There is an obvious new movement both in Christian culture and in Islamic one to set these two major world religions against each other. The previous caused the Crusades and Jihad. Lovely. We are all now more efficiently armed. Would a rematch be in anyone elses interrest, exept the shareholders of ammunition producers? Or the powerhungry demagogues, who know, that easiest way to gain power, is to set other people and cultures against each other?

 These two major religions are by no means just the two different mind sets. Within both there are dozens of different factions, that have a multitude of different aspects on how to interprete the will of the particular commands of their vision of a god. One could easily argue that extreme conservative Christianity has more in common with extreme conservative Islam than modern secularized Christianity, wich in turn has more in common with modern secularized Islam.

The only way to measure a religion as an ideology objectively, is to put it into a test of ethics. There is no point to test it by the morals of either religious culture, or the alledged demands of their gods from their holy books, since that kind of evaluation only leads to culturally relativistic solutions like: “Our interpretation of morals and of our god must be true, because our god says so.” That would be just ridiculous, though I must admit a lot of technically adult people seem to use such childish arguments.

Hence, the ethics used to evaluate any ideology have to be the natural ones, that actually define what is harmfull, or not. As mammals we humans all share the capability for empathy. It allows us to set ourselves in the position of a nother person, an animal, or even an inanimate object. It is natural for us as humans to be “humanists” in this issue and evaluate a member of our own species more valuable, while still recognizing the value of other things. By that logic, we are perfectly able to evaluate which actions and inaction of ours and others are harmfull and wrong and what is neutral, beneficiary, or even good. Every day we secular people and fanatically religious people alike, use that ability to decide what action is necessary and what is not. The holy scriptures and the sermons of ritual experts do not give out all the solutions to these questions. Most often they resemble a compilation of culturally relativistic conclusions of tribal moralism, where the value of an individual is measured by being a member of a certain group of people. That is natural also, but against the logical demand for equality.

The joke of the story is, that if we accept, that logically natural ethics are the only way to come to any objective conclusion about competing religions, we no longer have any use for the religions in our societes, since their main purpose in human conduct seems to be to define what is wrong or right. They certainly do not tell us how the world was created, other than in such an allegorical way, it is reduced to gibberish. Nor do they give any certainty of the existance of any particular god, since no god seems to stand the test of being in a least bit ethical, exept in the most utilitarian and selfish way. And also what point would there be for the demand of faith (inherent to religious idealism, because no gods ever appear anywhere, exept maybe on someones toast), if any of  all the religions in the world would give definitive answers to the existance of any sort of god?

In my opinion, anyone can hold whatever superstition superior to other superstitions, as people usually do not after carefully evaluating them, but as a result of their respective cultural backrounds, as long as these religions are not used as moral tools to cause misery and suffering on others. That is to say religions are OK by me, as long as they are not used unethically in practice. We humans seem to be in responsibility about this, since no gods ever interfere on any sort of religious violence. 

What do you think?