by Carl S

Image via Wikipedia

What are the universal criteria for judging the judges? We could probably all agree the criteria should include fairness, impartiality, knowledge, experience, and an insistence on weighing all of the evidence on both sides in all disputes and claims. In short, we should demand a dedication to, respect for, and a rigid pursuit of the truth. In addition, the judge should, under mitigating circumstances, administer justice with mercy.

With these simple criteria, we can ourselves judge whether the judge is honest or corrupt. Let us apply these criteria to the clergy, who claim to be seekers not only for truth, but actually possessors of it, to determine whether they fit into the column of honest or corrupt.

It is no wonder then that there is so much trouble in this world since the clergy are so accustomed to being the kangaroo courts of societies and continue to insist on and get privileged status.The clergy not only ignore, but withhold and even suppress, those passages of their scriptures (evidence) which contradict each other. They do not tell “all the truth, and nothing but the truth.” They only allow certain, often dubious, “truths” to be known, and instead of saying for instance, “attributed to Jesus, or Mohamed, or Moses”, they state these sayings as actual quotes. Nor will they tell their congregants that no one knows who wrote those passages that they base their judgments on. No voices are permitted to be heard save those which agree with their own. There is no debate in the church.

Clergy will not generally criticize the unlawful or immoral behavior of other clergy members, or their over-zealotry. To the contrary, they protect them. And crony-ism is rampant among them. Religion covers a multitude of sins, and the ”credentials” they lay claim to are conferred by those who are just like them! In a comparison of judges and clergy, one could say that clergy are akin to corrupt judges, with indifference to truth, evidence, or honest witnesses.

What impact does it have on personal moral decisions and society when judgments of these clergy are honored unchallenged? For one thing, it means that the clergy’s indifference to the use of evidence to verify truth becomes widely accepted practice. And because this dishonesty and indifference is so insidious and accepted, it spreads like a virus into the body of civil and social judgments and thinking, corrupting moral behavior and impeding that dialog which leads to human rights and justice for all. The tacit respect for the clergy, with their cover—ups, contempt for evidence, and their essential indifference to real truth, is fed by the indifference of their faithful.

It is no wonder then that there is so much trouble in this world since the clergy are so accustomed to being the kangaroo courts of societies and continue to insist on and get privileged status. TAKE A REAL GOOD LOOK at them.

Thank you Bart Ehrman, Judge “If it doesn’t make sense…” Judy, Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins, and all who pursue and respect truth and justice through actual evidence. Why should the world shrink to accommodate religion?