Religion justifies cruelty

The argument

Regardless of their differences, most religions around the world share the same commitment to values like peace, justice, and altruism, standing staunchly in opposition to acts of cruelty and hate. It is ironic, then, that there have been so many religiously-motivated acts of violence throughout history, with the Crusades, the Salem Witchcraft Trials, 9/11, and countless “holy wars” popping into mind as just a few examples. For all of these heinous crimes, there have been scriptures to justify them and fanatics to carry them out. Today, new forms of religious violence still prevail, from the pedophilia that runs rampant in the Catholic Church to the female castration that is accepted in some Muslim communities to the conversion therapy camps run by Christian Fundamentalists. Even more insidious is the emotional harm caused by religious trauma, often characterized by lingering feelings of fear, shame, and self-hatred caused by a toxic religious upbringing. The most common example of this is found in the infamous “Catholic guilt syndrome,” but the same effect can be seen in many other religions as well. Looking at these examples, one is forced to ask the question: how can we consider religion “good” if it inspires such evil?

Premises

Counter-arguments

Religion is often used as an excuse for violence, not necessarily the cause of it. People who bomb buildings or start wars in the name of God are just looking for a way to justify their violent tendencies. Besides, religion has inspired people to do great acts of kindness, too, from feeding the poor to helping the sick to establishing charity organizations to spread peace and love.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] "Used to justify" concedes the point at issue. A justification is what an actor reaches for, and the same events admit accounts in which territory, dynastic rivalry, plunder and political grievance are the drivers — both the Crusades and modern militant violence are explained substantially in those terms in the historical and political literature. Scripture that can be cited for cruelty is also cited against it, which suggests the text is the instrument rather than the cause. [Rejecting P2] The harm is real but not distinctive to religion. Shame, fear and self-hatred are instilled by families, schools, ideologies and nations too, so attributing them to religion as such requires a comparison with the non-religious case that the premise never attempts — and the same traditions supply consolation in bereavement, community in isolation and structures of forgiveness, which the ledger omits. [Rejecting P3] "Not a net good" needs both sides of a balance and only one is offered. Religious institutions built and still operate a large share of the world's hospitals, schools, hospices, famine relief and refugee provision, and the abolitionist and civil-rights movements were organised substantially through congregations. The clerical abuse cited was an institutional failure of concealment condemned within those traditions on their own doctrinal grounds — the tradition working against the harm rather than licensing it.