Think: Reason

Fundamentalists vs. Moderates

A friend of mine sent me this video (after the break) of a “gay exorcism”. Now, exorcism in and of itself is pretty silly in my book, but this takes it to a whole new level. I think the most ironic part is that people are not outraged at the exorcism itself, but that it’s a “GAY” exorcism. As if putting someone through this crap is okay, so long as it’s not because they’re gay.

I know its easy to look at this and say, “See, all those religious nuts are just CRAZY, religion is evil!.” I’ll admit, a part of me screams that each time I see one of these videos. However, I have to think back to the “religious nuts” who were there for my grandmother when my grandfather passed. They always had someone there, they offered 24/7 support, to this day they make sure she’s not alone on the holidays, and she goes to grief counseling meetings each week that the church offers for free. This isn’t the work of crazies, this is the work of good people trying to do good by their neighbor.

What if my grandmother had been an atheist though? Could she lean on the support of the church? If she had doubt in God, would they be there to help her? I can’t know for sure, but part of me thinks they may have been less likely to provide that same level of care. Should they have to? Of course not, that’s not my point. The point I’m trying to make is that however you slice it, churches are an “in group”. As such their subject to all the same issues usually attributed to the in group / out group paradigm.

Now, does that make them bad or wrong… I can’t really say. Take for example the church in the video, these people ACTUALLY think they’re doing good for the boy. They think they’re saving his soul. This is where I think the danger exists with church and in fact believing anything without evidence.

The skeptic mind would have said, “wait a minute, before we put someone through this nonsense and possibly cause long term psychological damage, what evidence is there that suggests this will benefit in the least?” The faithful, are instead told that the less they question, the more faith they have and the more likely it will work.

Steven Weinberg said,

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

I think Weinberg is correct, but it’s a little too focused. It’s not just religion, it’s anyone who would do any potentially harmful act to another person without asking for evidence that this works. Would you send your child who had cancer to a doctor who told you, “We have a procedure, we’re not sure if it’s ever worked before, but some people have claimed it to. It could permanently damage her physically and psychologically though.” Would you say, “Okay Doc… Do what you do!” Of course not, you’d want more info.

I think what makes religion especially bad in these kinds of situations is that they believe in an after life. This is all just a test. As such, many can justify violence in this life and claim it to be for the better good, it’s for the “eternal life”.

Are all religious individuals insane like this, no. But without the religious moderates these fundamentalists would just be extreme crazies. This is like calling some people who see pink unicorns who want to kill people crazy, but others who see pink unicorns and don’t want to kill people, perfectly normal.

It’s… well… insane.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9v2uk99o2E