religion is unhealthy for your religious life

[mellowtigger]

Reuters has an article describing the defection of two journalists who report on matters of religion.

"Two leading religion journalists — one in Britain, one in the United States — have quit the beat in recent months, saying they had acquired such a close look at such scandalous behaviour by Christians that they lost their faith and had to leave."

BBC News talks about how even bible-thumping fundamentalists are getting tired of the "same ol', same ol'". You probably haven't heard of Rev. Terry Fox, but he's similar to Rev. Phelps of "God Hates Fags" fame.  (edit: sfbootdog  found this scary video from them.) Says Rev. Fox, "I am proud to be called the religious right," he blasts. "I am religious and I am right!" The BBC article goes on to say:

"But the Rev Fox's cross is all that is left of his ministry at the old place. He tells me it was time to move on but most locals think he was thrown out for being too dogmatic, too extreme, even in Wichita."

I hope these changes mean that people are finally realizing how life is much too short and precious to spend so much of it in hatred and deceit. It seems to me that monotheists of whatever variety might be better off concentrating their attention on creative endeavors, then leaving the destructive ones to their infallible deity who's probably better qualified than mere humans at figuring out when it's appropriate.  I've noticed the tendency of fundamentalists to grow annoyed at their deity's slow distribution of wrathful vengeance, and to start taking matters into their own hands instead to hurry matters along.  Do you suppose we'll ever outgrow this impatience?


May you be touched by his noodly appendage.

Comments

[kauko.livejournal.com]

I think its unfair to suggest that only monoteistic religions are prone to fundamentalism and the sort of negative things you discuss. Take for instance Hinduism, which has a nasty fundamentalist strain that is very powerful both in India and abroad.

[mellowtigger]

Incomplete, but not unfair. I think you are right about fundamentalist Hinduism. (aside: The last overtly religious event I attended was the grand opening of a local Hindu temple. They extended an open invitation to the entire Minnesota population as a way to improve familiarity and community relations after their temple was vandalized earlier during construction.)

Heck, even buddhist monks have been known to take up weapons and kill. I can't find the example now, but I remember reading about a particular historical example of it in Tricycle magazine several years back.

The thing, though, is that in polytheistic religions there is always the option to ignore the call to arms, instead pleading with another deity to intervene and halt the hostilities. Or there are sometimes ways of calming a deity (buying it off) with offerings. People of pacifist leanings have a method within their religion for holding brutality at bay, even when commanded by a deity.

With monotheisms, though, if the All-God really wants someone to die, then there is the persistent thought... knowing this fact, wouldn't it be improper for a believer to fail to act (by killing that evil person)? Abraham knew better, even if it was his own son Isaac that had to die for no apparent reason... as long as the All-God says to, then it must be done. I'm not surprised that many varieties of Christianity (for instance) include belief in angels, saints, and the Mother Mary. There's got to be somebody with a calmer head to appeal to when the All-God is demanding some violent action or other. I don't blame it just on the Judaic religions, though. It's my understanding that Mithraism (in its monotheistic stage) was even more violence-prone than Christianity.

I think that monotheisms are more likely to induce weird behavior in humans because it's inherently difficult to get a second opinion when you really need one.