If there is any single concept that history has taught us about religion, it’s that adherents can and will find whatever they need in the scriptures, beliefs, or customs of their chosen religion to justify almost any choice or course of action. Sometimes that works for good and sometimes for evil, but it’s rare to find a significant social, political, or ideological movement that doesn’t find ways to support its objectives with tailored aspects or interpretations of religion.Well, this is an interesting, if nihilistic, view. It is almost like you’re saying that religion, any religion, is essentially meaningless. Not that I am saying that you are right or wrong, but aren’t you yourself a Christian?I’m not commenting on whether or not the religions are meaningless. But every religion is populated by fallible people, and people’s views and interpretations of religion have frequently tended to be colored by their perspectives on other considerations such as personal profit or advantage, desired outcomes of a political or social issue, etc. I’m not saying this is always for the negative. I’m just saying that people have historically not been shy about deciding the outcome they want, and then finding the support in religion to justify that outcome or the measures they would take to achieve the outcome.
I really do not differ with you at all on this.
But, based on your reasoning, people also decide on outcomes on all kinds of things irrelevant of religion or even being atheists. So, if the tenets or philosophy of a religion can be bent willy-nilly for good, for bad, or for pretty much any direction, does that not, in effect, make religion sort of meaningless? If this logic is correct, it seems like religion becomes just an afterthought or window dressing, not a set of powerful guidelines for thought, action or belief. I am asking this, not asserting this. What do you think?
Yeah, I’m not arguing that the only thing people ever use to justify action is religion. And I’m not saying that all people abuse religion. But the historical examples are frequent enough to illustrate that many many people will, sometimes deliberately and sometimes unconsciously, interpret religion in ways that supports views they might have already held. That doesn’t make religion meaningless, but should just act as a caution to be careful when you hear someone appealing to religious scriptures or ideas when promoting some political, social, or commercial movement. Some examples are obvious; “buy this car because it’s the car Jesus would have driven.” Some are less so; “go on strike because Jesus would have supported the struggle of workers to demand fairness.” And the degree to which these justifications actually are legitimately supported by religion will clearly vary to a great degree and may be a matter of interpretation more than clear and obvious fact.
Communism or Environmentalism? (Personally I’d argue the fervor of religion is substituted by them)
I’m sure there are environmentalists who think their religion supports the need for men to be greater stewards of the natural world around us, to care for animals, to safeguard the planet for the future benefit of our descendants, etc.
As for communism, well, there was Christian communism before Marxist communism, and variations of it continue today. That said, sure, the communism we typically think of associated with Marx and the Soviets tends to be anti-religion.
