Porn Is Better Than Religion

A church in Ontario, NY is hosting a breakfast-discussion entitled “Porn and Pancakes ”. The purpose of the event is to warn people of the dangers that porn poses. “It's everybody's dirty little secret in America and it needs to be addressed. It needs to be spoken about openly so people can get healed,” said parishioner Paul Forget.



DISCLAIMER: I am a firm believer in religious freedom. When I say we should combat religion, I mean we should do so within the limits of respecting peoples' rights.


Christian Conservatives are against pornography. Many evangelical leaders want porn to be more restricted, censored or outlawed altogether. Their excuse for being against pornography is that it harms society, which it doesn’t. (In fact, evidence suggests that increased access to pornography has lessened the incidence of rape and other sex crimes.)

They really only oppose it because its written in their mythical texts that masturbation is a sin (despite the fact that most doctors believe it is a healthy practice). I’m against outlawing porn, even if it does harm society, but if we’re going to outlaw things because they harm society, then it makes equal sense to outlaw religion, (though outlawing religion would be equally wrong).

Religion is much more harmful to society than pornography. It is an effective tool in getting people to commit irrational, outrageous and sometimes self-destructive acts. There is a long, long list of religiously motivated crimes, including unjust wars and mass genocide. The most recent danger religion has posed is in the form of terrorism. Religion is also a strong motivator for people to try to control the private lives of others. (Banning porn is a great example.)

The defining aspect of religion is “faith”. There is such a positive connotation attached to this term in our society, but really, what does it mean? In terms of religion, faith is believing in Moses, Jesus, Allah and other mythical characters without a shred of proof. Why is this considered a good thing? This is a very illogical approach to take. Things ought only to be believed if there is evidence to justify believing in them. Since Religion can’t back up its claims with evidence, the only way for it to be successful is by brainwashing people into thinking that faith is a virtue, while if you think about it, faith is just intellectual laziness.

In theory, it’s obvious that faith is harmful to society. It teaches people to not think, to accept the answers they’ve been given without any degree of skepticism or investigation. But in practice, is it harmful for people to have a little faith? What’s wrong with people being a little intellectually lazy in one area of their lives? Well, on the individual basis, it’s not that harmful. For most people, religion is a minor aspect of their lives. But for a sector of the population, albeit a minority, religion is a very big deal. The real problem is that if the vast majority of people see faith as a virtue, even if they’re just passive about it, it makes it harder for us to condemn religious fundamentalism.

Since all brands of religion are based on faith, then there can be no argument about which brand is more valid than the other, for the simple fact that faith rejects the whole concept of argument.
Moderate brands of religion and fanatical brands are intellectually no different. They’re both based on faith and thus both irrational. It is hypocritical to condemn religious fanaticism yet accept moderate religion because it is more preferable or less (obviously) harmful. If we’re going to combat the ideologies of Osama Bin Laden and Pat Robertson, we need to be consistent. As a society, we need to reject the root of religious fundamentalism, which makes it possible to exist: faith. Ultimately, faith is a package deal. Either we accept all of it or none of it.