We already know that no matter what evil purpose a group exists for all people in it are not the same.  Some would still give their right arm to help you.  It does nothing to validate the group as intrinsically from God or some good force.  Only liars say it does. 

If you say the world is better with your organisation than without it then how do you verify that?  You cannot.  You are proving the opposite if you are weaponising the sacrifices of people in that religion to argue that it is good in that way.  It is not your good you are using.  You don't own it.  Most good done by religious members is not done for validating the religion or its faith.  We react and do good and most of it is not about trying to sell a spiritual product.

Most people do not engage in violence and rabid hate and are okay as people that is why the good done by religious people should be considered normal not religious. This means the criteria of a good religion is, “There must be a remarkable lack of violence and rabid hate in the religion.”  A religion then must want other communities and religions to do bad so that it can look good so that you have something to compare it to.

The perception that religion leads to violence as religion though many members are still good people for they are not involved is a popular one.  Religion makes a core thing out of that.  It may do that all the while knowing that it is not enough to make a religion or anything something that should be supported or encouraged.  Do you encourage heavy alcohol sessions just because some people are good and good fun when they get a lot and suffer no major harm? 

Today there is a problem with Islam.  The politically correct hypocrites make out that Islam is not at fault for terrorism are ignoring the fact that it is as possible for a religion to be at fault for having one terrorist never mind hundreds. It is not a numbers game and it is callous to make it one. They find themselves forced to refuse to admit that any religion is at fault. Thus they declares the right or worse that there is an obligation to say one religion is as good as another. This is intolerant. It is intolerant of the truth and that is worse than being intolerant of anything else. There must be truth before there can be justice. And many religions claim to offer salvation in ways that others cannot. A religion does have the right to claim to be the only way to God.

The good done by people cannot be used to compensate for the evil the religion they freely stay and and pray in and give money to has done.  They degrade their good if they see it as making the bad okay or even tolerable or forgiveable.  We should do good because we are human and not because we are religious.

Religion is a community built on a supernatural belief system.  A belief system that is a community is to admit a share of the blame when some members do harm. And so is one made up of individuals. The system permits individuals to be individuals which amounts to permitting them to do harm.  

The argument that when harm is done in the name of a religion is, “That is the individual not the religion!” The argument does not apply if the religion claims to be or acts as a grouping of individuals. But you cannot blame a cricket club in any way for what some members do. True but you can if it will not apologise as if it were to blame. Religion never would apologise. As organised religion is given more support or value than people need it to have. Nobody dies of having no Church – being a religionist is no help when there is no food in the world. So religion is not the same as a cricket club. One is needed and the other is not. When individuals create a social structure that is not needed or one that exaggerates its value they make the argument inapplicable to them.

"That is the individual not the religion or religious community" is implying that the person may have a mental disorder or some personality defect.  This is weaponising the plight of vulnerable people in the service of an ideology.    Some atheists regard any commitment to religion, especially strong commitment, as some kind of disorder.  It is horrible when religion tries to do the same thing when it is members it wants to distance itself from in order to look good and holy.

Religion has to do wrong to those who do harm in its name.  It is possible that a religion may have allies who are not members who still harm in its name and for it.  It has no right to disregard them just because they are not members.  They think a lot like members and that is what counts.  It is planting seeds of evil and evil breeds evil.

If you argue that religion should get money and support and be in schools because of its good people,  then people see through you.  If you are so sure and confident that they are good, then they will remain good if their religion or their religious privileges are taken away.


No Copyright