Religion Is Progressive and Necessary

I am completely for the position, as religion has been involved in some of the greatest accomplishments of man kind, including the Treaty of Westphalia in the aftermath of the 30 Years War, which cemented not only the rights of the individual regarding religion, but has laid the foundation of the modern nation state to boot. That would hardly be regressive. In an age of class, ethnicity, tribalism, materialism, nationalism, and others, to claim that religion is divisive is to miss the fact that it is one of the few tools to unite disparate groups. The ONLY tool that bridge tribal boundaries and prejudices in places like Afghanistan is religion, Islam. Being a respected member of the Christian community, a person of the book, creates opportunities to bridge that divide and unit people. The best that can be said about religion is that intent matters, particularly when we add human body politics to any ideology on earth. If the intent of leaders is peace, then they can highlight the communal nature of religion and seek policies to that end. If the leaders intent is rapacious, he can highlight the differences and seek to demonize the other as "ungodly". What matters here is intent, not religion. Its not the shovels fault that someone smashes a person over the head with it, it"s the persons fault he used it inappropriately. We should, above all else, avoid blaming a body of often loft a virtuous doctrine for the fact that men sometimes abuse it " men very often abuse a great many things, like money, without invaliding its value. 1. Religion is not child-abuse I have yet to see a police SWAT team bust down a door and haul off parents for applying labels to their children. Particularly when those labels are meant to induct the into a community of values that the parents wish to inculcate into their children. Attending services as a Hindu Temple is not abusive thing, nor is attending mass on Sundays. Indeed, the failure to properly raise our children in an ethical framework is damaging not just to the society, but to an individual as well. Religion may not be the only way to do this, but the way is acceptable. Parents are stewards of the their children until they reach adulthood. The label of child, until that point is hardly abusive. As the label changes to adult, so too does the child inherent the ability to change the labels he affixs to himself to. Every parent realizes that a child grows up and heads his or her own way as an adult. They have done their best to mold them, but an adult (no longer a child) can label themselves anyway they want. Additionally, if we are looking for abuse, we should probably start with naked over reach. Stepping into the parent child relationship should only be done when legitimate abuse is occurring. The spurious nature of "labels" would never withstand any form of jurisprudence. We should pretend that this is valid. 2. Religion Helps Scientific Progress Considering the Bible tells us that he desires us to become more like him, we can, and indeed many of do, infer that he has used processes that are discernable, understandable, and teachable. We believe that science will lead, behind the instant of the Big Bang, to the Creator. Atheists, by in large, believe we will discover something else. Yet the processes and procedures laid out since that instant are fascinating and exciting. There is also a failure of understanding here. Science requires all ideology to be removed to be effective. That doesn"t matter whether the ideology is religion, atheism, or stand upside downism. It has no place in science. A religious person can, and indeed we do, participate in science all the time. We, as you do, acknowledge that we have potential biases, which we attempt to limit, and submit to processes like peer review to ensure that the finding are as objective as possible. That takes a ethical commitment to honesty, and the religious commandment to honesty is a inducement to just such an aim. 3. Religion Spreads Tolerance We call this the biased sample fallacy. Of the billion or so Muslims out there, how many are committing acts of violence? Far less than one percent. Indeed, I can personally testify that I have fought side by side with Muslims to put down those who abuse in the name of "religion". And when we look beyond Islam, how is it that less than 1% of Muslims somehow tar ALL religion? There is a logical disconnect here in taking such a small sample and ignoring the much greater body of evidence to draw a conclusion. The reasoning is fallacious. Additionally, there is grave danger here. Its easy to find simplistic answers to complex events, and groups like the Taliban, who do use religion to justify their aims, will not be swayed by such simplistic arguments. Indeed, such a simplistic argument plays into their hands that their critics neither know about Islam or care enough to gather it. It is only through understanding the faith, and being able to demonstrate the Prophets guidance correctly that the argument can be diffused. There is also the larger political reality of what hey are engaged in and why, the Taliban are not at all apologetic at harnessing religion to achieve those ends " particularly in a region where it is the ONLY force that can cross ethic/tribal lines (save criminality and greed). Should they be apologetic about it? Or should they not use a unifying tool and condemn themselves to another 2,000 of nascent tribal warfare? 