Should any religious body be the sole moral authority?

[Icalasari]

>.> Yeah, school project. Figured I could start a debate out of it and take your replies and quote them in the paper to get good marks. What? You can see this? >.< Crap!

Anyways, so yeah, what do you think of the Catholic Church or ANY religious body, for that matter, as the sole or one of few moral authorities out there (As in, saying, "This, this, and this is wrong, don't do these you sick, twisted freak")

I'm just going to copy paste from my paper, as I don't feel like retyping out my opinion:

My current stance on the Church as a Moral Authority is that it shouldn’t be. No one body should be a moral authority, as there are multiple bodies with multiple views. What is seen as satanic and evil in one culture could be a perfectly natural thing that would seem wrong not to do in another. Also, allowing one body – especially a religious body – to be a moral authority can cause conflicts with other bodies

In short, there are issues if one body is a moral authority. After all, then they will begin to impose themselves on others (An example would be the Crusades. That is, the war used to “cleanse the lands” of the “impure”)


(Also, if a mod does not think this would make a good debate, then please move it. However, it you think it would, please, join in! :D)

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

Why am I evil?
Because the Pope says so.

I don't give a fuck what any religious body or Head of Church X says. The problem isn't with them stating what they believe; it's when their followers cross the line.
Except in the case of someone extreme like Hitler, where e does much more than simply state eir beliefs.

edit: let me pull out a prime example of this
During the Roman Empire, people invited over for dinner were expected to vomit their dinner into a trash can – a way of being polite. If anyone didn't do that, it would come across as rude. Different from today's society.
I've also heard it's a compliment to the chef to burp after a meal across the big Atlantic (that is, Europe). Not so in Fagmerica.

 

[opaltiger]

I've also heard it's a compliment to the chef to burp after a meal across the big Atlantic (that is, Europe).

uh

perhaps you shouldn't listen to everything you hear

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Erm you know in Europe we do have manners, running water and escalators.

Anyway I'm an atheist and I have plenty of morals dictated by common sense, the law and logic. But mostly common sense and logic.

 

[Music Dragon]

I've also heard it's a compliment to the chef to burp after a meal across the big Atlantic (that is, Europe).

I find this pretty insulting.

Anyway...

Anything dogmatic is inherently bad. (Spot the irony and win a feather for your cap!)

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Oh yeah one difference I've noted in American vs European morals, at least in Belgium and France, is that we have children's cartoon characters calling for god or sending each other to the devil/hell very often (as in 'Vá au diable!', 'Je prefererais aller en enfer que de blablabla', 'Vá en enfer', 'Pour l'amour de dieu', 'Bon dieu!', 'Que-est'ce que j'ai fait au BON DIEEEUU' etc), something which I understand would have you murdered by a mob of Soccer Moms in America.

But other than that, religiously-speaking there aren't very many differences I guess. We're just less uptight about it, for some reason :v

 

[Cryssie]

My take on this: if you look to some self-proclaimed authority for a predetermined set of morals handed to you on a plate, either you are not thinking for yourself enough or you are not being true to yourself.

If you are not thinking for yourself, I consider this extremely sad. You are allowing yourself to be herded and led and commanded around like cattle. More than that, if you don't think for yourself, if you don't run any of this arbitrary "thou shalt (not)"-flavoured drivel past your own sense of right and wrong, your own reasoning... if you just do what someone says without thinking about it too much, you are being used, and could easily be used for damaging purposes, ranging from infringing on someone else's freedom to killing people for not sharing your beliefs.

You might say "no, no, I don't agree with bits of it". In which case, why do you consider yourself a follower of that religion? Most religions seem to have similar ground rules (don't kill, don't steal, etc), to the point where if you're only going to agree with certain pretty much universal morals, you might as well roll dice to decide which one you're supposed to belong to.

Even if you've thought things through and your home-grown morals just happen to match those of a given religion to the letter, are you following them because you believe it's the right way to live, or are you following them because your religion tells you to? Would you change your morals against what you've decided for yourself is right if your religion told you to? If you would, we're back to square one - nobody should be obeying arbitrary morals that they don't agree with 100% (if you yourself don't believe that you're doing the right thing, then isn't that base immorality?). If you wouldn't, why are you associating yourself with that religion?

I share some basic morals with religions from around the world, but I don't consider myself a part of any of them, because chances are slim to none that one matches my morals (and other beliefs) to the letter. If they do, it is pure coincidence, and I have no reason to tie myself to this religion.

Because I have no good reason to try to put a name to my moral beliefs! They are unique, dynamic, thoroughly-considered, and personal to me. Neither are they set in stone: if I get new information, I will think and reconsider and refine them. Religions like Christianity are firmly rooted in the outdated and prejudiced ways of a society from a few thousand years ago. Religion is anchoring us to a narrow-minded, discrimination-riddled past and I sorely wish we could cut ourselves free of it.

