More than ever, religion disappoints me.
It promises a godly greatness and delivers an unceasing parade of SMALLNESS as human as the measure of such mortal spirit is meanness.
Who do you BELIEVE?
Apologists tell me that I am an anomaly.
*
That Muslim? Her heart is not hateful. Her posture is not a kind of intimidation. Her stare is not a kind of aggression. Her prayers do not name me - enemy. As for her acts of trespass...
what are they but violent?
That Charismatic? Her beliefs are not hateful. Her stand is not a kind of intimidation. Her position is not a kind of aggression. Her doctrines do not pronounce me - demon. As for her acts of false witness...
what are they but malevolent?
That Extremist? Her thoughts are not hateful. Her disposition is not a kind of intimidation. Her angle is not a kind of aggression. Her convictions do not avow me - inhuman. As for her acts of sabotage...
what are they but cruel?
That Protestant, that Catholic, that Orthodox, that Evangelical? Her words are not hateful. Her attitude is not a kind of intimidation. Her bearing is not a kind of aggression. Her faith does not condemn me - damned. As for her acts of wrongdoing...
what are they but vicious?
*
You see
how apologists promise grace and deliver moral abdication?
*
That Muslim? That Charismatic? That Extremist? That Protestant, that Catholic, that Orthodox, that Evangelical?
I am supposed to be BLIND to their acts. Because a professed faith is a defense. an excuse. a justification. a moral "trump card".
I am supposed to be BLIND to their acts. Not because MY heart. and MY beliefs. and MY thoughts. and MY words. are... theirs.
I am supposed to be BLIND to their acts. Because a mantle of religion is a blank check to be violent. malevolent. cruel. vicious. and
loved. so loved. forgiven. so forgiven. in the name of mercy. most merciful. in the name of grace. most gracious.
*
Never mind
that Jewish human being. she cannot be corrupt.
that Buddhist human being. she cannot be abominable.
that Hindu human being. she cannot be vile.
that Christian human being. she cannot wear religion like a fraud, like an imposter, like a FAKING FAKE.
*
Apologists claim that I see not what I see.
By vowing that I see not what I see, apologists conclude that I lie.
That my trespass is violent. my false witness is malevolent. my sabotage is cruel. my wrongdoing is vicious.
*
By my denial of Muslim, Charismatic, Extremist, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical systems of belief, apologists claim that I deny the truth. By my refusal of Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian systems of belief, apologists claim that I refuse the truth.
By vowing that MY TRUTH is a rejection of what's real, apologists conclude that I am false.
That I am corrupt. abominable. vile. a fraud. an imposter. a faking fake.
*
You see
you are supposed to believe anyone who denies what "religions" insist is true and you are supposed to believe anyone who refuses what "religions" insist is real
cannot be trusted,
cannot be trusted to know what is true and cannot be trusted to know what is real,
cannot be trusted to be honest,
cannot be trusted to be moral.
*
I ask you
can apologists be TRUSTED?
can apologists be TRUSTED to know what is true and can apologists be TRUSTED to know what is real?
can apologists be TRUSTED to be honest?
can apologists be TRUSTED to be moral?
*
Or is it possible
that apologists who promise righteousness and deliver acts of trespass that are violent, acts of false witness that are malevolent, acts of sabotage that are cruel, acts of wrongdoing that are vicious
are SMALL humans;
that apologists who promise sanctity and deliver hateful hearts, beliefs, thoughts, words; and intimidating postures, stands, dispositions, attitudes; and aggressive stares, positions, angles, bearings; and prayers that name enemies, doctrines that pronounce demons, convictions that avow humans inhuman, faiths that condemn and damn
are MEAN mortal spirits;
that apologists who cannot be trusted to be good people are apologists who cannot promise love or forgiveness or mercy or grace, because apologists who deliver an unceasing parade of smallness as human as the measure of such mortal spirit is meanness
are FRAUDS. IMPOSTERS. FAKING FAKES?
