Weapon of Mass Destruction

I don't mean guns, nor nuclear energy.
Nor do I mean a woman's bosom.

I mean religion.

Yes.
Religion.

Religion as a weapon of mass destruction.

It may seem very odd to hear someone who describes herself as 'religious' to be talking about religion in this way.
Except, it shouldn't surprise at all.

Religion as a tool used for one's own selfish ends.
We have all seen examples of this.

Al Quaeda terrorists who use Islam for their own earthly pursuits.
Cult leaders who use their 'religious powers' to abuse vulnerable women.
Catholic priests who use the veil of The Church to abuse children...
The list is as long as my arm...

I have known people to turn away from religion for life, based on what a 'religious' person has done.
This is sad on one level.
But I shan't dwell on it.

I was going to write a post on the Church's contribution to the SMP.
But since I don't know enough about my own religion let alone any other religion, I shall brood some more over this topic until I have the required insight.

In the meantime, I have been busy thinking about something else.
If this helps, the original title of this post was to be: 'Religion: don't let it be used against you'.

I know many people who are fiercely suspicious of anyone who claims to be religious.
It comes with the territory of being Catholic :-)
For some reason, Catholics more than most, attract this kind of fierce suspicion.
I do understand it. And it doesn't in fact surprise me in the least.
I have been witness to the justification of the most heinous atrocities. All in the name of Catholicism.




I was thinking recently about the particular disdain The Manosphere has for so-called 'religious' women.
I never understood it before.
In fact I was baffled by it.

It seemed to me that on the one hand, these men were in contempt of the 'less than perfect' women (the promiscuous, the unfeminine, the uncouth). Not that anyone is perfect in this world...

On the other hand, they also seemed to be bashing the 'good girls'.
What was the problem?
What gives? I mused.
I couldn't understand it for the life of me!

Dalrock, in particular, is less than impressed with the religious women and their accompanying 'manginas' who are always asking men to 'man up'.
His latest post is but one in a long line of many that address his particular issues with religious, notably, Christian women.
My self-addressed question, as always, was, why?
Why was he so anti-religious women?
To my naïve mind, he was holding up such women to higher standards than were fair.
He was giving these women a heavier cross to carry than they were already bearing.
Not fair.
Or so I thought.

But I missed something else.
Something that came crashing down on my own head as I parted company with a woman who was previously in my 'herd', albeit only ever on the periphery.
But first, I shall describe what I think some men are seeing when they see a religious woman.
And why I think when women like me and Bellita cry NAWALT, it is simply a red rag to a bull.


Women as a group are more drawn to religion than men. This is perhaps a historical and a social given.
This is not the same as saying that women are more moral than men.
Far from it.
But I can see how this distinction can be 'fuzzed' to womens' advantage.
Clever women can do this very well.
And apparently they have.
The problem is, savvy men have caught onto this phenomenon.
And now, all women must pay for this 'sin' committed by said clever women.

Bellita once used the following phenomenon as an analogy for something else - I forget what.
But that 'something else' does not matter and is not relevant here.
What interests me where this post is concerned is what Bellita described, which is, people using 'confession' as a way of absolving themselves from the same sin over and over again.

Now, confession is both an enigma to and a source of ridicule by non-Catholics. I am used to this.
It doesn't bother me (anymore).

But precisely because I am Catholic, I get what Bellita is saying. Very well in fact.

Religious people can use the concept of 'forgiveness' and 'compassion' which are cornerstones of any religion, to their own personal advantage.
In particular, religious women can sometimes use this to corner men into doing their bidding, without requiring change or effort of themselves.
In other words, religion is being used as a tool for one's own gratification, without the other party being aware of it, because it is being disguised as religion, (even though it is anything but).
Problem is, even the most irreverent of people will respect another's religion.
Until said religion is used against them.
And at this point, all gloves are off.
And then the religion becomes the target, not necessaily the person behind said religion.
This has happened before.
Many times in human history.



This is religious disingenuity at its very worst.
And The Manosphere somehow have got wind of this type of thing where it concerns the SMP (I am not sure how) and are reacting rather badly to it.
I cannot honestly say I blame them.

And now that I too have gotten wind of it, I don't know what to make of it.
It sure smells bad. And I certainly wish I hadn't got wind of it.
But it's too late.
I see it clearly.


I don't know why I do, but I find that a person who might otherwise benefit from the comforts of a religion, if denied access to that religion because they have been turned off it by someone using said religion in a disingenuous way, has been done a great disservice.
Others might see this as a 'blessing in disguise', because they might see religion as a hindrance rather than a help any way.
But that only helps make my point.

There is no guarantee that had I not been born and raised Catholic, that Catholicism would ever have attracted me.
But at least Catholicism has enabled me to achieve a certain spirituality that may or may not have been achievable without it. If that makes sense.
So although I am saying that Catholicism may not have been necessary for me to progress in my personal and spiritual life, for me, it has been useful in some undefinable way.
Had I been turned off it at an impressionable age because of someone else, I would have viewed that as an unforgivable offence by that person.
Even though it (like most things in life) is just a tool, not the essence of spirituality per se.
So, to give an extreme example, if I heard tomorrow that my local Archbishop had fathered ten kids by ten different women, I would still choose to be Catholic.
But I would be offended on behalf of those who would be turned off Catholicism by this news.



I now know why some men go into churches to specifically seek out 'the bad girl'.
Because this girl is the supporting pillar of the local nightclub scene on a Saturday night and as such she is indistinguishable from non-Christian women under the cover of night.
But come Sunday morning, she is sitting in the front pew.
Looking like butter wouldn't melt.
And now she is indistinguishable from a true Christian girl.
And when she is challenged about her behaviour, she replies 'God forgives all'. And 'Man up! - I am made clean by God now'.

Not once. Not twice.
Over and over again.

And when I or Bellita says NAWALT, men everywhere are smirking or seething.
Because (they think) they know better.

And this same woman described above will challenge other women if she feels 'judged' by them.
Note I said 'feels' and not 'is'.
Where is your religion now? she will ask.
Why are you being so harsh with me?
Why can't you show some compassion like Jesus did?

When all you asked was, 'Don't you think he had a right to be upset with you when you cheated on him with his friend?' or something similar.
For to themselves, they are unjudgable. Because Jesus forgives all. Repeatedly.
And the rest of the world had better get used to it (their bad behaviour).


Men have their own sins. But I am yet to find a man who can pull off this brand of religious disingenuity.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Now, if someone suggests Rush Limbaugh as an example of this, I shall say 'fair enough'.
But even this man, despicable as he may seem, is only pointing fingers at others, and not declaring himself to be the epitome of godliness.
In this sense, he is also a hypocrite of sorts, yes.
But not a self-proclaimed-holier-than-thou 'cheat'.
There is a subtle difference between 'you are less than holy' (Rush Limbaugh) and 'I want you to believe that I am holier than I really am' (subjects of this post).

I can't believe the depths to which my disappointment will sink.
Not least in my (now former) friend.
I have seen too many examples of religion being used in this way.
And it saddens me because now, even a sacred thing such as religion is being viewed with deep suspicion by pretty much half of the world's population.
Unacceptable.
And unforgivable.




I have learned to stay away from certain battles.
Because I have neither the desire nor the tenacity to win them.

It is enough to see things clearly.
Then I walk.
Or run.
Whichever is more effective.