Can Religion Do No Wrong?

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that everytime a religion gets criticized for promoting some wrong in the world, many of us (myself included, often enough) jump to defend the religion by pointing out that "It's not the religion that has caused the evil, but rather evil people hiding behind the religion who have caused the evil." But is this always true? Can a religion do no wrong?

Under what circumstances, if any, do we blame a religion for a wrong, and not just the followers of the religion?

If religion X said in it's teachings, "Pick the wings off flys whenever ye shall catch them.", and if many or most of the followers of religion X did just that, would we not hold religion X responsible for promoting cruelity to flys?

But what if religion X didn't actually tell anyone to do any particular thing about flys, but merely said something along the lines of "Flys are an abomination unto the Lord". Could we still hold religion X responsible for promoting cruelity to flys if many or most of its followers interpreted that passage to mean they should treat flys cruelly?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Religions - like everything else - must be interpreted by people. They are created by people in the first place, so I'd have to say that religion itself can do wrong, and we should be honest about harmful religious practices.

 

[yuvgotmel]

Hummm.. this is a puzzling predictament you've presented.

Personally, I feel as free beings with freewill, we are, therefore, responsible for our actions. How incomprehensible would it be for me to go before a judge and blame someone else for what I knowingly did? It would appear similar to a conspiracy plot at that point, where Person A claims, "Well Person B told me to do such-and-such" and added that "the reward would come when the deed was done". The judge would not exclude Person A from guilt. Furthermore, Person B would subsequently be brought forth to answer for their involvement in the crimes as well.

 

[MaddLlama]

If someone says "The devil made me do it", do we believe them, or hold them accountable for their actions?
I think all to often though, religous leaders condone violence and cruelty when they should be condemning it, and it gives the religon itself a bad name.

If a religion tells people to be cruel, then it is as much the fault of the religion as it is the person. But, if the religion suggests that something is bad, and a person interprets that as an "ok" to be violent towards that thing, then the responsibility is on the person.

 

[lilithu]

It seems to me that everytime a religion gets criticized for promoting some wrong in the world, many of us (myself included, often enough) jump to defend the religion by pointing out that "It's not the religion that has caused the evil, but rather evil people hiding behind the religion who have caused the evil." But is this always true? Can a religion do no wrong?

Under what circumstances, if any, do we blame a religion for a wrong, and not just the followers of the religion?

If religion X said in it's teachings, "Pick the wings off flys whenever ye shall catch them.", and if many or most of the followers of religion X did just that, would we not hold religion X responsible for promoting cruelity to flys?

But what if religion X didn't actually tell anyone to do any particular thing about flys, but merely said something along the lines of "Flys are an abomination unto the Lord". Could we still hold religion X responsible for promoting cruelity to flys if many or most of its followers interpreted that passage to mean they should treat flys cruelly?

And what if religion X says "Flies are an abomination unto the Lord" in one part of its scriptures, and says "Love all animals" in another part of its scriptures? What if some of religion X's followers cite the first quote to justify their torturing flies, and some others of religion X's followers cite the second quote to explain why they fight to stop the torture of flies and nurse flies back to health when they find them? How then do we judge the religion?

I agree that if it were the case that a religion caused its followers to do harm and no good then it can be judged a harmful religion. But most every religion I know is not so clear cut.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Good question... many times we focus on the aberrations of a religion and not the daily grind. Christianity's main tennent is "LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR", and yet we see so much evil that has been done in the name of Christianity. Why is this?

I would suggest that many of these abberationists employ two basic principles: denial and justification. So what's the underlying motive for these heinous acts? Usually hate, greed or lust. Either way, in order to live with themselves and among polite society they have to deceive themselves and the general population. How? Denial and justification.

Rather than accept responsibility for their own actions, they blame God. It is my opinion that a lot of the OT consists of man justifying their wars by claiming that God told them to do it. It's an old take on the "Debil made me do it". I fully believe that God is love and that God was clearly misrepresented in the OT.

 

[patronkerr]

The way I see it is that religions are founded by man, interperated by man, administered by man and more often than not run for the benefit of man. No doubt my claim that that religions are 'founded' by man will be questioned but consider, why are there so many. Every major religion has numerous off shoots, branches, sub sects or whatever you like to designate them. Why? Is it because the interpretation of one man is different to another? Why is it that there is not just ONE Christian church? Why does one church claim that they have the only truth? I await a good explanation. That is why religion can do wrong. There are not many saints out there!

 

[Sunstone]

And what if religion X says "Flies are an abomination unto the Lord" in one part of its scriptures, and says "Love all animals" in another part of its scriptures? What if some of religion X's followers cite the first quote to justify their torturing flies, and some others of religion X's followers cite the second quote to explain why they fight to stop the torture of flies and nurse flies back to health when they find them? How then do we judge the religion?

I agree that if it were the case that a religion caused its followers to do harm and no good then it can be judged a harmful religion. But most every religion I know is not so clear cut.

I suppose then one would have to ask whether the good done by followers of the religion outweighed the harm done by followers of the religion.

 

[Booko]

Religions - like everything else - must be interpreted by people. They are created by people in the first place, so I'd have to say that religion itself can do wrong, and we should be honest about harmful religious practices.

I'd add to this there is the possibility that a religious teaching that was beneficial in the past might be harmful today.

 

[lilithu]

I suppose then one would have to ask whether the good done by followers of the religion outweighed the harm done by followers of the religion.

How would one go about quantifying such a thing? And if by miracle you could determine somehow that a religion's effects were 55% harmful and 45% beneficial overall, would that be enough to justify condemning the religion that millions look to for daily comfort and inspiration?

Personally, I do not subscribe to Utilitarian ethics.

