13 September 2001, 812 words
There are several reasons why I criticise religion. First of all, I consider all religions to be untrue. My examination of religious texts, philosophical arguments and scientific evidence have strengthened my non-belief. So, as a person who is rather fanatic about fundamental truths, I feel duty-bound to point out the many fallacies of religious belief.
Apart from the obvious absurdities in the Bible, Bhagavadgita and Qu'ran, which I have dealt with in other columns, I get offended when the Catholic Church waits till 1992 to admit that the Earth does go around the sun like Galileo said; when the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia in 1993 issues a fatwa declaring that the world is flat and that anyone who believes otherwise should be punished; or when an Indian guru in 2001 condemns stem cell research because it is against God's laws.
My second reason is a simple journalistic one. The media have a duty to provide as many different views as possible. Since in this country we have over 20 hours of religious programming per week on TV, even more on radio, and several religion-oriented newspaper columns, I do what I can to occasionally provide an alternative perspective in this space and in my commentary on Radio104.
My third reason is the most important one: I believe religion does far more harm than good. I think that the psychological comfort it provides to so many people is merely a plaster which, more often than not, prevents people from dealing with their real problems. I have the same view of the social work done by religious institutions, since the underlying social causes of, say, poverty or inequality, is often bolstered by religio-political beliefs.
I also completely reject the argument that religion contributes to social stability, since the most cursory examination of history and the present shows that the opposite is more often the case. This is not to say that religion did not, very long ago, serve this need. Religion could hardly be so appealing unless it once filled some social purpose. But what was true of the past is often not true today: the sheer size of most populations and the exposure to other groups now makes religion an instrument that far more often serves evil rather than good.
After all, the power of religion comes, in part, from its power to make people identify themselves as part of a group. The thing is, group identification is strongest when there's another group to contrast yourself with. Large populations ensure that a religion will split into sects, while greater communications makes the other more visible and more of a target. When there's a contrasting group, the typical human reaction is to dislike the other. The feeling of moral superiority which all religions engender is a most effective means of arousing dislike or hatred for others. That is why so much of human history is defined by various groups trying to exterminate one another.
Of course, all religions also like to claim that they are all about love and peace and goodwill. They will make these claims in the teeth of glaring evidence to contrary, whether it is torturing heretics in the Spanish Inquisition or oppressing lower castes in India or killing infidels in New York. They will continue making these claims even when their own words contradict them.
Thus, one Trinidadian Christian pastor writes, "All Kingdom operations require an aggressive violent mentality, particularly for those in frontline positions targeting the world's economic system and its wealth." An Indian guru, described by Express columnist Indira Maharaj as the single most influential figure in modern Hinduism, says that war is a necessary evil in response to her question "When all options have failed, we now have to seek violence as part of the cosmic plan, it becomes necessary, morally, to save Hinduism?"
And, of course, we all know Abu Bakr's views on violence while, in case you missed it, a spokesman for the ASJA last week expressed approval for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan: the same one that has put badges on Hindus and wants to execute people for trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.
It must be noted that, in promoting the ideology of violence, these spokespersons are not going against their religions. Justification for violence and murder can be found in the texts of all Holy Books.
The persons who killed thousands of civilians in America this week were all convinced that they were doing so in the name of God and would surely get to Paradise by dying in His name.
This is one of the core contradictions of all religions: that they claim to have a universal message, but promote beliefs which allow their followers to eschew simple humanity. Is it any wonder, then, that I consider most atheists to be morally superior to most believers?
Copyright©2001 Kevin Baldeosingh