BeigeJournal

Why Do People Do Bad Things in the Name of Religion? Richard E. Wentz, 87 pages, Mercer University Press, 1987.

I found this book very disappointing. The disappointment started early, when religiousness is redefined to include all human activity not directly related to remaining alive, including examples like camping or a sports fan watching televised football. At this point it is already clear that the title does not mean what you thought it meant. One idea raised somewhat briefly that seems perfectly reasonable is that our activities will harm people when the activity itself is thought of as more important than the people. I can’t argue with that. The possibility that different religious practices may make it easier or harder to keep attention on people’s welfare is not raised.

He claims that religions exist because people do bad things, even good people who did not intend harm, and the religion, if it is successful, should help us understand the inevitable evil. He’s rather vague on how this should happen. One might think that The Problem of Evil would come up here, but it is left to be dismissed later. Essentially, people do bad things in the name of religion because people do bad things, and no matter what their background and beliefs some people will do evil in the name of whatever is important to them. Religion having been redefined to include everything people do besides breathing, I suppose this is all we can expect.

He then divides religious practice into the ways of the masses and the ways of the disciple. It seems to me that this becomes a sort of lengthy way of saying that while many of the believers may think their religion justifies violence, while even apparently devout people who are elected to leadership positions in their religion may espouse violence and intolerance, the real religion, and the real believers, those following the path of the disciple, are pacifists deeply concerned about human welfare and completely aware of their own limitations and uncertainties. He emphasizes his belief that all religions are founded by this sort, even if their followers are not, though he offers no evidence. As usual, Heisenberg is mentioned, in the usually incoherent way.

Very little is made of the differences in the content of different beliefs. Apparently everyone is pursuing the same thing in their own equally valid way. Having defined Paul Kurtz and the Ayatollah Khomeini to be in the same business perhaps makes this inevitable.

As a religious studies professor, Richard Wentz feels misunderstood by his academic colleagues in other disciplines. It is entirely likely that most of them have never read any of his writings, but I doubt that this book would much increase their respect for him.