RELIGION IS UNCONVINCING WHEN IT SAYS IT LOVES EVIL PEOPLE
Religion says we should love evil people. Now we all know this will be nearly impossible if somebody hurts us badly enough or attacks somebody close to us. So to prepare we have concentrate on kindness to people who hurt others and who are unfriendly and horrible. That gives us a chance of overcoming our dangerous rage when we are violated. There is no avoiding this. Religion says that if we have evil in our heart that is why evil emerges in the world and draws people in and they do terrible things. Now if we will hurt somebody and hate them for hurting our loved ones, that is because the evil inside us already. It is waiting for somebody to hurt us. And we need to root it out by giving special attention to the care of bad people. We will be told that if they take advantage that is their choice and we are still only doing the right thing.
This a terrifying message and shows that being good can hardly be a joyful thing! And what about those who are not involved with us? They will still be adversely effected.
The serenity prayer says that I can only change myself and have no hope of changing anybody else. If the latter listens to me that is their choice. They change themselves. But the problem is that the evil that we hate is what we see in people. And evil by definition asks for instant eradication. If the person is evil then the target is them. If you pretend the person wields the evil without being evil that may make no sense. The lies will come apart when you least expect it and you will lash out. But if they are not the evil then destroying them is an unfortunate side-effect of tackling the disease. Being told to help an evil person while you rage at how you cannot change them will only fan it into fury far more.
Religion plants extremist seeds in people. The seeds may be dormant or seem to be in a lot of people. Religion should be sternly opposed for the sake of people. The people are the ground and the sowing system is evil. It needs disbanding.
Religion may present its extremists as deranged or incorrigible. [It denies that they belong to it.] Just because they might be does not mean it led them to religious violence. Religion is not in the diagnosing business and this is a clear abuse of authority. It should not be even talking about "might be". Religion never tries to prove it or let the professionals decide. It just in ableist fashion tries to look good by drawing on prejudice against mental illness.
When you consider how in a more religious world loads of prayers were said for those hurt by war and for peace and things only got from heinous to far worse you see how insensitive prayer is. Praying people say it would be worse without prayers. It is a very serious claim to make. Surely people's lives are worth more than a religious standpoint? We need proof not offensive assumptions like that. What about the suffering caused to those who prayed and thought they did not deserve their prayers heard and thus only made it worse?
Another presumption here is that things will get terrible but at least Jesus is offering companionship. Some go as far as to say he offers comfort and resilience too.
If you really believe God is capable you would just pray "God thy will be done." But no you ask for specifics.
But you cannot win. If you pray too vaguely and just say pray for peace and do not ask for specifics you still think God is incapable. You may be trying to make answers for prayer seem so fuzzy so that you will think you see them. You are clearly not convinced they are going to happen.
In either case prayer is an act of doubt not faith.
You have no right to put your strength to help others or their grave needs in the hands of prayer then. It is like putting your sick child in the care of a doctor who you know does nothing much, if anything, to help.
Religion dehumanises people by calling them evil. Many call Satan and the demons evil. Is that not de-personalising? Hatred of even one creature such as Satan soon grows into hatred of other communities. Religion uses the back door to let harm in. Notice too in the gospels how the scribes and Pharisees are no worse or better than anybody else but Jesus picks on them a lot. He tellingly never gives specific concrete reasons . He never sits down with them to talk. It is only hearsay that they wanted him murdered.
If a religion claims to be a family that means it is claiming a power to make people a certain way by nature or nurture so it has to take some of the blame for what a member does. Families feel responsible and should.
The argument that a religion is
good because not all members are fanatics or dangerous is rubbish for there is
no such thing as a community that can be all bad and a bad community needs to be
good enough to stay in existence. It is irresponsible rubbish and if you
have to swallow it in order to follow religion then religion is not really good.
The notion that religion is goodm or a type of religion
is, leads to people who burn Bibles and Korans being blamed for any violent
retaliation from Christians or Muslims. The burners are blamed for any murders.
Let us choose a religion as an example. Our example
could be Christianity too which leads to Bible inspired violence as per the
actions of Mugabe. But let us use Islam. What if you say that the problems
in Islam are not an
excuse for
hating all Muslims? That is not helpful for the simple reason that not all that
hate all Muslims are using the bad deeds of Muslims as an excuse. They are
making the mistake
of tarring all with the same brush. To accuse people who may be mistaken, of
using an excuse for hating is quite vicious.
When a religion speaks about its members doing
violence it should say, "We have done this," not, “They have done this.”
You cannot say, "We have done this" when you are talking about others doing good
and refuse to take corporate or collective responsibility for the bad they do.
You would be an unfair hypocrite if you do that.
They say religion is corporate and collective
responsibility to a God and his alleged revelations and then have the nerve to
disconnect themselves from what embarrassing members do and say and enable.
Corporate unity be it in community or faith [and especially with faith community for it claims there is a God connection and grace connection between the members so it is “more” of a community than a mere human one] brings corporate responsibility. You do not get out of being guilty for the murder committed in the name of religion by another person in your religion by the mere fact that somebody else did it. True you are not to be jailed or anything but you have to answer for being in a religion that supposedly has power to help man rise above natural evil tendencies and which fails. It is ridiculous to condemn a religion as bad only if too many in it are bad for one bad member is too many.
You cannot look at violence in a religion and say the violent are aberrant believers. Why not? Because what you should check is if the religion is an aberration itself first. Converts tend to know the religion better and care about it more than those born into it. Thus too many dangerous converts to a religion is a sure sign that there is something harmful and a bad influence in the religion's faith system.
Why is religion so defensive? Why are its enablers as bad? Why do you get, "We are not all bad" when some members get on the wrong side of the law and media for they have engaged in terrorism and not for the other terrible things religion does? You don't hear religion using the excuse when you see the religion endorsing evil scriptures, its leaders endorsing religious war or some members doing harm in its name? It is a distraction. The bottom line is, if a religion is human it has to admit the bad goes with the good. And while it will scapegoat violent members it will not do that when it comes to the leaders or scriptures.
Religion, if you want to deny the religious label to those in your faith you dislike or disown, then don't ask outsiders to do it. And they are the ones who really count.
