On April 11, 2005, Anu Garg, editor of "Word-a-Day" wrote:

Religion can help us be kind, sincere, and honest. But all too often we cherry-pick its teachings to condemn those we don't agree with. Religion also comes handy in other less-than-sublime purposes. What could be better than exploiting religion for a politician to sway people and strengthen his hold on power?

If we could remember that God doesn't live in a church, temple, or mosque, there would be no need to preach to anyone, no need to save anyone's soul. The best we can do is save ourselves and improve our own lives and/or after-lives. Imagine a world where we don't feel a need to condemn anyone because "the book of my religion says so."

Word-a-Day is Mr. Garg's forum, and he is quite entitled to say what he wishes there. And this is my forum, and I am entitled to do the same. So here goes.

People may wonder why I would take exception to these sentiments. After all, they are embracing, accepting and loving words, and furthermore, they are the philosophy of the day. They encompass the modern ideal of world peace and tolerance, where all people accept one another with love and not with hatred.

Not to be picky, but I submit that while the motives behind these words may be pure, they are rife with misconception and error.

Let's begin at the beginning. "Religion can help us be kind, sincere, and honest. But all too often we cherry-pick its teachings to condemn those we don't agree with. Religion also comes handy in other less-than-sublime purposes. What could be better than exploiting religion for a politician to sway people and strengthen his hold on power?" Mostly well-said. I think we can all agree that it is wrong to go through a religion and then pick out and practice only the bits that are to our best advantage. It is also true that some people use religion for very immoral purposes. The line I don't care for is, "cherry-pick its teachings to condemn those we don't agree with. This theme will be expanded upon presently.

As many rivers flow to merge in one ocean, many paths for spiritual enlightenment can achieve the same goal. The problem begins when we want to portray our religion as the best: "mine is the one true religion and all others are false." Such religious fervor leads to endless violence. No other cause in human history has resulted in as many killings. I'm not sure we can quantitate the last statement, so let's let that go. It is certainly true that overweening religious fervor can lead to violence, which is execrable. That cannot and should not be argued with. This powerful and unarguable idea seems to lend more credence to the beginning of the paragraph, but let's discuss what Mr. Garg says there. "As many rivers flow to merge in one ocean, many paths for spiritual enlightenment can achieve the same goal." I would like to know what goal he is speaking of. It is never defined. Is everyone on a search for spiritual enlightenment? This suggests that there is a truth, and people are looking for it. If there is truth, then there must also be falsehood. Therefore, not all statements can be truth if they do not all agree. And as we all know, not all statements agree. If one person says (just to randomly pick a topic), "Homosexuality is wrong," and another says, "Homosexuality is perfectly acceptable," then one of these statements must be true and the other false. If there is a truth that we must be "spiritually enlightened" with, then there must also be a falsehood we must reject.

But perhaps that was not what was meant by the "goal" of religious beliefs. A Hindu will tell you that his or her goal, or the goal of Hinduism, is to live in such a way that eventually he or she will be released from the cycle of reincarnations into "nirvana", or non-existance. The ultimate goal is to be blown out like a candle and be freed from existence. The goal of a Christian, on the other hand, is to live in such a way that after death and/or the end of the world, he or she will be given a new kind of body and live in a remade and perfect world, where there is no death or cessation. The ultimate goal is to exist in a better way, and to exist that way forevermore. Obviously, the goals of Hinduism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. These two religions do not strive to achieve the same goal.

"The problem begins when we want to portray our religion as the best: "mine is the one true religion and all others are false." Such religious fervor leads to endless violence." The wording ("the best") is scornful, making the individual saying these words to sound petty and childish. But I do not believe that anybody ever said their religion was "the best". That superlative is used in comparisons between similar objects. As we have already shown, different religions can be completely dissimilar. The Hindu will say that the Christian world-view is entirely wrong because he or she believes in the Hindu world-view. The same is true of the Christian, who believes in the Christian world-view at the expense of the Hindu one. You cannot line them up and compare--shop for "the best". One must be true and one must be false.

By now, I am sure that some people are disgusted with this analysis. Our society has taught us that good sentiments can be found in all religions and that good people can belong to any of them. I won't argue. Many religions hold their believers to an admirable code of conduct, reinforced by people who want to do good in the world. How then, can we say that there is truth and falsehood in religion?

The code of conduct in many religions treats not only with right conduct toward other humans, but toward a deity/deities. If we are not going to "cherry-pick" the religion, we must take the entire code of conduct together. For an example here, I will pick two religions I know something about (I am afraid that my knowledge of some religions is a bit limited on this point). Let us compare the ancient Greco-Roman polytheistic religion with Islam. (Now, before you argue that they were not practiced at the same time, Islam emerging at about 600 AD, let me remind you that Islam borrows heavily from Judaism and also from Christianity, both of which were practiced at the same time as the Greco-Roman religion. I decided not to compare the GR to Christianity because I thought you might like a new example.) In the Greco-Roman religion, one could worship all the gods, or just concentrate on one or two. But it was a good idea to appease them all, and in fact, people of polytheistic religions at that time often prayed to as many gods as possible, not all of them in their particular religious pantheon, with the idea that it couldn’t hurt and it might help. In Islam, on the other hand, a Muslim is to worship Allah and only Allah. Worshipping any other gods is strictly verboten. Thus, even in their codes of conduct, both these two religions cannot possibly be right, because they again work on the rule of mutual exclusion. A polytheist can pray to Allah but cannot be a Muslim because they pray to other gods as well, and a Muslim cannot be a polytheist because they can pray only to Allah.

