Sins and misconduct of organized religion

[Doctor Cringelord]

Is that what you thought I was saying? Maybe your post was addressed to someone else and that is why I'm trying to clarify but if you genuinely, I mean honestly and truthfully, took this from what I actually typed in my last post I really dont think there is any point in speaking to you.

In this case you simply dont want to communicate or discuss things but would prefer just to restate what you think already (and we all know). Which is fine, whatever works for you. It would not work for me, maybe you could say why it works for you? At least that would be something different from a liberal profession of faith.

This thread wasn't really established to debate or discuss the merits of organized religions. It was created to document and talk about the abuses committed by them. If that bothers you so much, you could always just avoid the thread, or start another thread with the intent of discussing the merits of religion.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Morally, though, the man is a terrible mess. ANd so are all these other religious leaders who keep setting themselves up for a huge moral tumble while pretending they are better morally than everyone else and disregarding not just other faiths but other denominations of the same faith they claim to profess.

This points to another common "sin" of certain organized religions and their followers. They will happily tolerate an immoral, corrupt public official or leader like Trump if they see them as useful to advancing their own causes and worldviews. This is why arguments by Trump's opponents about his questionable morality tend to fall on deaf ears with many of those people. Many of them know he is a piece of shit and simply don't care, seeing him as a tool of God. Similar to how excuses were made in the bible for the shitty actions of people like King David. It is basically codified in their life manual to make allowances for morally questionable, terrible people being allowed to lead so long as they are advancing the good cause.

 

[Virtual ghost]

You think those are two examples of religious traditions at their best? Why so?

You skipped the implication of the comment about the main part of your words: that religion is good for judging right from wrong. What is evidently a questionable claim just by the way you answered back.
The thing is that about 90% of religion globally doesn't fit the criteria "of religion at it's best". Therefore that concept does hardly redeem the whole concept. You must judge the whole thing, not just a sideshow that you like. Since the default your are talking about aren't "the religion at their bast" but some 3rd world dump, that is a dump by good margin exactly because of religion and it's original interpretation.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I mean if the religion provides a good judgement on right and wrong then you don't need "religion at it's best" as a concept.

 

[Lark]

You skipped the implication of the comment about the main part of your words: that religion is good for judging right from wrong. What is evidently a questionable claim just by the way you answered back.
The thing is that about 90% of religion globally doesn't fit the criteria "of religion at it's best". Therefore that concept does hardly redeem the whole concept. You must judge the whole thing, not just a sideshow that you like. Since the default your are talking about aren't "the religion at their bast" but some 3rd world dump, that is a dump by good margin exactly because of religion and it's original interpretation.

I'm not being evasive, so it would be a mistake to make the inference that you have here, I genuinely do not know what you are talking about and perhaps its a consequence of the language divide. Although I suspect its something other than that.

I'm afraid that I would not say that I recognize the 90% you describe as such, not for the majority of humanity and for the majority of its history, although if you wish to generalize from the bad examples to make your case by all means do so. It is difficult to argue with a good example rather than a bad one. In fact its just possible that a good example would prove threatening, so best to keep the focus on the bad ones instead.

Its not like there's anything bad to consider in terms of the history of the alternatives, like the modern era has not witnessed incredible bloodshed, atrocity, genocide etc. perpetuated by irreligious or non-religious ideologies.. wait...

- - - Updated - - -

I mean if the religion provides a good judgement on right and wrong then you don't need "religion at it's best" as a concept.

I'm still not sure what you mean by this.

- - - Updated - - -

This points to another common "sin" of certain organized religions and their followers. They will happily tolerate an immoral, corrupt public official or leader like Trump if they see them as useful to advancing their own causes and worldviews. This is why arguments by Trump's opponents about his questionable morality tend to fall on deaf ears with many of those people. Many of them know he is a piece of shit and simply don't care, seeing him as a tool of God. Similar to how excuses were made in the bible for the shitty actions of people like King David. It is basically codified in their life manual to make allowances for morally questionable, terrible people being allowed to lead so long as they are advancing the good cause.

Can you tell me what you know about the origin of the word Hospital?

