Religious Hypocrisy

Religion has always interested me, both from a historical perspective and from looking at issues of morality and faith. In reading Frederick Douglass' narrative, I found the religious contradictions between the northern abolitionists and the southern slave owners particularly interesting, outrageous, and comical to the point of absurdity.

The preface to the narrative is written by William Lloyd Garrison, and makes repeated references and appeals to Christian morality on behalf of the slaves. He argues for the slaves as fellow men, made in the image of God, no different from the white man; "O, how accursed is that system, which entombs the godlike mind of man, defaces the divine image, reduces those who by creation were crowned with glory and honor to a level with four-footed beasts, and exalts the dealer in human flesh above all that is called God!" (Douglass 39). Garrison, along with other northern abolitionists, argues that enslaving another human being in itself is immoral and sacrilegious, let alone the brutal practices that accompany the institution.

However, many slave-holding southerners proclaimed themselves to be men and women of God, upholding the proper and virtuous lifestyle of southern society. Douglass describes two reverends, men supposed to be spiritual and moral leaders, as two of the most savage slave holders he encountered. Douglass explains that Rev. Daniel Weeden believed that, "Behave well or behave ill, it is the duty of a master occasionally to whip a slave, to remind him of his master's authority" (Douglass 118). As a result, Douglass remembers a slave woman belonging to Rev. Weeden having her back kept literally raw for weeks from repeated whippings. According to Douglass, Rev. Rigby Hopkins was even worse. Douglass explains that Hopkins would whip slaves in advance of deserving it. "He did this to alarm their fears, and strike terror into those who escaped. His plan was to whip for the smallest offenses, to prevent the commission of large ones" (Douglass 118). How these "men of God" could justify their enslavement and treatment of fellow human beings astounds Douglass, Garrison, and myself. It seems to me that often religion is used as a facade behind which the most publicly and outwardly moral and virtuous people hide the hypocrisy of their actions.

Although I do have faith in a higher power, I personally do not believe in or advocate religion because I cannot condone or justify many of the acts carried out by, or in the name of, religious institutions throughout the course of history. Religious wars, persecution of other faiths, politics and power moves within institutional leadership, and the belief that there is one true religion and all people of other faiths are disregarded by God; examples of these instances throughout history leave me skeptical of organized religion. I believe that everyone born with mental sanity is naturally instilled with concepts of right and wrong, and that the underlying message within all the teachings of religious prophets is to do the right thing, and treat others how you wish to be treated. After the prophets are long dead and gone, groups of followers create an institution and use religion as a means to gain and manipulate power, wealth, and influence. Under the banner of these religious institutions, people are then led to follow selected teachings, misinterpreted or taken out of context, and disregarding the main focus of the teachings of their prophet, in order to fulfill earthly ambitions. Take for examples Muslim fanaticism, prolife bombings of abortion clinics, Muslim and Hindu violence in India and Pakistan. I could write for pages on this subject, but maybe I should get back to Douglass.

My disbelief in religious institutions does not mean that I denounce those who seek solace, belonging, or purpose from religious institutions, and who generally attempt to uphold themselves to moral examples left by their religion's respective prophet. I simply choose personally not to partake in organized religion, but to attempt to live a moral life as best I can. While at the same time, I hold contempt for those who so publicly express their religious moral superiority while privately are astounding hypocrites. Douglass and Garrison express this same sentiment, as Garrison writes, "'A slaveholder's profession of Christianity is a palpable imposture. He is a felon of the highest grade. He is a man-stealer. It is of no importance what you put in the other scale'" (Douglass 42). I would have to agree.