So to allow oneself to be spoon-fed religious dogma seems to me to be utterly primitive and thoroughly shameful.

(@_@ tl;dr overload. I ramble aimlessly too much.)

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

I've also heard it's a compliment to the chef to burp after a meal across the big Atlantic (that is, Europe).

Notice the bolded part.
My teacher was talking about it; I do not actually find that source extremely viable and have inserted "heard."

 

[Icalasari]

Yeah, the burping thing, if I remember correctly, was in the dark ages. So, if that is true, then you have the right region of the world, but the wrong time frame X3

And Cryssie, that is very well thought out. However, I have some issues with it. For one, religion can bring together communities in times of crisis. Also, religions aren't as set in stone as you may think. They do try to change with the times. It is a painfully slow process, as the higher ups are very stubborn (from what I know, anyways), but it does slowly change over time. The more radical transformations result in new religions (Christianity from Judaism, Muslim from Christianity... Alright, those aren't the best examples, as in the grand scheme of things, the three are not that different, but still).

I don't know where I am going with this anymore. x.x My brain died from trig, and I am still not done with it...

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

Yeah, the burping thing, if I remember correctly, was in the dark ages. So, if that is true, then you have the right region of the world, but the wrong time frame X3

Knew I should have added that in there. :|
WHOOPS

 

[Alexi]

No. :|

 

[Cryssie]

And Cryssie, that is very well thought out. However, I have some issues with it. For one, religion can bring together communities in times of crisis.

Of course, strength and safety in numbers. People are always going to feel more secure when surrounded by like-minded people. Feeling like you're a part of something is a always a powerful psychological draw. And feeling like your orders are given by a higher power makes some people feel so much more right (when they really aren't any more objectively right than the next person).

But I'm not about to compromise my own sense of right and wrong and obey someone else's just to feel some fuzzy sense of unity. We're all human, we're all striving to carve out our own "meaningful" little existences on this floating chunk of space rock. Isn't that enough? Do we need to make up these absurd cults and obey their arbitrary rules to the letter to feel a sense of unity and togetherness? Because that would be quite sad.

Also, religions aren't as set in stone as you may think. They do try to change with the times. It is a painfully slow process, as the higher ups are very stubborn (from what I know, anyways), but it does slowly change over time. The more radical transformations result in new religions (Christianity from Judaism, Muslim from Christianity... Alright, those aren't the best examples, as in the grand scheme of things, the three are not that different, but still).

Times change pretty fast, and religion moves far too slowly (if it moves at all). It doesn't take me years upon years to form an opinion on something new.

Example: I hear about some controversial development or event (e.g. cloning). I instinctively feel something in response to that, and I develop that instinctive opinion through further thought and consideration.

What I don't do is sit around anxiously twiddling my thumbs waiting for an official word from a self-proclaimed moral authority, ignoring my personal gut feeling altogether. Nor do I grab a book written by a bunch of men from a few thousand years ago in some vague attempt to adapt what they said (merely a reflection of times long-gone) to a situation they couldn't have dreamed of anyway, and then try to change my opinion according to that, again suppressing my own true feelings.

 

[Icalasari]

Of course, strength and safety in numbers. People are always going to feel more secure when surrounded by like-minded people. Feeling like you're a part of something is a always a powerful psychological draw. And feeling like your orders are given by a higher power makes some people feel so much more right (when they really aren't any more objectively right than the next person).

But I'm not about to compromise my own sense of right and wrong and obey someone else's just to feel some fuzzy sense of unity. We're all human, we're all striving to carve out our own "meaningful" little existences on this floating chunk of space rock. Isn't that enough? Do we need to make up these absurd cults and obey their arbitrary rules to the letter to feel a sense of unity and togetherness? Because that would be quite sad.

Yes, but religions CAN give something more to strive for. Yes, I am bringing the afterlife into this. If people are driven by greed (*points to old debate*), then religion can provide a positive faucet for that greed. They would want a good afterlife, and according to religions, you must do A, B, and C. For the most part, these things are good and benefit society and man kind. So, by playing off of people's greed, they can end up furthering mankind

Times change pretty fast, and religion moves far too slowly (if it moves at all). It doesn't take me years upon years to form an opinion on something new.

Example: I hear about some controversial development or event (e.g. cloning). I instinctively feel something in response to that, and I develop that instinctive opinion through further thought and consideration.

What I don't do is sit around anxiously twiddling my thumbs waiting for an official word from a self-proclaimed moral authority, ignoring my personal gut feeling altogether. Nor do I grab a book written by a bunch of men from a few thousand years ago in some vague attempt to adapt what they said (merely a reflection of times long-gone) to a situation they couldn't have dreamed of anyway, and then try to change my opinion according to that, again suppressing my own true feelings.