*
After all, isn't it possible that "religion" is not a manifestation of "divine inspiration" so much as an execution of mortal invention
of human beings, by human beings, for human beings,
because there is mortal gain to be had by a pretension of "divine creation",
including power, wealth, immortality, etc.
for "believers"?
Epilogue
I am not an anomaly.
I see human beings, "members of religious communities", being human.
I see "members of religious communities" parading an unceasing panoply of smallness as human as the measure of such mortal mean-spiritedness is abysmal.
I see sanctimonious and self-righteous parades WEARING RELIGION like JUDGES IN JUDGMENT.
*
You see
how a "professed faith" that insulates "the faithful"
from scrutiny,
from consequences,
from justice,
is LOUD and PROUD and here and now?
*
I am not an anomaly.
Because it is possible that I am not the only one who DENIES and REFUSES and REJECTS prayers that name enemies, doctrines that pronounce demons, convictions that avow humans inhuman, faiths that condemn and damn.
*
I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE who knows what is true and I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE who knows what is real
is not what "religions" and their systems of belief tell me,
is not what apologists and their claims promise me,
because I am not the only one who knows what is true and I am not the only one who knows what is real
is what "religions" and apologists deliver:
love that DENIES love. forgiveness that REFUSES forgiveness. in the name of mercy that REJECTS mercifulness. in the name of grace that LIES with gracelessness.
M
*
Note
The use of "she/her" is not to exclude "he/him", but rather, to state the obvious, "a pretension of 'divine creation'" is as much "her" "execution of mortal invention" as "his". For all the "mortal gain to be had by a pretension of 'divine creation'" is also "hers".
Or am I the only one who sees "how a 'professed faith' that insulates 'the faithful' from scrutiny, from consequences, from justice" wears "she/her" pronouns like basic b!tches in heat for "power, wealth, immortality"?
M
Most religious people are believers, yes. It's just that they skipped the parts of not being a sinner and a jerk.
ReplyDeleteI’ve explored every aspect of every religion, some more deeply than others, enough to know that there’s not one philosophy written by man that can truly satisfy one like me. Problems aren’t solved with one way of thinking, and I have found that those that believe this are rigid, faithless, and often contradictory in their application towards not of their, “flock.” If anything, my guide is nature and the galaxy. That is where my spirit lies.
ReplyDeleteAs for organized religions, I don’t believe that people should be organized cognitively and forced into what they believe. It would be simple to say that it breeds what you have written so perfectly but you illustrate the truth that it’s a choice, and often a narrowing of thought to those passages that allow for someone to look down, persecute, and isolate others from the “elite.”
This has never been driven home as hard as it does with this time and administration. The moment that somebody thinks or brags that God has spoken to them, you’ve got troubles coming. Honestly, if God is speaking to the current administration, he’s speaking with the a forked tongue, because the behavior of this administration doesn’t seem like God, nature, or a heavenly spirit.
Thank you. There is no place other than here that I would rather be. In terms of the cosmos, it’s a noisy place but the clarity of the song of truth beckons us back to where it rings the loudest – you.
The critical and judgmental attitudes sometimes exhibited by members of a faith are often rooted in internal conflicts: a misunderstanding of theological status, a distortion of grace, a descent into legalism, and a harmful practice of selective morality.
ReplyDeleteA significant part of the problem stems from a distorted theology of entitlement. Believing they are the "chosen ones" or the "elite" members of God's family, some develop a sense of superiority that grants them license to look down on those outside their faith community. This self-exaltation directly contradicts the humility central to most faiths, and god’s divine inspiration apparent in animal’s ability to reason.
Behavior is also frequently shaped by a profound misunderstanding of grace. The promise of divine forgiveness, while undeniably true, is often twisted into a license to mistreat others. Some feel that because God will ultimately forgive their trespasses, they can act shamefully toward neighbors and colleagues without fear of earthly moral consequence, forgetting that grace is never permission for abuse and is a one way ticket down the highway of hell.
The fuel for much negative behavior is a pervasive critical and judgmental legalism taught within some faiths. A conviction that they hold the corner on truth and are inherently right turns certain faithful into self-appointed "judge, jury, and executioner." This attitude—focused on relentlessly pointing out the faults and sins of others—is poorly received, particularly when the accusers have obvious moral failures in their own lives; or are doing so for faithless reasons.
