Do we really need religions? I'm not sure. Since the dawn of time, I have been personally answering this question to myself with a clear No, because Religions have very flawed opinions on certain topics. Of course, that's nothing rare. Most instances do. That's why you can't blindly believe and follow any instance, for that matter. In my opinion, religions aren't excluded from this, eliminating their only raison d'être.
Let's look at a couple of those topics.
Homosexuality doesn’t concern me personally. I have no issue with homosexual people and I have reasons for that. First, my instincts: Seeing homosexual couples in series/films kissing, having sex, or engaging in any kind of bodily fluid exchange gives me less joy than watching the same actions between heterosexual couples. This stems from the fact that I myself have been in such situations and, due to my heterosexuality, instinctively prefer that idea. However, nobody is forcing me to watch homosexuals kiss or have sex—and even if they did, it wouldn’t kill me or harm me in any way. These people should do what makes them happy, as they’re not hurting anyone. So it’s absolutely fine with me if it brings them joy.
Now for the logical approach: If a behavior is completely natural—i.e., innate to the being—and doesn’t harm other living beings, itself, or the environment, then it is by no means a problem and should be deemed acceptable.
That hopefully sounds logical to everyone. If not: read it again. Still not? Close the tab. Now, we just have to determine whether homosexuality is innate to humans or a result of modern societal development. To simplify this question, let’s just look at animals. Animals have had no opportunity in the past decades to build a society as massive as ours, let alone interact with technological or biological advancements that could somehow explain a homosexual development.
Well, as not everyone may know, according to the organization “Against Nature?” around 1,500 animal species exhibit homosexual behavior. Homosexuality has been observed—at least to a small degree—in a wide range of species. Some examples: 94 out of 100 pairings among giraffes are between same-sex partners. Three-quarters of all dolphins have same-sex partners. 19% of male mallards live homosexually. More than 80% of sea lions show homosexual tendencies. A third to half of orcas engage in homosexual behavior. So, it can clearly be stated that homosexuality is not a product of societal development but a natural, innate drive in a minority of individuals. Thus, it is proven: Homosexuality is entirely harmless and has no negative impact on the person or their surroundings (at most, birthrates might drop—if everyone suddenly became gay).
I quote the islam:
'The practice of same-sex sexual relations by men and women is considered 'illegitimate sexual intercourse' (Zina, fornication) under a conservative interpretation of Islamic law.'.
As for Christianity:
'God intended sexuality only for marriage between man and woman' (Genesis 1:27, 28; Leviticus 18:22; Proverbs 5:18, 19).
And Judaism:
'If a man lies with a man as with a woman—both have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death, their blood is upon them!” (Lev. 20:13)'
Christian believers often try to excuse this by claiming they only reject the homosexual behavior, not the individual. They support this with 'Honor all people' (1 Peter 2:17) and want to suggest that they still treat homosexuals with respect. But the legal clause in Leviticus 20:13 still prescribes the death penalty for anal intercourse between men. Contradictory? Oh yes. Frankly, I don’t care whether Christianity condemns just the sexual orientation and not the person—it doesn’t make it any better. As I’ve just proven, there is no logical reason to reject this orientation. It is simply—excuse the blunt term—stupid to do so.
In the past, women were more responsible for managing the household than for earning wages. Today, our society is striving to create a career-based balance between men and women. One might argue about which parent is better suited for raising children, as I am not well-versed in pedagogy. But one cannot argue about whether one gender is superior to the other. There are about as many women with above-average IQs as men, which nullifies the question of value.
The Roman Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas—incidentally one of the most influential philosophers in history—believed that women were failed men who had not fully attained the human form. He did, however, acknowledge that women were necessary for reproduction. How comforting. Christian friends would now message me, saying that’s just 'the opinion of some odd 16th-century philosopher' and that this indirect quote doesn’t prove anything. So, let’s be thorough:
In the epistle to the Ephesians, attributed to Paul (Eph 5), it says:
Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
According to Martin Luther, the major reformer who set in motion the Reformation and the denominational splits between the 16th and 17th centuries:
Death in childbirth is nothing more than dying in noble work and obedience to God. If women wear themselves out and ultimately die from it, it doesn’t matter. Let them die, that’s what they’re there for.
An illogical and utterly baseless thesis. In 'Surah 4' of the Quran, it says that men are above women. At least, according to Islamic scholars, the Quran does not claim that women were created from men. Quote:
God first created the genderless being human. From that, God simultaneously and equally formed man and woman, says Hafner-Al Jabaji. The woman was not created from man in the Islamic understanding.
In Judaism, the role of the woman was also subordinate to the man. Girls received little to no education, and participation in synagogue events was forbidden to them. Only later were women’s sections introduced in synagogues, which were considered less sacred and were separated by grilles from the men's area.
I’m honestly glad that religion makes it so easy for me when it comes to gender roles. I don’t have to explain for long why it’s pointless to argue about the value of the genders, because from a logical point of view there’s only one correct answer. Finally, I’d like to say something about the famous stories we were told as children through religious books.
I don’t need to say much about that either: Stories like the existence of Jesus, Jesus’ resurrection, or Moses parting the sea have been passed down from generation to generation, and I find it absolutely ridiculous that these stories are the first things taught to children. I can’t describe it any other way than “ridiculous.” We are talking about unproven stories being told to children to give the appearance of seriousness or realism to one’s religion. If these stories were proven, there would be only one religion—and that’s not the case. Children are taught to believe in something that is actually purely theoretical and that shouldn’t be given attention unless evidence is being actively sought. No wonder kids believe everything adults say, when they’re handed something as foundational as religion with no proof and are still expected to be interested in or even follow it.
A comparison from science to clarify my opinion: The Higgs boson particle, a fundamental particle in physics, was first theorized around 1960. Back then, it was claimed to exist. The first step was to discuss whether its existence was even physically/mathematically/chemically possible. Once that was settled, individual physicists began trying to prove the particle's existence. In 2012, a particle accelerator was used to detect a particle that could have been the Higgs boson. After lengthy analysis, its existence was confirmed, and François Englert and Peter Higgs received the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics. That’s how arguments and the support of a position should work.
In conclusion, based on my research, I’ve come to the conclusion that all three religions I examined show contempt—unsupported by arguments or reasons—for various societal structures and groups of people. This contempt is—as I’ve proven at the beginning of both the ‘Homosexuality’ and ‘Gender Roles’ sections—wrong and irrational. It punishes people who haven’t harmed themselves, others, or the environment. If I belonged to one of these religions, I would now know that some doctrines (not all, but some) of this religion are irrational. I would therefore conclude that I must question every doctrine my religion teaches me based on its logic and rationality, as there is a chance that the teaching is irrational. So instead of having to ask whether every argument and claim of my religion is “logical,” I can simply set all religious teachings aside and think rationally.
That saves me both time and energy.