<< Blaming a religion for the errors of its members is short-sighted. >>
It's perfectly reasonable to test the assertion, for example, that religious-inspired morality is the best, most reliable kind of morality by observing the behavior of those who identify themselves as morally informed by religion.
If a particular religion claims for itself the distinction of embodying and teaching the best-of-the-best morality, a close look at the behavior of those who identify themselves as morally informed by that particular religion is appropriate.
To the degree that a religion is its members, to that degree precisely, it is entirely appropriate to blame a religion for the errors of itself.
If "a religion" means, to you, only some beliefs or items of dogma about the nature of man and about good and evil embodied not in "its members," but in written texts, it must be kept in mind that those texts have been subject to interpretation by "members" -- some of whom are actually infallible in matters of faith and morals -- and so, again, it would seem to be appropriate to scrutinize the liability to error of the "members," including liability to grievous error, and to at least ponder what relevance, if any, this "error" might have to conclusions one might draw about "the religion."
In fact, I can't think of a way to judge any religion that doesn't involve scrutiny of some sort and to some degree of the behavior of its "members." The most ancient texts, all texts, were themselves written down by "members."
To the degree that the moral "errors" made by members are soundly repudiated by other, or descendant, members, harsh judgment is fairly called "short sighted." Insofar as members' moral "errors" are minimized and obfuscated and denied and not apologized-for by other members, to that degree, and that degree only, it is appropriate to draw conclusions about the efficacy of the religion to teach human beings to distinguish good from evil. |
