One of the standard behaviors of religious zealots whenever some atrocity is performed in the name of their faith is to try and distance themselves from the criminals. Christians bomb an abortion clinic? Well, then you get the typical "they don't represent Christianity" and "no true Christian would do that!" and so on. Muslim terrorists suicide-bomb a bus? You hear the classic talk of "Islam is a religion of peace" and all the usual garbage. It makes some sense that less criminally insane believers want to create some distance between themselves and the disgraces to humankind that commit endless atrocities in the name of religion.
From the outside, it is relatively easy to put the blame on religion for every crime its followers commit... especially considering that most if not all such examples can be traced to actual screeds within their respective scriptures. The most common defense, though, is to pretend those edicts aren't actually there and just focus on the good bits. Does Christianity endorse slavery? "Ummm... uuuuhhh... Love thy neighbor!" What about murdering any and all dissenters? "Uuuh.... Turn the other cheek!" There are times, though, when the nastier bits aren't disavowed, of course, such as whenever LGBT matters come into play. That's where religion is on the right track, of course. Suuuuure.
Reza Aslan has frequently made the point that people put their own values into scripture rather than drawing from it. He's technically right on this with regards to the more moderate majority, but I don't know if I would say that this is universally true. More recently, he has been on the kick of saying that if we condemn religion for its harms, it is only fair to also credit religion for every good act done in the name of faith. Well, to be fair, I would say that this form of the point, more than anything, elucidates that things can be a little more nuanced. There is the famous quip by Steven Weinberg, that "with or without religion, you have have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." But if people are actually just projecting their own values on religion, then where does religion come in in making the good do evil?
From the outside, it is relatively easy to put the blame on religion for every crime its followers commit... especially considering that most if not all such examples can be traced to actual screeds within their respective scriptures. The most common defense, though, is to pretend those edicts aren't actually there and just focus on the good bits. Does Christianity endorse slavery? "Ummm... uuuuhhh... Love thy neighbor!" What about murdering any and all dissenters? "Uuuh.... Turn the other cheek!" There are times, though, when the nastier bits aren't disavowed, of course, such as whenever LGBT matters come into play. That's where religion is on the right track, of course. Suuuuure.
Reza Aslan has frequently made the point that people put their own values into scripture rather than drawing from it. He's technically right on this with regards to the more moderate majority, but I don't know if I would say that this is universally true. More recently, he has been on the kick of saying that if we condemn religion for its harms, it is only fair to also credit religion for every good act done in the name of faith. Well, to be fair, I would say that this form of the point, more than anything, elucidates that things can be a little more nuanced. There is the famous quip by Steven Weinberg, that "with or without religion, you have have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." But if people are actually just projecting their own values on religion, then where does religion come in in making the good do evil?