4. Learned views stooped in education The idea that there are no questions asked in religion is wantonly false. The doctrine of religion is often incredible detailed and explanative. It is so complex and thorough that it requires Seminaris that teach to the Ph.D level to understand properly and be certified in. Many of the questions asked already have very detailed answers, and the trick is realizing that you are not the first person to ask the question and it behooves you, at the very least, to see the answer before declaring that no one will answer it. If you subsequently disagree, you should be able to explain why. If you argument is convincing, the doctrine may very well be changed. The religion is not always receptive to petulant questions is a given. If we value rationalism and see that someone is not willing to take time to understand and seek answers, sometimes the wiser counsel is simply to send the young person on his journey to find the answers he seeks " especially when its clear he will not accept those pro-offered from the faith. 5. Fear Many religions have no concept of Hell. Hell in the Bible and Koran are barely mentioned, and when they are it is done in a spirit of acknowledgement only. The concept of Hell is actually quite simple: consequence. If you do good things, you will have good consequences (by in large) " and not in the after life, here and now. Being a proper steward, for example, produces a healthy business, while rapacious actions lead to failed businesses. Not rocket science. Indeed, in a temporal sense, the failure to enact consequences would be ludicrous. Murder is an action that has a consequence. That this consequence crosses into the spiritual should hardly come as a shock. Indeed, the spiritual consequences of these actions are severe, but there is grace to overcome all but a single sin: the unpardonable sin. You have to know God is truth, with all your heart and mind, and then reject him anyway. God will then let you wander into outer darkness as your heart (not his) desires. In short, if you fear hell, you need only reject it to avoid it. 6. Misogyny The religious idea is that men and women are different. Aside form the obvious, that one has a penis and the other has a vagina, there are wired differences between men and women. Many of these are inconsequential, but there are some things that the other cannot do. As a Father, no matter how hard I try, I can never be a mother. A Mother, no matter how hard she tries, can never be a Father. In single parent or same sex parent households, it is precisely that knowledge that ensures that these roles are met " that two gay men, for example, ensure that their daughter has access to string female role models. Its such an obvious thing, that its self evident when presented. Religions vary on aspects of utilizing these differences in the most productive manner. Yet all, even Saudi Arabian conservative Islam, treat and afford women incredible respect. To the Saudi"s, our pornography laced treatment of women as sexual objects is horrific. To us, the failure to allow women access to political power is horrific. There is certainly a debate there, but the treatment of women is as much a cultural thing as it is religious. Indonesian women are not treated the same way as Saudi women " yet they are Muslims, often very pious Muslims, and the intersection between culture and religion should not be ignored simple because we wish to brand religion false or offensive. The real problem with each of the these is that the analysis is itself a rejection of progress. Rather than treat complex interactions with a healthy dose of respect, examining them in context with understanding as our goal, we see the exact opposite. We see a few instances of misconduct taken as justification to condemn the whole. Indeed, we cannot even acknowledge the benefits of the system. Should we pretend that Pope Leo I did failed to prevent Attila the Hun from sacking Rome? How many thousands of lives did he save? Should we pretend that Gregory Mendel, discover of genetics, was not a Catholic Monk? Should we pretend that religion, time and time again, has served as the basis to turn men away from everything form alcoholism to criminality? Should we ignore vast and effective charity networks founded and funded by religious people deliver everything from health care to food and education? What we do with religion makes it good or bad, yet, even by your own examples, 99% of the time, its quite positive. The danger of regression here comes from accepting cherry picked data analysis to demonize religion rather than understand it and tap into its benefits in a convincing manner. Indeed, the world is religious, whether we like that or not, and if we stomp around in ignorance of that reality, we risk doing grave harm " not the least of which is dismissing legitimate concerns with a hand wave that will only dehumanize our fellow man. Faith drives men, it is a part of who they are, and we do them no services by fundamentally misunderstanding them because we view their faith to have no value. If progress requires mutual understanding and respect, then the study of religion is imperative. One dos not have to agree with religion to understand it, but we should, at the very least, understand it enough to be able to delineate between terrorists and actual religious people following the commandments of the religion is respect and piety. If we cannot do even that? Perhaps we need to examine why.