 

[Lark]

This thread wasn't really established to debate or discuss the merits of organized religions. It was created to document and talk about the abuses committed by them. If that bothers you so much, you could always just avoid the thread, or start another thread with the intent of discussing the merits of religion.

OK, no, that's alright, I can see you created the thread for a specific purpose which really excludes my participation.

Wouldnt want to interfer with a fully functional echo chamber.

Good luck with that.

 

[The Cat]

This points to another common "sin" of certain organized religions and their followers. They will happily tolerate an immoral, corrupt public official or leader like Trump if they see them as useful to advancing their own causes and worldviews. This is why arguments by Trump's opponents about his questionable morality tend to fall on deaf ears with many of those people. Many of them know he is a piece of shit and simply don't care, seeing him as a tool of God. Similar to how excuses were made in the bible for the shitty actions of people like King David. It is basically codified in their life manual to make allowances for morally questionable, terrible people being allowed to lead so long as they are advancing the good cause.

I think a big problem is that a lot of these so called religious people is they don't so much necessarily see trump simply as an instrument of god as much as they've mistaken god as a tool of their own will and design. They have set up a false idol and mistaken it for god.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm not being evasive, so it would be a mistake to make the inference that you have here, I genuinely do not know what you are talking about and perhaps its a consequence of the language divide. Although I suspect its something other than that.

I'm afraid that I would not say that I recognize the 90% you describe as such, not for the majority of humanity and for the majority of its history, although if you wish to generalize from the bad examples to make your case by all means do so. It is difficult to argue with a good example rather than a bad one. In fact its just possible that a good example would prove threatening, so best to keep the focus on the bad ones instead.

Its not like there's anything bad to consider in terms of the history of the alternatives, like the modern era has not witnessed incredible bloodshed, atrocity, genocide etc. perpetuated by irreligious or non-religious ideologies.. wait...

- - - Updated - - -

Just if others have sinned that doesn't make the religion collectively redeemed (especially since they are often the source of " original fundamentalist mindset").
However I was talking about today's world, history is another matter. Which doesn't work too well for the case of religion either. From being in the bed with corrupt leaders, conquests, playing part in political oppression, wiping out entire cultures, plenty of mistreatment of women, making stuff up, hunting down scholars as heretics ... etc. However history is problematic argument since for the most of time religion assimilated plenty of important disciplines. However since that started to split the more noble sides of religion started to evolve into secular humanism and modern science/medicine, while the religion kinda became the problem. From anti-vax stuff, killing it's members by telling them not to use condoms, going to bed with authoritarians, pedo stuff, denying physical reality that science discovered, starting holy wars, making people mental slaves, violence, .... etc. The traditional religion basically became an empty shell that has no real purpose and it can basically only serve to con people in some way (especially outside of the first world). Which is exactly why it is in retreat in basically all genuinely educated societies/areas. I am not going to lie to you, where I live the more you are going to the right the more religious the base will be. Until you reach the point where far right nationalists and religion are one. We literally have holy ceremonies in big churches for the souls of our Nazi collaborationist leaders (for years). While with the left is reverse and the two sides really dislike each other due to deep historical reasons. Therefore I am sorry but I just don't have too high opinion about religion in general (regardless which one it is).

I'm still not sure what you mean by this.

Your words:

Using the language of "sin", something clearly borrowed from religion itself. Kind of begs the question of whether that kind of critique of religion would be possible if it hadnt been for religion in the first place. Religion being such a good descriptive source when its to conceptualizing right and wrong.

So if the religion is really that good in judgment of right and wrong why introduce the concept of "religion at it's best" into the thread ?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

 

[Lark]

So if the religion is really that good in judgment of right and wrong why introduce the concept of "religion at it's best" into the thread ?

I dont understand where you are seeing the problem, because religion has been good at conceptualizing right and wrong, providing in fact the language for any later attack upon religion, you think it is not possible for religion "at it's best" or "at its worst" to exist? So long as humankind exists it will be possible for anything to be "human, all too human".

Its not a too major digression from the topic of the thread, and I'm not going to keep posting in this thread for long, but do you recognize the relationships between religious/irreligious? Surely you see the dialectical relationship? Sythesis-anti-thesis-synthesis-new anti-thesis? No, maybe not then...