 

[Quiddity]

Religions - like everything else - must be interpreted by people. They are created by people in the first place, so I'd have to say that religion itself can do wrong, and we should be honest about harmful religious practices.

That's usually how I see it.

 

[Sunstone]

How would one go about quantifying such a thing? And if by miracle you could determine somehow that a religion's effects were 55% harmful and 45% beneficial overall, would that be enough to justify condemning the religion that millions look to for daily comfort and inspiration?

Personally, I do not subscribe to Utilitarian ethics.

Whether one wants to call it utilitarian ethics or not, if one discovered that religion X prompted people to feed and clothe the poor but was also responsible for endless violent sectarian conflict that killed thousands or tens of thousands, it would be pretty easy to recommend that people adopt a better religion than religion X. Perhaps one that fed and clothed the poor but was not responsible for so many deaths.

 

[Katzpur]

There are not many saints out there!

Oh, but there are! There are almost 13 million.

 

[Quiddity]

Whether one wants to call it utilitarian ethics or not, if one discovered that religion X prompted people to feed and clothe the poor but was also responsible for endless violent sectarian conflict that killed thousands or tens of thousands, it would be pretty easy to recommend that people adopt a better religion than religion X. Perhaps one that fed and clothed the poor but was not responsible for so many deaths.

Often times, you will find that one is doctrine, while the other is not. I would judge an ideology on it's officialdom personally, regardless of what it produces. But that's just me.

 

[Sunstone]

Often times, you will find that one is doctrine, while the other is not. I would judge an ideology on it's officialdom personally, regardless of what it produces. But that's just me.

That's a good point. If religion X taught love, but it's followers hated, then I would think it's the fault of the followers for not adopting the teachings of the religion.

 

[Quiddity]

That's a good point. If religion X taught love, but it's followers hated, then I would think it's the fault of the followers for not adopting the teachings of the religion.

I would to. You'd be surprised how fast people can get amnesia. Just come out of a Catholic Mass and you'll see what I mean. :cover:

 

[lilithu]

Whether one wants to call it utilitarian ethics or not, if one discovered that religion X prompted people to feed and clothe the poor but was also responsible for endless violent sectarian conflict that killed thousands or tens of thousands, it would be pretty easy to recommend that people adopt a better religion than religion X. Perhaps one that fed and clothed the poor but was not responsible for so many deaths.

If someone believes that their religion justifies violence, it would be pretty easy for me to recommend that he or she adopt a different view of his or her religion. If otoh, someone is a peaceful and generous adherent of a religion that others have used to justify violence, I see no valid reason to recommend that he or she adopt a different religion.

Would you violate an individual's conscience based on what other people have done? Would you generalize across an entire group of people as if they're all the same?

 

[CelticRavenwolf]

I would to. You'd be surprised how fast people can get amnesia. Just come out of a Catholic Mass and you'll see what I mean. :cover:

You got that right Victor!

That really is a good question. Every time I start to try and type up an aswer I get stuck in confounded philosophical circles!

I think it comes down to basic human choice. If someone told you to jump off a bridge and you do it, is the person who told you a murderer, or did you just commit suicide? It is the same with religion. We have a choice, pure and simple. If you choose to believe a religion is right and good even though it condones killing people who deviate from your beliefs, you're still wrong for buying it.

Or books. Take the Anarchist's Cookbook. Is it an evil book purely because it exists, or is it the people who read it and then kill someone with the explosives they made from the instructions who are evil? Any person on Earth could read the book. It's what they do with that knowledge that defines "right" and "wrong". The book didn't make them do it.

Just about every major world religion has blood on its hands. Violent histories. But the religion itself isn't responsible. The people who choose to treat its words as final law are ultimately to blame. The blood is on them.

 

[Comprehend]

It seems to me that everytime a religion gets criticized for promoting some wrong in the world, many of us (myself included, often enough) jump to defend the religion by pointing out that "It's not the religion that has caused the evil, but rather evil people hiding behind the religion who have caused the evil." But is this always true? Can a religion do no wrong?

Under what circumstances, if any, do we blame a religion for a wrong, and not just the followers of the religion?

If religion X said in it's teachings, "Pick the wings off flys whenever ye shall catch them.", and if many or most of the followers of religion X did just that, would we not hold religion X responsible for promoting cruelity to flys?

But what if religion X didn't actually tell anyone to do any particular thing about flys, but merely said something along the lines of "Flys are an abomination unto the Lord". Could we still hold religion X responsible for promoting cruelity to flys if many or most of its followers interpreted that passage to mean they should treat flys cruelly?

Excellent question (like everyone else has already said) this one is tough.


Personally, I think that you can't put the responsibility on a religion. Ultimately, God has blessed us with agency. We can think and act for ourselves, we are not animals. With the blessing of agency come the personal responsibility for our choices.

We are able to choose for ourselves whether a thing, an action, or a religion, is good or bad, desireable or undesireable. If we allow religion to be blamed for the actions of its followers then does that leave the followers guiltless for their actions?

"I was only following orders." didn't cut it in Nuremburg. Should we accept "I was just following teachings." and allow the actors to escape responsibility?

 

[Sunstone]

If someone believes that their religion justifies violence, it would be pretty easy for me to recommend that he or she adopt a different view of his or her religion. If otoh, someone is a peaceful and generous adherent of a religion that others have used to justify violence, I see no valid reason to recommend that he or she adopt a different religion.

If a peaceful and generous person is following a religion that condones and promotes violence, I see nothing wrong with pointing out to them that the religion they are following is at odds with their nature.

Would you violate an individual's conscience based on what other people have done? Would you generalize across an entire group of people as if they're all the same?

That's misleading. I have not advocated violating anyone's conscience unless you take recommending a different religion to someone to be a violation of their conscience.