Is religion the source of all evil? Including my unhappiness?

This is a reaction to Hal’s comments on the protestant work ethic (PWE). The comments turn out to revolve around a different topic altogether toward the end, but without creating a laundry list of answers; I’ll start at the top.

Hal suggests, referring to the PWE: “we should know that this theory is not only morally reprehensible… it is also incorrect.” Well, I for one am a protestant and certainly reprehensible, but I have no morals. Perhaps for this reason, I fail to see what is morally reprehensible about the theory – especially the use of the theory to discuss possible paths of development (which is, after all, all our classmate did). To suggest instead that religion gets in the way of human development would seem morally reprehensible to many (millions of people, I’m sure), but it is nonetheless a proposition which we have to make to investigate the origins of development – controversial as it quite clearly is. If we were, as scholars, to refrain from what to some seems morally reprehensible, there would be no forum for Hal to write such a post. Although I don’t agree with the greater part of it, it furthers the debate.

I am not learned on the Bible. But I take Hal’s word for it: if you were to read it word by word you COULD read it the way he does. Clearly each man and certainly each division within Christianity reads the bible in each their way – thus their different divisions. Weber, even though I am more inclined to believe his reading more than my own, had his own reading. My point is this: you can reject a reading of the bible because you read it differently. That’ll hold up in church, but it won’t hold up amongst scholars. It is an incomplete argument.

But I want to quickly move away from the Bible, because the PWE has less to do with the way the authors of the Bible worded it (or the translators). Whereas the PWE existed at one point amongst many in that format, it has become so much more than that. Let’s assume that religion affects culture, and vice versa (cause otherwise the sociologists come after us), then need the PWE exist only in the church? The answer seems to be no. Indeed, most will tell you that the work ethic permeated European culture in many places, and as religion has declined, the work ethic may not have in the same way.

Also, is it inconceivable that the pursuit for something other than wealth will make you rich? The work ethic in northern Europe is frequently cited (though, I have seen no studies) as the reason why hundreds of thousands of people go to work every day even though their salary is less than what unemployment would amount to? It is one of the reasons why welfare can function so efficiently there. The welfare system would be ruined – and many thousands of people with it (who are out of the job to no fault of their own and because inflationary pressures means that there is such a thing as “healthy unemployment” for a country). The pursuit for wealth – or greediness – of everyone (and yes, I am just as greedy as anyone else) above all, could in fact be anti-wealth.

Furthermore, I think the argument is flawed because it is based on a single assumption: that progress is the generation of wealth. Hal writes: “Christianity, especially Christianity which stems directly from scripture, is anti-wealth and prosperity”.  The biggest mistake, I think, is to equate “anti-wealth and prosperity”. Look up prosperous – it needs not equate wealthy. Synonyms are flourishing, thriving and triumphant, while antonyms are depressed and unsuccessful. They can all connote success in wealth generation, but they can also all connote success in other aspects of life. Like, for example, feeling fulfilled as a person because you work virtuously – the fact that it may not generate wealth does not make you any less prosperous in the actual meaning of the word. Though, Hal’s use of prosperity assumes that to live a fulfilling life we must generate wealth.

Hal goes on to argue: “All churches want their sheep to be poor and unlearned.” If anything, THAT is morally reprehensible. The controversy does not lie in his claim that some churches wish power over the adherents, nor even that he says “all”. Many others have made these claims. No, what is offensive is the use of “sheep” because the inevitable meaning must be that those of us who go to the church do so as subjects of repression. Can no adherent to Christianity be a truly free individual and chose to go to church?

Also, I’d like to invite you all to circuit the churches and city halls of America. Where are you most likely to find a homeless getting a meal? Where are you most likely to find a pro-bono lawyer offering legal advice? Where are you most likely to get a bed at night? If your answer is “City Hall”, I promise you, you live in a truly unique place. To suggest that churches across the board, and across time, are power machines with no care for those who attend them is simply offensive.