People or Profit?

 I wrote some thoughts down that have been on my mind lately.  As with most people, I imagine many thoughts are strung together and interweave and connect fluidly within the mind, but trying to articulate their connection verbally or in writing is a bigger task. One of the most common themes I get in feedback is regarding not leaving religion and those who choose to participate in it, alone.  It is usually a simple, Why? Why can't you just let people believe what they want to believe?  Well that was my first response after leaving.  I just wanted to put it behind me and live my life.  After becoming engaged in various support groups and continuing my education regarding faith systems and my own evolving process, I conclude more and more that religion is destructive.  It has proven to be destructive throughout time.  You may consider this as just my opinion.  

I may be repeating some previous thoughts here...

The crack in the foundation for me that led to the fall or whatever analogy you want to formulate, was the biggest picture I could imagine: God. A supreme being that willed everything present before me today.  From there, we are led to scripture, prayer and a moral compass - from the religious point of view.  So I started with God.  With the personal experience and the information I had gathered regarding the world then and now, and what I have been told about the future, and what I have been told regarding what religion provides people, I concluded there was no God.  It was a soft conclusion.  I actually concluded that we didn't know.  We couldn't possibly know because the God that all humans came up with was unfulfilling and irrelevant to what was important to me: being a responsible, loving human being, owning who I am, being authentic and enjoying life without shame.

This thought that humans came up with God because God defined was rather useless to me started evolving.  I looked at everything in this context.  If your religion says God wants this or that, or even that it wills this or that, what is the overall outcome?  Are the followers better for it?  Time and time again I find that adherents to any type of dogma are being controlled.  There are obviously different levels of control, but this is immediately where we begin to have problems about God.  Religions want God to be capable of the whole spectrum of human emotion and possibly more.  It can be perfectly loving or perfectly angry.  Granted, anger is healthy, and religion has always touted God's anger coming from its love.  

Yet there is always plasticity assigned.  How does one know whether God is happy with me or not? Well since religion loses its relevance when they don't have power over you, God is happy with you when you obey religion, since religion speaks for God.  Free will is also touted by religion as coming from God to all humans.  I have the freedom to make choices. What makes the free will of a believer different than the free will of an atheist? Control.  Believers have additional consequences with associated shame attached.  

I have noticed some strong evidence that certain organized religions are not conducive to deep human connections.  Some religions even publicly claim that 'family' is one of their top priorities when in reality, those relationships are only important under the prerequisite of control.  If a family member refuses to be controlled, then directly or indirectly, the controlled, related loved ones are encouraged to distance themselves.  This is true whether one sees it or not.  It is deeply embedded in the cultural rhetoric found in the everyday lives of religious adherents.  Below are the different aspects in life where I see blatant disregard for relationships.  Connecting to another human becomes more and more important to me and it is quite maddening and saddening to see big organizations that pound the pulpit with messages of love, but subvert relationships on every level.

Interfaith relationships: The believing spouse is told in no uncertain terms by their priesthood leaders that their faith comes first.  It can only truly work if there is hope the non-LDS spouse will be brought into the fold.

Sex education: Without regard to their specific situation, the church not only teaches but enforces only abstinence. Abstinence from masturbation/sex and shame for any curiosity about one’s sexuality.  This shame and suppression leads to withdrawal from loved ones, as self-worth is significantly hindered. When a believer does have sex outside of marriage, or even outside of the temple, they are also treated differently.  If a believer gets pregnant outside of marriage, abortion is sinful, so they force the woman to have the child and then give it up for adoption through the church, which often puts the baby in the home of another LDS family, with the biological parents having little if any input.

Empathy and ethnocentrism: The church creates a culture where the faithful are encouraged to reach out and serve primarily their own.  Not very often do they organize service outside of the ‘faithful,’ and when they do, it isn’t anything but superficial charity (i.e., donating to an organization or giving your time or energy to something where the humans being impacted are behind the scenes).

Victim blaming: When a faithful individual goes to their priesthood leader with a legitimate issue or claim regarding another faithful member of the congregation, it is often dismissed out of hand and the ‘issue’ is then turned around onto the victim.  This damages relationships in that person’s family and friends, as they are now labeled and treated differently. This also damages the position and the trust the congregation is supposed to have in their leaders who represent not only the church, but is supposedly representing Christ. A current prime example is BYU rape culture where the victim is immediately investigated for breaking the honor code in lieu of taking any action or making any investigation into the perpetrator. A big aspect of victim blaming is making the victim feel alone and isolated in their victimhood. Power and control is more easily maintained this way.

LGBT policies: More popular, the LDS church recently came out with a small change to their LGBT policy that ultimately excludes children of gay parents from fully participating in church services.  Although I agree to a point with this policy, they shouldn’t make just those children the exception, they should broaden this policy to all children: they should not get baptized at the age of 8, no matter the status of their parents.  This suppresses a child’s natural instinct to love all family members who love them.

Patriarchy: The LDS culture also teaches the male population that they rule.  Females are subservient because the men hold the priesthood.  The inequity and inequality then shows its ugly head in every facet of their lives: marriage, dating, misogyny, even raising daughters differently than sons.

Feminism: Any woman who speaks out as either wanting to be equal or not putting up with the patriarchal system in general is considered apostate.  The men in her life are admonished to get her under control.

Critical thinking: anyone who asks ‘hard’ questions are dismissed out of hand.  Questions either get ignored or sidestepped and often made to look absurd or not legitimate by strawman or other types of logical fallacies.  Like the other situations, people close to the person asking questions are faced with the dilemma of choosing their relationship first or their faith.  Because the church frames this situation to make it easier on family and friends, the dilemma goes unnoticed, as they make you think you are looking out for their salvation, etc.

Abuse: Although it is exceptional and/or rare, abuse is subtly accepted to a degree. As previously referenced, victims’ claims will often be shrugged off, dismissed or turned around and placed on the victim.  This tells the perpetrator they are safe.  Often the leader that the victim goes to already knows about the perpetrator, and there may be an entire, working abuse system within that local community.  The rarity of these instances is stressed by the church, claiming “one bad apple…”, but it highlights the culture that is in place that puts humans second or third and the corporation first in priority.

Salvation-fixation: Because the emphasis is on the hereafter and how wonderful our joy will be if we ‘endure’ this life, believers will fixate on that goal and disregard their lives now (to differing levels or degrees).  They will tell themselves that their relationships will be made whole in the next life, if they are broken here. It often leads them to a ‘fuck it’ type attitude for mortality, if not a superficial attempt at a superficial relationship.  The church’s cultural rhetoric permeates every facet of life in this regard.  Enduring this life is the preemptive baseline with any struggle, and because of the anti-relationship vector they have established, all relationships tend to be naturally superficial in comparison to the ideal.