I'd rather have a reminder of what I should be striving for than hear no message at all
OK, OK. So wars, terrorism, sectarian strife, homophobia, child abuse, sexism, are all bad. I get it.
Yes, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, or many more, religion isn't having a great time at the moment. Its numerous flaws have been exposed mercilessly (and gleefully) by the atheist tendency – and to some extent that's a good thing. For centuries it's had far too easy a time, its intolerances and abuses continuing unchecked.
But in their rush to condemn all this, many have lost sight of religion's underlying good. In many ways it's a victim of its own success. Its words have been held up to the microscope and analysed for their flaws for thousands of years. Could any political philosophy have withstood such a test – along with numerous brutal state crackdowns – and still held the faith of over half the world's population? Communism, nationalism, capitalism, socialism – can any of them claim never to have cost lives, or to have mistreated a man or woman because of who they are? Religion is run by humans, who are capable of both good and evil. But, really, is it any worse than any other manmade philosophy? The media likes to talk of "preachers of hate", but there are more than enough "politicians of hate".
The power of religion is that it offers clarity and the opportunity for regular self-assessment, in an atmosphere of genuine humility. The world doesn't revolve around "me"; I have to contribute to the world. Whenever I attend my local church we are exhorted to share, to love, to care for others, to forgive: that the meaning of life is not to be found in material things, but in looking after our fellow humans. For all the potential flaws of the person giving the sermon – not to mention my own deficiencies – I'd rather have this regular reminder of what I should be striving for than to hear no message at all. And I'd rather others in my local community heard a similar message, from whatever faith, than for everyone to be left to create their own morality with no guidance.
Atheist evangelists such as Richard Dawkins just don't get this. They feel we should all be free to create our own rules, without realising that from the petty thief to the wifebeater to the genocide leader, they all manage to justify their own actions. And they don't recognise the power of the religious leader's words, with the purity that comes from the lack of political taint. Even the Guardian, a mostly irreligious newspaper, led the second day of last week's landmark Reading the Riots series with the thoughts of the archbishop of Canterbury.
I often think that humanists should organise their own churches, where they could talk in praise of science (which few of them actually understand) and create their own commandments (or maybe principles of particle physics). For spiritual fulfilment, though, they could maybe read the words of Saint Stephen Fry, or Cardinal Polly Toynbee. After a few generations, though, I fear they might spot the odd inconsistency. Maybe it might cause a schism. And maybe some "splitters" might just discover a dusty old guide with a few good stories that were still relevant to their lives.