Morally Bankrupt Religions
Morally Bankrupt Religions
"When devils will the blackest sins put on, they do suggest at first with heavenly shows."
– William Shakespeare
Recently, in the same week a group of lay Catholics for reform called for top bishops to step down in light of sexual misconduct, and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected a request from 55 House Democrats for room to disagree on the issue of abortion.
On the surface, these two stories may seem connected only inasmuch as they might highlight the oddity that a body of synods connected to the sexual abuse of children still claim to have the moral authority to prescribe absolute ethical injunctions to their religious followers. Beneath the surface, however, these stories clearly illustrate the hypocrisy of a Church that clings to anachronistic sexual prohibitions, which lead to both celibate priests using young boys as an outlet for their unhealthy sexual suppression and to young adults whose failed attempts at premarital abstinence and avoidance of contraception end in unplanned pregnancies.
These parallels reveal the fundamental failure of Christian ethics: that it attempts to determine absolute right and wrong from actions totally divorced from their social consequences. In short, Christian morality could work only in a world in which no one actually resides.
Think about it: why did Yahweh, the god of the Hebrews later inherited by Christians and Muslims, decree that murder was wrong? Why, if murder is wrong, was the belligerent slaying of neighboring tribes, who happened to be inhabiting land promised by this god, divinely ordained? Why did this same god command his creatures to be fruitful and multiply when doing so must eventually involve the killing, and often murder, of other creatures in a finite world with finite resources? Why was the murder of certain tribe members, such as gays and "witches," also commanded?
If we remove Yahweh from these questions, the answers become much clearer. Human beings, congregating in monadic social systems, discovered early on that murder within the ethnic tribe was not healthy for the society. They discovered that murdering outside the social system, i.e. in wars of conquest, could be very healthy for the social system in the short term because it produced wealth by both taking the wealth of other tribes and reducing population. Human beings also found that offspring, within a certain limit determined by resources, produced wealth. Finally, gays and witches were believed to be threats to a well-functioning society. In other words, it all came down to living the good life – the very thing in which most human beings alive today are interested.
Approached in this light, the past writings emerging from Judeo-Christian sources are neither authoritative nor absolute. Worse, they repeatedly propose standards of conduct that are prescribed without consideration for their social consequences. Claiming, for instance, that a savior's suffering frees us of our mistakes may be psychologically appealing on the surface, but how can teaching such a thing be ethical or even true when it has historically led to gross misconduct? Wouldn’t it be better to offer a savior who, like Gandhi, said that when any human being suffers, he suffers — instead of one who suffered for our ignorance so that we don't have to?
Today we live among human beings who simplistically cling to archaic moral systems despite the fact that they cause untold guilt, sexual repression, misogyny, violence, and wars of aggression. “Morality” is called upon not because it leads to any good in society but because it a certain group of human beings a sense of superiority – one that is artificially produced, inasmuch as it requires no depth of thought or investigation into the phenomenon of human life on this planet. Which generation will have the spiritual courage to challenge itself and reject the ignorance of the past? For example, when will Catholics finally admit that the Catholic Church, considering all its claims, must be morally bankrupt if even one child is hurt by it, let alone after centuries of crimes against humanity?
Unfortunately, strict monotheists are difficult to move from their ethical stance because their very sense of identity is bound to it, meaning to question it implies calling into question their concept of self. To let go of their irrational moral ideologies means admitting to being duped, so generation after generation is successfully indoctrinated into supposedly God-given beliefs that belong in the Dark Ages. Yet if the Catholic Church is really divinely ordained as it claims, then that fact should be obvious to everyone on the planet. If it was indeed instituted by God, there should be no question about its validity in anyone's mind, or at least no room for doubt in any sane mind. Why would God institute anything unless it completely and utterly represented the absolute beatitude in the universe? The fact that there is any hint of anything less than that means something is wrong, and the atrocities that continue to emanate from the Catholic Church prove it to be an utter fraud.
If people want to do good works in the world in the name of an organization, that is all well and good, but to call that organization the one and only true door to salvation and then commit flagrant crimes against humanity is both arrogant and despotic. More to the point, it reeks of the heavenly pretense devils put on to conceal their crimes.
Note: Many thanks to Sankara Saranam for sending me this compelling essay.
Note: Many thanks to Sankara Saranam for sending me this compelling essay.
posted by Annamarie at
8:39 PM
5 comment(s):
I would point out that the author of this makes the mistake of equating the views (and presumably the misconducts of some of their priests) of the Catholic Church to the whole Christian religion, which simply isnt fair to do. The Protestant sects of the Christian church (and there are many of those divided all across the theological spectrum) and for that matter the Orthodox Church cant be held responsible for what the Catholic Church's views are, nor for that mattter what some of its priests are caught doing (Most of the Protestant sects for example allow their ministers to marry and have families).
As for abortion, that is a difficult theological, moral and philosophical issue. I dont believe an organized church should be condemned for what its views might be on that topic (or any other), provided that it doesnt try to push its views on the rest of society.
By
Oxford County Liberals, at
9:23 PM
Well said, Scott. While I don't necessarily agree with everything Sankara writes, he does make a few valid points, for example:
"Claiming, for instance, that a savior's suffering frees us of our mistakes may be psychologically appealing on the surface, but how can teaching such a thing be ethical or even true when it has historically led to gross misconduct?"
I think what he's alluding to is that this gives many adherents the okay to make the same mistakes over and over again, knowing all is forgiven in the end, and they will not be held accountable. Someone else suffered for them so they don't have to and whatever they do is okay as long as in the end they profess their faith. That is how I interpret it anyway.
I know that Saranam holds the view that all organised religion is based on fallacies, and that one can have a true belief in -- and a spiritual relationship with -- God, without being affiliated with a particular religion.
And yes, he should not lump all Christian sects into one and infer that their views are the same as those of the Catholic Church.
Thanks for your comment.
By
Annamarie, at
11:47 PM
Best regards from NY!
By
Anonymous, at
9:21 AM
Looking for information and found it at this great site... » » »
By
Anonymous, at
8:23 PM
Keep up the good work » » »
By
Anonymous, at
3:32 AM
Post a comment
<< Home