Fairness

It may be an impossible task to criticize religion without seeming to criticize religious people.  For my part, I try to discuss the subject of religion intellectually and objectively.  I hope that it's obvious that I do not personally judge anyone for their beliefs.

Religion is a phenomenon like communism is a phenomenon; like weather, viral infections, war, and cancer are phenomena (some work better as analogies than others).  While some people (perhaps most) naturally take offense when the belief systems that they've adopted are scrutinized by others, it remains the right of all to think and judge phenomena freely and completely, without fear of reprisal, especially if no personal attack is intended.

The pursuit of knowledge and truth should transcend individual sensitivities, which are so often trivial and reactionary.  Some, like myself (and hopefully all citizens of the U.S.), believe that saying whatever you want to say is an individual right.  And some, like myself, believe that free speech is preeminent, particularly the kind of speech that challenges popular consensus/understanding.  The preeminence of free speech is by no means universally accepted.  A quick survey of social conditions in many parts of the world-like China, North Korea, and the Middle East-demonstrates that we are still a long way from the total unbinding of social discourse and complete liberation of the human mind.

So let's now declare a rule of fairness and intellectual honesty:

When discussing phenomena like religion, political ideology, national creeds, tradition, and popular culture, we must remain objective and on subject-that subject being the phenomena of interest, not the individuals who embrace them.  When we study biology, biologists are not a big part of our discussion.  When we discuss communism itself, we are less concerned about party members and their actions and more interested in an underlying philosophy.

If critique, enquiry, and reflection somehow become personal accusations, intellectual discovery can quickly break down.  The internet has exacerbated this decay by preventing users from experiencing the otherwise likely consequences of their harsh, immature, personal attacks.  (I'm not saying that we should ban talking about peoples in general or holding individuals responsible for their actions; only that if we are going to discuss a phenomenon, then we should recognize that it transcends the individual, a group of people, and even generations of people.)

Another rule of fairness and intellectual honesty is the thesis of my previous two blog posts:

Our criticisms of phenomena should recognize that they consists of multiple parts: some parts might be great dangers-either immediate or looming-while other parts may deserve our great admiration and promotion (like love and service).  Still other parts could be harmless elements (though worthy of critique due to excess or absurdity...)  We must learn to address the specific parts of the phenomena we are concerned about and treat each according to their merits.  After a proper examination of its parts, a phenomenon as a whole can then be judged as good, harmless, in need of reform, or dangerous.

How about another rule of fairness?:

Do not blame uninvolved individuals for the crimes of others who belong to the same group.  This goes back to point #1, but this time we are focusing on individuals and blame.  My mom, for example, is Mormon, but she had nothing to do with Mountain Meadow Massacre of 1857; wherein 120 men, women, and children were killed by a Mormon militia.  Likewise, I don't blame my Catholic friends for the Inquisition and I don't blame modern Muslims for the suicide bombings of their fellow believers.

It is, however, fair to blame a specific belief, religious command, scripture, etc for the crimes of certain religious adherents.  There is more to blame for sure-like unfavorable sociopolitical conditions or the influence of radical leaders-but there is no escaping responsibility for a religion (not its people) when, for example, its doctrine promises paradise to those who are willing to kill themselves to kill others. There is no escaping responsibility for a religion when slavery is spoken of as ordained by god.  And responsibility must be taken when the stoning of adulterers or blasphemers is commanded in holy text. (I know: There's been a lot of talk about "danger" associated with religion and not so many specific examples of the alleged dangerous doctrine.  I've listed much of it before, but a more thorough, specific accounting would only be fair.)

No; ordinary peace loving believers did not author the unwise, dangerous, or absurd doctrine that their holy texts set forth.  They're free to go about living blameless good lives.  But theirs' should be somewhat unsettled lives so long as the bad pieces and parts reside in their religious suitcases.