too burdensome

Religion is not a blessing, but a curse.

Voltaire believed that religion was the breeding ground for superstition. Rousseau thought religion (or Catholicism at least) engendered social strife. Hume was certain that religion amounted to transcendental and obnoxious nonsense. Marx famously argued that religion was the opium of the people. And the string of invectives could go on.

I don’t know –I don’t really care-- if Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, and Marx were right that religion is detrimental to individuals from a social point of view. I am more interested in personal perspectives.

Religion is supposed to be a practice of inclusion. The problem is that inclusion is the flip-side of exclusion. For every person that has been included, another five have been excluded.

Isn’t there something absurd about an institution that rivets the possibility of an emotional attachment to the harsh and inflexible surface of a religious identity? Isn’t there something unwise about a practice that conditions sentimental choices on a profession of faith?

religion just sounds too burdensome for me.