Finally, there is often blatant hypocrisy shown through selective morality. “People of a book,” frequently choose to vilify specific, often high-profile sins, while conveniently ignoring destructive behaviors prevalent within their own communities, including gluttony, vanity, greed, and pride.
I’m not perfect and I am not trying to say that I am but I also understand that faith is not a reason to be on a higher pedestal than others; and that god never meant for his faithful to be more entitled to the riches of the middle kingdom than others.
Nothing external—no food, no interaction, and certainly no person—can pollute your character. The only thing that pollutes you is what you generate from within.
ReplyDeleteAll moral failing begins in the heart: malicious intent, selfish ambition, deceit, theft, sexual misconduct, slander, pride, and unchecked greed.
Stop deflecting. Your lack of integrity is an internal matter, not the fault of those who live by a different code. You were given the capacity for good—a mind, a heart, and a soul—to intentionally choose virtue, not vice. To do otherwise is to betray your faith. While mistakes are inevitable, true failure lies in doubling down on errors. Asking for forgiveness without genuine action, reconciliation, or a firm commitment to change is spiritual stagnation. True movement toward grace requires a deliberate effort to be better.
Yet another rhetorically explosive and profoundly honest piece that is a drumbeat against dogmatism, you are always effective in establishing a shared skepticism against false divinity and the authority associated with it, especially when it counters the vision of a shared democracy.
ReplyDeleteI have always admired your honest genius that is devastating in its inversion: arguing that the authenticity of religious systems is not found in their claims or promises, but in their delivery or lack of hypocrisy. Your word choice is on spot, brilliantly articulating the chasm between stated ideals and the practice in living.
Thank you again for a masterpiece of writing that functions as a passionate declaration of spiritual independence, forcefully reclaiming the truth and reality from the hands and mouths of the systems that claim to possess them.
We are with you, now and forever.
When humans build an institution of "divine creation," it provides a perfect, organized vehicle for these same internal vices to manifest as mortal gain (power, wealth, control). Instead of purifying the heart, the institution becomes a powerful tool for the corrupted heart. The only real path to a pure heart is to help others and seek the truth, even when it doesn't lead to a dragon's horde of shiny gems.
ReplyDeleteBut have you... seen a dragon's... horde of gems? You are part... your mother's child... and she has... always loved the... shiny stuff...
DeleteI’m not a !@#$ing atheist, I’m pretty sure I am not an agnostic either. I guess I am really a cynical deist. I that there is a !@#$ing God, but I am pretty sure she’s disappointed in what we’ve !@#$ing done to !@#$ on the place. Your post just proves the point. Keep up the great work, and anyone who thinks otherwise can !@#$ a !@#$!
ReplyDeleteI love God. I just hate her entourage, bodyguard, and fan club.
ReplyDeleteApologism for religious harm is not mere intellectual defense; it is a betrayal of ethical responsibility.
ReplyDeleteWhen grievous acts—be it abuse, discrimination, suppression of human rights, or institutional cover-ups—are committed under the banner of faith, apologism functions as a sophisticated barrier against accountability. It attempts to prioritize the purity of the doctrine over the pain of the victim.
This intellectual evasion relies on dangerous maneuvers like minimizing harm by claiming the actions were "misinterpretations," "cultural remnants," or "historical errors," rather than acknowledging inherent structural flaws that enable these cruelties; applying a rigorous standard of morality to secular institutions while exempting the religious structure from the same scrutiny simply because it claims divine origin.
We must reject the notion that truth is negotiable when equality and justice is at stake. The moment an ideology requires us to excuse active cruelty to maintain its sanctity, that ideology has failed its most basic moral test. There is no theological justification for human suffering. The only acceptable response to religious harm is unreserved denunciation, absolute transparency, and full, material accountability for the injured.
And if you don’t agree or think that this excusable… !@#$ a !@#$.