The problem begins when we want to portray our religion as the best: "mine is the one true religion and all others are false." Such religious fervor leads to endless violence. This statement is very broad. It implicitly states that anyone who believes that their religion is true and all others are false engage in endless violence. This is simply not true. Continuing with the theme of Islam, while it is true that some Muslims “cherry-pick” their faith and ignore the teachings of peace to wreak violence on others based on religious difference, it is base slander to say that all Muslims engage in violence. And yet, to be truly non-cherry-picked Muslims, they must believe that their god alone is God and therefore that theirs is the one true religion and all others are false.

If we could remember that God doesn't live in a church, temple, or mosque, there would be no need to preach to anyone, no need to save anyone's soul. The best we can do is save ourselves and improve our own lives and/or after-lives. Imagine a world where we don't feel a need to condemn anyone because "the book of my religion says so."

The logic here does not follow. Many religions say, either that God is in everything, or is omnipresent, etc. There are some that say that their god dwells in a temple, etc., but I would believe very few actually believe that their god cannot work outside of that dwelling place. But I do not see what that has to do with salvation. Even believing that God is omnipresent, many people still see a need for people's souls to be saved. Now, I believe this particular passage is aimed toward Christianity, particularly Evangelical Christianity, based on the mention of “saving people’s souls”. From this point of view, Evangelical Christians do not believe that God lives exclusively in the church. Mention is made of “saving ourselves”. How does one do that, and “improve one’s own life and/or afterlife”? Mankind has been working for the entirety of our existence to improve our lives, and I put to you that very little progress has been made. We do not seem to be capable of "saving ourselves".

Very few “books of one’s religion” actually tell believers to condemn others. In fact, most tell their followers to embrace and to love others. Taking Evangelical Christianity, while some Christians may “cherry-pick” and become vindictive and spiteful toward others, those that actually follow the entirety of the teachings of the Bible love others, and know that the “book of that religion” says to do so. But it also says that Christianity is the "one true religion". By the philosophy of the day, it is not possible for a religion to be "exclusive" in this way, and yet so loving. But it is lived out in the lives of non-"cherry-picking" Evangelicals every day--or they are trying to live it out.

Religion can help us be kind, sincere, and honest. But all too often we cherry-pick its teachings to condemn those we don't agree with. Many religions, by their very (un-cherry-picked) nature, call themselves the "one true religion". These very religions can also "help us to be kind, sincere, and honest. Un-cherry-picked, however, these religions also state quite clearly and without spite that those that do not subscribe to that particular religion are condemned by that very choice. Oftentimes, in the current culture, to say that all people are "saved", is to cherry-pick a religion!

You may have already guessed this, but I myself am an Evangelical Christian. When people discover that, they instantly think that I must be a hateful and vindictive person. They don't realize that the stereotypical hateful and vindictive Evangelical Christian is a cherry-picker. My religion clearly commands believers to love everybody, whether they agree with us or not, and even to love those that hate us and persecute us. (And if you think that Evangelicals are not persecuted, or even that we are not persecuted in America and in the prevailing culture, open your eyes!) What these people, who stereotype me and are prejudiced against me, also don't realize, is that a so-called Evangelical Christian that refuses to tell an unbeliever that they don't need to be saved or that anything they do in accordance with the prevailing culture is fine, are also cherry-pickers--and not even of a better kind. As Lewis put it so clearly, "Just because the Inquisition erred in one direction, does not mean there is no error in the other direction."

I feel compelled to rewrite Mr. Garg’s words: “Religion can help us be kind, sincere, and honest. But all too often we cherry-pick its teachings to be cruel those we don't agree with. Religion also comes handy in other less-than-sublime purposes. What could be better than exploiting religion for a politician to sway people and strengthen his hold on power?

As many trees grow up from a single fruit whose seeds have fallen on the ground around it, many “paths for spiritual enlightenment” contain kernels of the Truth. The problem begins when we depict others who “cherry-pick” their religion as accurate images of the religion. We must remember that many kind and loving people around the world, who believe in many different religions, believe, "mine is the one true religion and all others are false." We must also remember that the “cherry-pickers” cause much harm in this world, and we must avoid becoming them.

The best we can do is remember never to judge the merits of a system of belief on a few “cherry-picking” believers. Imagine a world where we don't feel a need to condemn anyone because they believe pure- and whole-heartedly in "the book of [their] religion."

Shall I sum up? If there is truth in this world, and I think we must agree there is, then there must be one true religion, and all the others, which must not agree, must then be false. This statement can be arrived at through pure logic, taking any two conflicting religions as an example. If one is true, and un-cherry-picked, the other must be false. To say that all religions are correct would be to cherry-pick each and every one of them. If we truly wish to be "sincere" and "honest" we must recognize this fact.

In closing, I would just like to add that as an English major and a logophile, I very much enjoy receiving Mr. Garg's Word-a-Day, and would recommend it to anyone who shares my love of language.