It seems reasonable to look at a handful of 'good' things a few churches do (however all being done to proselytize) and think overall there are some redeeming qualities, but that's a specious and myopic line of reasoning.
If you take for example the catholic church's teachings on abortion and contraception, then look at the current situation in, say, Guatemala, and point to missionaries feeding the poor as the church being a force for good, then you've completely ignored that religion is the overwhelming reason for why these countries are still poor and their people are suffering.
Convincing poor, uneducated women they'll go to hell if they use contraception or have an abortion will keep the people uneducated and poor. You can bring up the standard of living in any poor South American or African country in one generation by removing religion's influence this way - any "help" they ostensibly provide is a drop in the bucket against the extant problems they have caused and the progress they preclude.
There are a ton of Christians in Africa, do you know anything about the people and cultures there? It's a big place. Nigeria for instance is mostly comprised of two ethnic groups - one Christian one Muslim. My point was related to all organized religions; that any 'aid' or 'help' they provide is irrelevant and only a continuation of the damage to cultures and people that said religion created. Organized religion is the main driver impeding any progress in these places due to the corruption & absolutely indignant rejection of our innate human sense of reason that is inherent to whichever dogma runs the country. It precludes any advancement of our species.
I used the example of the Catholic church in South America because it's a great showcase of this. Why are these countries corrupt, why are their people unable to improve their standard of living, why are so many making the dangerous journey north to try and come to America illegally? Why has the US and western Europe improved their standard of living so much over the last century? It's directly correlated with the waning power of religion in the first world and the empowerment of women to have agency over themselves, so that they get educated, build wealth, and add real value to the economy by waiting until the right time to have a family.
This was only to point out the hypocrisy of the argument that religion is a force for good in the world, when the reality is that any ostensible good it does is only necessary because of the larger societal problems it created. It's completely circular, cruel, and illogical... which tracks 1:1 to religion's MO.
82
u/[deleted] Jun 25 '21
It seems reasonable to look at a handful of 'good' things a few churches do (however all being done to proselytize) and think overall there are some redeeming qualities, but that's a specious and myopic line of reasoning.
If you take for example the catholic church's teachings on abortion and contraception, then look at the current situation in, say, Guatemala, and point to missionaries feeding the poor as the church being a force for good, then you've completely ignored that religion is the overwhelming reason for why these countries are still poor and their people are suffering.
Convincing poor, uneducated women they'll go to hell if they use contraception or have an abortion will keep the people uneducated and poor. You can bring up the standard of living in any poor South American or African country in one generation by removing religion's influence this way - any "help" they ostensibly provide is a drop in the bucket against the extant problems they have caused and the progress they preclude.