No, I wouldn't agree. Religious anti- semitism was not nearly as virulent as the pseudo- scientific racialism that supported Nazi doctrine.
Scripture acknowledged slavery, and tried to make it more humane. It did not cause such a widespread human practice.
Religion had almost nothing to do with the conquest of the Americas. In fact, the clergy that accompanied Cortez, for example, were appalled by the behavior of the Conquistadors, and complained to Rome. The Pope deplored mistreatment of Indians. The Conquistadors ignored him. You must distinguish between religiously motivated behavior, and conventional greed and lust for power defending itself against attack by twisting Scripture.
There are no reliable statistics to determine the relative historical purity or perversity of charitable establishments, and it is not strange that some should have had problems, so I consider it not much worth speculation.
I have no idea if those who sought to profit from the opium trade were devout High Anglicans. I do not even know if they strove for the appearance, but more than that, in a society where one would draw suspicion upon oneself for non- conformity, outward devotion would be a highly unreliable indicator of actual piety.
All in all, an unimpressive case. Now, let me ask you something: if you knew someone who professed to be a Communist, but was eager to obtain a peerage, would you question the sincerity of his ideological commitment? Why, then, do you suppose that those who participated in the extermination of Jews, even women and children, were to be taken seriously as Christians, and should be weighed in the balance against those who hid Jews? Do you think that Mafiosi are good Catholics, and representative of the normal behavior of the pious, or bad guys seeking to get over on God? Those who make a attempt to be faithful to the tenor of a religious tradition may be used to investigate the effects of religious belief. Those who are obviously wildly aberrant are not reasonably taken as exemplary........ |
