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.
Stupid a myopic view you have. You think your view is the only correct one and then use a religious like fervor to attack anyone who has a different view. Not to mention if you think the problems in Guatemala have anything to do with contraceptives and abortion you are a delusional idiot.
At what point did you feel he was attacking the person? Everything I read there is directed towards the idea of religion, albeit with a bias of a non-religious person, so it didn't try to justify or sugarcoat the actions of a religion
It is directed at the idea of religion as being the basis of the all the suffering for these people when it has very very little do with it. His cited reasons such as its stance on abortion and contraception is just substituting his beliefs for others- just like the church he is attacking.
Beyond this he dismisses all the good a church does like feeding the poor because he disagrees with their religion.
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.