 

[Virtual ghost]

I dont understand where you are seeing the problem, because religion has been good at conceptualizing right and wrong,

Seriously ?

The theocracy in Iran is perfectly fine.
The religious people and structures that voted for Trump with all their heart is also perfect sound judgment ?
The high priest from the neighboring country that said my entire nation should die, and whose followers were dropping bombs on the country a while back is ok person ?
Going after everyone who said that the Earth is not the center of the universe is sound science ?
Shamans around the world know every detail of how the world works ?
Killing your own people by saying that condoms are against God is Ok ?
Saying that "The women are the best goods we have in this country" is Ok ?
Culturecides in the name of some supreme being(s) were ok ?
Cutting genitals of children in rituals is perfectly sane ?
Scaring people with hell is ok ?
Going into bed with corrupt or radical politicians is ok if they are sharing some of your cultural views and offer favors ?



Etc, Etc .....



If you can't see this I really can't help you to understand that religion has some serious problems. Much bigger than some other things humans have invented and they are at the core of what that religion is.

 

[Coriolis]

This points to another common "sin" of certain organized religions and their followers. They will happily tolerate an immoral, corrupt public official or leader like Trump if they see them as useful to advancing their own causes and worldviews. This is why arguments by Trump's opponents about his questionable morality tend to fall on deaf ears with many of those people. Many of them know he is a piece of shit and simply don't care, seeing him as a tool of God. Similar to how excuses were made in the bible for the shitty actions of people like King David. It is basically codified in their life manual to make allowances for morally questionable, terrible people being allowed to lead so long as they are advancing the good cause.

I have long said that if American voters wanted their politicians to be good, upstanding, moral Christians, they would have re-elected Jimmy Carter. Instead, they voted him out and elected Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, and others who do a poor job of following Christ's example. Trump especially was supported by many conservative groups who shamelessly flaunted their Christian credentials, in a blatant show of hypocrisy.

Considering the "sins and misconduct" of organized religion, in general, as opposed to any of the particular examples this thread will no doubt fill up with, I'd say its nothing compared to the examples available from unorganized religion.

In fact, a lot of the examples in this thread I'd personally classify as unorganized or less organized varieties of religion. A lot of the better examples of religion, or religion at its best, seldom get considered. Those examples of religion at its best usually have have some clear organized/organizing principles involved.

Using the language of "sin", something clearly borrowed from religion itself. Kind of begs the question of whether that kind of critique of religion would be possible if it hadnt been for religion in the first place. Religion being such a good descriptive source when its to conceptualizing right and wrong.

There's a question of the choice of representations of religion, ie is it fair to constantly represent religion at its absolute worst as religion per se. Is it really the default that's being represented? If its not then why is it so popular a thing to represent it as the default?

There's also a question of the choice of stories about religion, are they representative of religion per se or are they are representation of the betrayal of religion?

What do you mean by "disorganized religion"? I have heard both modern Paganism and the Bahai faith described in those terms, but typically in jest.

Using "the language of sin" highlights the internal contradictions within our religions, whether that be inconsistencies in doctrine/dogma, or between theory and practice.

As for representing religions, however much they may be divinely inspired, our religious institutions are essentially human undertakings. They have the potential to bring out both the best and the worst in humanity. The best we can do is to represent them all even-handedly. If we are unwilling to look beyond terrorists or violent extremists to see the good done by Muslim organizations and believers, then why should we look beyond the pedophile priests and corrupt televangelists in assessing Christians? Whatever standard we use must be applied across the board.

No one has any answers about why the organization or organizing principle of religion is an issue so I'll maybe ask another question.

Why are the "sins and misconduct" of religion different to any other sort of "sins and misconduct"? Why do they deserve special attention at the present moment?

I know in the UK alone for any reports of abuse of women, children, fraud, theft, violence, exploitation of vulnerable people by religious institutions it is possible to find two or three examples of the same behaviour arising from privilege, secular public institutions, secular private individuals, celebrity etc.