This is an incredibly sharp and visceral critique of hypocrisy, and you are entirely right to be disappointed by the "unceasing parade of SMALLNESS" delivered by many who profess faith. The moral abdication you describe—where faith is used as a license for cruelty—is the most profound betrayal of any spiritual principle.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe the core premise is subtly inverted. You are not criticizing Faith; you are criticizing Idolatry.
The problem you dissect is not the failure of a divine idea, but the failure of human execution. True faith is defined by precisely the kind of self-scrutiny and humility you demand. The moment a person or institution uses their "professed faith" as a moral shield or a "trump card" to justify hate, aggression, or a denial of consequences, they have stopped worshiping God/the ideal and started worshiping the system (the doctrine, the institution, the identity) itself. That is the definition of idolatry.
My contrary view is this: The person who is good is the goal, but the most powerful, enduring, and self-correcting engine for achieving that goodness is often found in genuine faith.
The failure of the faithful is not a proof that faith is false, but a proof that it is hard. And those who use it to escape scrutiny are simply bad humans, not bad believers. We must not judge the mountain by the dirt on the shoes of those who claim to have climbed it.
I choose to believe in the faith that relentlessly convicts us of our own fraudulence, rather than the "professed faith" that grants us a moral exemption.
The critical factor is not the label, but the action. We all judge a person's quality not by what they profess to believe, but by the tangible kindness, integrity, and responsibility they demonstrate in their daily lives.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, whether goodness is inspired by a deep spiritual conviction or a purely humanistic drive, the world benefits from the result
You brilliantly expose how "apologetics" often serve as moral abdication. A professed faith should never function as a blank check for malice or a defense against accountability
ReplyDelete"Smallness" is a human universal. When faith is weaponized, the mantle of cruelty fits women as snugly as it does men. Gender offers no moral shield from institutional corruption. And to think that one is exempt or incapable of vice and sin is to reject the truth and reality of the human condition. &TwinsForever
ReplyDeleteWomen often serve as crucial figures in the intergenerational transmission of religious beliefs and cultural values, actively participating in ritual practice, moral instruction, and community building within their faith traditions. To think that they would be any less a part of the growth of believing in the wrong things is to bury your head in the sand.
ReplyDeleteThis is an incredibly sharp and intense critique!
ReplyDeleteSince the debate is about who to believe, I have to go with the one group that has never disappointed me, you…
After reading this searing indictment of spiritual smallness, I'm forced to ask: Who do you believe in the great taco schism?
ReplyDeleteApologists tell me that the extra charge for guac is an anomaly. That the $2 price hike is not a kind of intimidation. As for the unceasing parade of smallness that is a single radish slice... what is it but vicious?
I am supposed to be blind to their acts. Because a professed faith in a well-seasoned pastor (al pastor, that is) is a defense. A justification. My moral 'trump card.'
But tell me: can the apologists who insist on red sauce be trusted? Or is it possible that they, too, are just FRAUDS. IMPOSTERS. FAKING FAKES*?***
I choose to believe only in the taco truck that delivers exactly what it promises, with a side of extra-spicy forgiveness.
This isn't a critique of the divine; it's a brilliant exposure of the human software bugs in the 'divine' operating system. When the apologist guarantees grace while the 'faithful' deliver cruelty, they're not protecting God—they're protecting an institution built on mortal gain. I believe that the truth lies not in what a religion promises, but in what it has to forgive.
ReplyDeleteThe fix is simpler than the theology: We must judge the faith by the fruit, not the root. The apologist's job isn't to deny the acts of trespass, but to demand consequences and true, material repair. When a 'professed faith' becomes a moral 'trump card,' we must revoke the license. The system is only fixed when the faithful are held to a higher, un-apologized-for human standard of honesty, justice, and measurable goodness…
ReplyDeleteThe fix is simpler than the theology: We must judge the faith by the fruit, not the root. The apologist's job isn't to deny the acts of trespass, but to demand consequences and true, material repair. When a 'professed faith' becomes a moral 'trump card,' we must revoke the license. The system is only fixed when the faithful are held to a higher, un-apologized-for human standard of honesty, justice, and measurable goodness…
ReplyDelete