls them spiritually insane for they have a deranged relationship with faith.  Just because the members might be does not mean that those doing the talking are sane themselves.  Just because the members might be does not mean it led them to religious violence.  Religion never tries to prove its self-serving allegations.  It does not even say that about them after it talks to them.  It just gives them a remote diagnosis.  That is just guessing.  Religion in ableist fashion is trying to look clean by drawing on prejudice against mental illness.


No Copyright