Just this week the metropolitan police has been ajudged to be institutionally corruption, not historically but today on an on going basis. This arising from a public enquiry into the death of a journalist investigating the relationship between failings to detect crime, pursue investigations or prosecutions and Masonic Lodges.

We have discussed, here on the forum and in our broader society, the "sins" of police groups, politicians, educational institutions, scientists, and others. If religions deserve special attention, it is only because they claim fundamental moral authority in a way that the other groups do not. They certainly deserve no special exemption from scrutiny.

There’s always at least one of them with the Christian persecution complex.

It's bigger than that. A sizeable portion of the population seems to view opportunity as some sort of zero sum game. Allow Muslims and Pagans to worship freely and it somehow persecutes Christians. Allow gays to marry and adopt, and it somehow persecutes straights. Allow women access to educational and career opportunities and it somehow persecutes men. Allow people of color to live free of violence and exclusion and it somehow persecutes whites. With this mentality, no wonder so many straight, white, Christian men supported someone like Trump.

That's not how it works, folks.

I dont understand where you are seeing the problem, because religion has been good at conceptualizing right and wrong, providing in fact the language for any later attack upon religion, you think it is not possible for religion "at it's best" or "at its worst" to exist? So long as humankind exists it will be possible for anything to be "human, all too human".

Its not a too major digression from the topic of the thread, and I'm not going to keep posting in this thread for long, but do you recognize the relationships between religious/irreligious? Surely you see the dialectical relationship? Sythesis-anti-thesis-synthesis-new anti-thesis? No, maybe not then...

From what does religion derive its concepts of right and wrong? Do all religions arrive at the same concepts? What are you considering to be "irreligious"? Do you view religion as the same as spirituality? In other words, might the irreligious contain much that is spiritual? If so, then your distinction is one more of form than of substance.

OK, no, that's alright, I can see you created the thread for a specific purpose which really excludes my participation.

Wouldnt want to interfer with a fully functional echo chamber.

Good luck with that.

I suggest you reread [MENTION=7]Totenkindly[/MENTION]'s post before dismissing a thread with substantive contributions from several members as an echo chamber, just because they are not agreeing with you.

 

[Totenkindly]

I get your point of course. But I see it from a different angle. I've always just looked on those guys as snake oil peddlers. Buyer beware. I mean, it's easy to spot the small late-night televangelists as being skeezy, obvious, uneducated rip-offs. You KNOW for a certainty that your religious contributions to those particular guys are just going to be spent on blow and hookers. But by extension, the whole religious racket becomes suspect. Why would any middle-class person simply give money away to a bejeweled old pope running a fabulously rich empire? And carrying historical baggage like the Inquisition and pushing ridiculous myths and all that?

I guess for me, yes, the televangelists were always frauds. But that's not really what I'm referring to. I'm referring to my time on the ground floor of various churches throughout my life, with people who think they are doing God's work, who want to do God's work, but they either regularly trip up and buy into those televangelist style messages or when an "incident" happens that tests them either in real life or tests the church, instead of coming through purified like gold they basically find reasons to tear the church apart because of organizational politics, or throw people out of their community into the street because they don't align with their doctrinal value statement, or they vote for the hard-ass politician who is an immoral/amoral AF because he'll implement religious values as law, or they will vote against people in society who need their help and write them off as "other," assuming they are poor or on the street or having drug problems or whatever other problem they have because they are in rebellion against god or something.

It really sucks when you've been good to your in-laws, esp your brother and sister in law, and even outreached to them as people when they were having hard times or screwing things up -- but when you need them to show love because of life changes, they just immediately stop talking to you, withdraw their family, and instead harbor anger at YOU for years without ever talking to you about it. Good Christian evangelicals, see? I bring up a personal example not because it's the main driver of my conclusions here, but to force the point home: i'm not talking about distant shysters but the very people who pretended to be your family or community, then discards you.

I do not remember the nurse's name, but there was a woman who ministered to gay AIDS patients in the '80's. She thought homosexuality was wrong and I think she even stated she would get nauseated thinking about it, but when she saw they were suffering, she stopped judging them and instead ministered to them with their physical needs and providing comfort to them in their loneliness because their families had all abandoned them. That always sticks with me. That is actual loving behavior that the church tries to aspire to but so often bails on, even while often ministering just in order to proselytize. The church abandoned them. She did not.

