A text that serves as the axiomatic rock behind a culture’s ideology cannot be corrupted, but yeah any human institution will allow for human mistakes. Having said that, there’s no Christian religion in let’s say Trump’s America or Islam in the upper echelons of Emirati society, since they think and behave in ways that are diametrically opposed to the message of Jesus and Muhammad, and the prophets they referred to. These people believe in A, as evidenced by their actions, but say they believe in B. One can lie about their beliefs, but it cannot be used as a condemnation of the belief they’re lying about, right?
That’s difficult to answer, because both groups use the social shield of religious identity (or more accurately conflating their views with religion to their followers) as a method to both deflect criticism from within their bases and to appeal as a legitimate representative to all who practice the faith (even if their appeal is hypocritical and baseless).
I agree with you that those abuses don’t undermine the concepts and values placed forward by the root faith (as mentioned in my prior comment, religion can serve beneficial/personal value components within a society), but a leader’s ability to wield religion within the halls of governance taints the religion’s “purity” among the populace as a whole. As the lies are perpetuated through generations, some concepts preached by these bad influences can become accepted or even indoctrinated as true values.
So again, tricky question to answer. In my personal opinion, the only way to disarm this particular scenario is to maintain a secular form of governance and keep religion only as a personal or communal liberty away from any decision made at a government level (appeal to empirical evidence or logical conclusions instead), but there are holes in that idea as well. Dang.
A text that serves as the axiomatic rock behind a culture’s ideology cannot be corrupted, but yeah any human institution will allow for human mistakes. Having said that, there’s no Christian religion in let’s say Trump’s America or Islam in the upper echelons of Emirati society, since they think and behave in ways that are diametrically opposed to the message of Jesus and Muhammad, and the prophets they referred to. These people believe in A, as evidenced by their actions, but say they believe in B. One can lie about their beliefs, but it cannot be used as a condemnation of the belief they’re lying about, right?
Not true christians!
I could hardly find a text that went through more and bigger revisions than bible.
That’s difficult to answer, because both groups use the social shield of religious identity (or more accurately conflating their views with religion to their followers) as a method to both deflect criticism from within their bases and to appeal as a legitimate representative to all who practice the faith (even if their appeal is hypocritical and baseless).
I agree with you that those abuses don’t undermine the concepts and values placed forward by the root faith (as mentioned in my prior comment, religion can serve beneficial/personal value components within a society), but a leader’s ability to wield religion within the halls of governance taints the religion’s “purity” among the populace as a whole. As the lies are perpetuated through generations, some concepts preached by these bad influences can become accepted or even indoctrinated as true values.
So again, tricky question to answer. In my personal opinion, the only way to disarm this particular scenario is to maintain a secular form of governance and keep religion only as a personal or communal liberty away from any decision made at a government level (appeal to empirical evidence or logical conclusions instead), but there are holes in that idea as well. Dang.
I really enjoyed your post and have little to add, so thanks and sorry. And dang, indeed! 😅