Is religion responsible for past evils?

omnivore · #1 (**permalink**) 03-21-2009, 10:16 PM

The website of, "COUNCIL FOR SECULAR HUMANISM," has an article written by Gordon Brumm, entitled, "On the Teaching of Religion." It is the author's thesis that religious belief engenders confrontation and conflict, historically resulting in horrible human suffering. He finally says:

"Unfortunately, some religionists mistake absolute commitment for absolute truth. (For example, those currently identified as the Religious Right.) Instead of recognizing religion as commitment chosen by the individual on subjective grounds, they assert it as dogma. They construe religion as the recognition of One Truth—as God’s Truth, so to speak—and they consider all who do not share their conception as misguided, perverse, or sick. If dogmatism is the first sin of religion, then politicization is the second. In their arrogance and conceit, many dogmatists assume that they are entitled to impose their commitment on others, and they look to the power of government to accomplish this purpose.

They may justify their imposition by appeal to democracy, pointing out that Christianity (or Islam, or Hinduism, or . . .) is the religion of the overwhelming majority. But there is democracy and there is democracy. There is democracy that respects individual freedoms, and there is democracy that allows individual freedoms to be trampled by the majority. Present-day Iraq or Iran offer good examples of the second kind. Such is the democracy that the dogmatists would give us.

Or the dogmatists may justify their viewpoint by saying that religion is the one and only source of morality. Well, the catalogue of evils I have presented above should lay that myth to rest.

If we want religion to flourish, and freedom as well, we must respect the right of each individual to choose, without compulsion or coercion. Dogmatism and politicization are the empty shell of religion, serving the impulse to power more than the impulse to religion, and are responsible for all the evils I described at the beginning of this article.
That is what we need to teach!"

What says the Reform teacher?

Jack
Lay teacher
Alliance Church of Holiday
Florida

SolaScriptura · #2 (**permalink**) 03-21-2009, 10:38 PM

People are sinful. People believe ideas. People think their beliefs about those particular ideas are right. Those ideas usually have consequences that direct action in the real world. When one group of people and their practices/values that are derived from their ideas encounter another group of people who have differing practices/values that are derived from another set of ideas... there is often conflict.

Are atrocious things done in the name of "religion?" Sure. Are atrocious things done in the name of secular humanism? You bet. In fact, the most heinous acts in human history were committed by disciples of Marx and Nietzsche.

The point is "religion" per se isn't to blame for horrible acts any more or less than is secularism.

Ideas are. Ideas have consequences. People take their beliefs seriously - whether those beliefs are "religious" or "anti-religious." And sometimes people are so committed to their beliefs on those subjects that they're willing to impose them on others by force.

MMasztal · #3 (**permalink**) 03-24-2009, 08:23 AM

***toddpedlar*** · #4 (**permalink**) 03-24-2009, 10:28 AM

Given that secular humanism is as much a religious faith as is Christianity, I guess the authors of this tripe should take their own advice. Everything they accuse "religion" of Secular Humanism is guilty of as well, to (in many cases) a higher and increasingly debased degree.

***Semper Fidelis*** · #5 (**permalink**) 03-24-2009, 10:46 AM

I would agree with the above and also point out that secular humanism is terribly naive.

In order to call something "evil" you have to actually have a definition for it. Secular humanism has no ground to stand upon from which to call something either good or evil. There is only preference.

In order to mount a critique (or attack if you like) upon a religious position, you have to have ground from which to launch an external critique. I certainly can stand on the "ground" of being a Dallas Cowboys fan and tell Redskins fans in the DC Metro area that their team "stinks". A fellow Cowboys fan would heartily join me and slap me on the back for my profound insights into my criticism of how lame it is to be a Redskins fan. Sooner or later, however, somebody who doesn't really care about football will tell us both that our argument against being a Redskins fan is pretty lame.

The above is so much ipse dixit - It is because he (she) said so. Religions are evil, men have rights, democracy is good, I like Chocalate chip cookie dough, and if you disagree with me then you are small minded.

The truth of the matter is that it takes very little effort to peel back the veneer of such naivety and show it for what it really is by asking probing questions. On the basis of secular humanism, what is evil? Why is democracy good? What difference does it make if a religious person takes a lady's groceries to her car or clubs her over the head and steals the same?

Simply giving the answer that "...well, everybody knows that is wrong..." is not an answer that secular humanism provides. It is an answer that common sense realism provides on the basis that we are created in the image of God.

The secular humanist above is religious, she's just too foolish and blind to see how many religious assumptions she's bringing into the argument that undermine the basis for her own view of the universe.

Brad · #6 (**permalink**) 03-24-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

In their arrogance and conceit, many dogmatists assume that they are entitled to impose their commitment on others, and they look to the power of government to accomplish this purpose.

Especially those secular humanist dogmatists.