In other words, I don't see the church as an "angel of light" in the first place. That's just the fake marquee out front. I see it as a shaky con game, a snake-oil peddler one step ahead of being run out of town on a rail. I figure if people are dumb enough to voluntarily get involved with these religious shysters, then they get what they deserve. Dumb people bring troubles on themselves much of the time, by falling for obvious crap like religion. As I said above, I honestly just find it all humorous. No reason to get angry about it. Just sit back and watch "the human comedy" play itself out. And I could say a lot of the same things about politics and politicians. (Yes, I'm a bit of a cynic.)

I would refer to some of the blatant examples (like the ones you give), sure, as such -- but that's not what has bothered me in my normal life. It's different when you've been part of what feels like a community and then you're kicked out of it despite everything you've done because there's a difference of opinion. It's conditional love at its finest, which even the authentic church claims to be more about. The regular shysters never had that at all because they were cynically fake from the start, but the regular church that thinks it is good and is trying to be good sometimes seems so goddam clueless and misled.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I dislike how preachers always seem to turn funerals into excuses to attempt to convert as many people as possible rather than gatherings to grieve and celebrate a passed person's life. I'm not saying every preacher at every funeral does that, but it's been my experience at every denominational funeral service. At my uncle's service, the preacher took the opportunity to rail against Islam, talk about the war in Iraq (this was circa 2003), and stress the need for repentance. He bragged about how he had a bumper sticker that said "Allah is not my God" (which is funny, because technically the God of all three Abrahamic faiths is the same deity). At my grandfather's funeral a few years back, it was a similar sermon, barely talking about his life and instead focusing on a need to find jesus before death. And so on. I have decided that I do not want my family to hold a religious-based service when I die. I don't want some dipshit hijacking it to try to spread his ideology. Unless my kid and wife specifically request one for themselves, I also do not intend to hold religious services for them, if they pass before me.

 

[The Cat]

I dislike how preachers always seem to turn funerals into excuses to attempt to convert as many people as possible rather than gatherings to grieve and celebrate a passed person's life. I'm not saying every preacher at every funeral does that, but it's been my experience at every denominational funeral service. At my uncle's service, the preacher took the opportunity to rail against Islam, talk about the war in Iraq (this was circa 2003), and stress the need for repentance. He bragged about how he had a bumper sticker that said "Allah is not my God" (which is funny, because technically the God of all three Abrahamic faiths is the same deity). At my grandfather's funeral a few years back, it was a similar sermon, barely talking about his life and instead focusing on a need to find jesus before death. And so on. I have decided that I do not want my family to hold a religious-based service when I die. I don't want some dipshit hijacking it to try to spread his ideology. Unless my kid and wife specifically request one for themselves, I also do not intend to hold religious services for them, if they pass before me.

I dont think those preachers ever met jesus...

 

[Lark]

Seriously ?

The theocracy in Iran is perfectly fine.
The religious people and structures that voted for Trump with all their heart is also perfect sound judgment ?
The high priest from the neighboring country that said my entire nation should die, and whose followers were dropping bombs on the country a while back is ok person ?
Going after everyone who said that the Earth is not the center of the universe is sound science ?
Shamans around the world know every detail of how the world works ?
Killing your own people by saying that condoms are against God is Ok ?
Saying that "The women are the best goods we have in this country" is Ok ?
Culturecides in the name of some supreme being(s) were ok ?
Cutting genitals of children in rituals is perfectly sane ?
Scaring people with hell is ok ?
Going into bed with corrupt or radical politicians is ok if they are sharing some of your cultural views and offer favors ?



Etc, Etc .....



If you can't see this I really can't help you to understand that religion has some serious problems. Much bigger than some other things humans have invented and they are at the core of what that religion is.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse, if this works for you and you're happy enough with that kind of one dimensional thought then, well, good luck with that I guess.

 

[Lark]

I suggest you reread [MENTION=7]Totenkindly[/MENTION]'s post before dismissing a thread with substantive contributions from several members as an echo chamber, just because they are not agreeing with you.

Suggest away.

I aint got one single minute for you any longer.

You KNOW why too.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I would refer to some of the blatant examples (like the ones you give), sure, as such -- but that's not what has bothered me in my normal life. It's different when you've been part of what feels like a community and then you're kicked out of it despite everything you've done because there's a difference of opinion. It's conditional love at its finest, which even the authentic church claims to be more about. The regular shysters never had that at all because they were cynically fake from the start, but the regular church that thinks it is good and is trying to be good sometimes seems so goddam clueless and misled.

Meh. As I see it, it's all one and the same. Shysters or "authentic churches"--it's all the same, because it's all religion. And sooner or later everyone ends up getting butthurt about religion: Religion's claims are too extravagant. Religion sets the bar way too high even for its own followers.

As a result, sooner or later it's easy to point your finger at the members of any denomination (including your own) and say, "Pharisees! Hypocrites! You say you're all about love, but you're about hate!" It's pretty much inevitable.

So you end up blaming religious people for...what? You end up blaming religious people for being exactly the same as the rest of humanity--human and fallible. Instead, you should blame religion for creating unrealistic expectations and predictably setting people up for disillusionment and a fall and a lot of shame and blame.

That's why all this railing against people for their religious beliefs is ridiculous. Seriously, what did you expect? Of course people can't live up to their own religious beliefs. Of course there is going to be a huge gap between what religious people profess and how they actually act. It's inevitable. It's because religion is just pie in the sky. It's like telling kids that they should behave well because Christmas is coming. It might cause the kids to be better-behaved for a little while, but sooner or later they're back to their usual tricks and usual misbehavior.

So don't blame people for being human. Instead, blame the stupid inhumane expectations that religion creates.

That's my point. Humans are going to human, including hatred and bloodshed and gore and murder. It's "the human comedy." Sit back and enjoy it. Religion is almost a non-issue. Religion is just a community event, like a political rally or a holiday gathering. It's largely just entertainment for the bored. Religion is not the cause of anything, good or bad. It's just a projection of an idyllic existence, like a children's fairy tale. Religion is like Santa Claus, Luke Skywalker, and Shrek: They're all cutesy sentimental narratives that one can hope to emulate in life, but realistically they have absolutely nothing to do with our actual day-to-day lives.

Religion is fine when it motivates individual people to aspire to better things. But it also motivates a certain amount of hate and discontent, so it's kind of a wash. Meantime, on the grand scale, what really matters is human nature and "the human comedy." And there's not a whole lot that religion can do about that. Humans are going to human.

Not to disparage your own experience of religion. But I grew up outside of religion, and the above is my own viewpoint. I look at religion and ask, "Why do people even believe that crap? Let humans be human, and try to understand and improve upon actual human nature instead of juggling children's fairy tales and then blaming people when they can't live up to fairy-tale-based expectations and goals."

********************
[ETA:] By the way, you can swap out the word "Religion" and replace it with "Mass politics" in the above rant. (Or pretty much any other immersive culture.) Mass politics is a similar bugaboo for most people. People blame the opposite political party for everything, when in fact mass politics is mostly just fantasy, fairy tales, cutesy sentimental narratives, and inhumane expectations of "goodness" that most people can't live up to. Same old same old. They used to say that religion was the opiate of the masses. But nowadays politics is the drug of choice.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

********************
[ETA:] By the way, you can swap out the word "Religion" and replace it with "Mass politics" in the above rant. (Or pretty much any other immersive culture.) Mass politics is a similar bugaboo for most people. People blame the opposite political party for everything, when in fact mass politics is mostly just fantasy, fairy tales, cutesy sentimental narratives, and inhumane expectations of "goodness" that most people can't live up to. Same old same old. They used to say that religion was the opiate of the masses. But nowadays politics is the drug of choice.

"If we run the most qualified and experienced candidate and have her talk about that constantly, surely everyone will vote for that. Nobody is stupid enough to vote for an obvious grifter like Donald Trump!"

I'm not sure you're wrong.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]