Well, if one sits around and twiddles their thumbs waiting for an official word on the situation, then they are a dumb ass. The religion has already provided them tools to come up with a decent response as long as they are willing to think it through. For example, the golden rule, "Love thy neighbour as thyself," can apply to things such as homosexuality. Sure, the religion itself is slow to move, but the concepts behind it can help fuel good, moral decisions


o.o So this is what its like to be on Time Psyduck's side. Huh. I don't FEEL my ability to reason being drained away slowly...

 

[Cryssie]

Yes, but religions CAN give something more to strive for.

Oh, I can't deny that it can. But then it can also bring out the very worst in people. You can't deny that.

Yes, I am bringing the afterlife into this. If people are driven by greed (*points to old debate*), then religion can provide a positive faucet for that greed. They would want a good afterlife, and according to religions, you must do A, B, and C. For the most part, these things are good and benefit society and man kind.

... And then there are some things that really aren't, like blowing oneself up while also killing as many people as possible in the hopes of getting into that wonderful afterlife with its seventy-two virgins "white raisins of crystal clarity".

You can't just brush these things off. Rational atheistic people relying on their own sense of morality wouldn't do these things, there's no incentive. They happen because some people believe in these afterlife fairy tales and are willing to do whatever they think that religion says to get it. Discrimination, murder, all these things can apparently suddenly seem like fair game when you're motivated by greed and rely on some outside authority to give you your beliefs.

So, by playing off of people's greed, they can end up furthering mankind

The idea that we need religion just to squeeze acceptable behaviour out of greedy, gullible people (and then that we have to endure the myriad religion-spawned atrocities that it also generates) is appalling.

Also, in the eyes of people like me who do not believe in this post-life reward scheme, you are essentially condoning mass deceit. If I promised someone all they money they could ever want if they did community service for ten years, and then never gave it to them, that would be cruel, whether or not it benefited some other people. Religion, with its "oh, you only get the reward once you die" bit seems diabolically cruel.

Well, if one sits around and twiddles their thumbs waiting for an official word on the situation, then they are a dumb ass.

So does this rule out the Papacy as having any place in this religion-as-supreme-moral-authority deal?

The religion has already provided them tools to come up with a decent response as long as they are willing to think it through.

If you have a working brain in your head you have all the tools you need to come up with a decent initial response. Why lean on these religious "tools" and let them dictate your opinion? Why do it? I don't get it. Please explain why anyone of rational thought would hand these decisions over to the arbitrary authority of an ancient book.

For example, the golden rule, "Love thy neighbour as thyself," can apply to things such as homosexuality. Sure, the religion itself is slow to move, but the concepts behind it can help fuel good, moral decisions

Odd, then, how so many people have looked to their religion and gotten the message "homosexuality is evil and satanic and you need to wipe it out". Funny how they tend to be really sure of themselves about it, too. Whether or not that's actually what their religion says, that's the message a great number of people seem to draw from it. You run that risk when you get people to stop relying on their common sense.

But I think my major problem with this "but religion sometimes makes people do good things!" argument is its underlying... manipulativeness.

Now this is tricky territory, in my opinion. I think a certain level of selfishness is pretty inevitable and built into us. And yes, religion can harness that and channel some of it into good deeds (and some hideously bad, as I've been pointing out).

But it's almost like you're saying "instead of attempting to better ourselves and educate everyone to the greatest extent that we can, let's just put reins on the stupid and benefit from how they chase their imaginary carrot-on-a-stick."

I don't need religion. I'm not going to condescend anyone and assume that they need to be fed fairy tales to cope and function well in society, either. In fact, I'll help them out of those reins if I get the chance.

One last thing: consider the extremes.

If everyone on the planet was devoutly religious (in their various ways), yes, they might be nice to one another in the street, and give to charity now and then. Maybe they'd even go out and help some people themselves, greedily motivated as they might be. But you'd also have terrible clashes of creed - causing wars and general animosity as religious nations antagonise one another in their perceived righteousness - and catastrophic misinterpretations of the morals presented in holy books and such - causing situations where (regardless of what the religion actually teaches) attempting to obey a moral authority results in discrimination and/or loss of life. Much like now, only more intense.

If everyone on the planet was atheistic and relied on their own logically-considered sense of morality, there probably wouldn't be such great rifts between beliefs (and where rifts existed, there would be no sense of "their belief is objectively and irredeemably evil; stamp it right out of them or you're both going to hell"). Basic instinct says that murder is bad, for example, and without anything interfering with that, it's something that we can pretty much universally agree on. Without any fabulous post-life bribes misleading us, we can focus on what will make life here on earth pleasant and worthwhile for us all while we're around.

 

[Dannichu]

If everyone on the planet was atheistic and relied on their own logically-considered sense of morality,

Sorry, but I have to disagree there. Nobody "just" uses their own logic and reason to come to a moral conclusion. Morals are nothing more than products of society and no matter how freely you think you're making moral desicion, it's really nothing more than a predetermined response to your experience of society and the world around you.

 

[Cryssie]

Sorry, but I have to disagree there. Nobody "just" uses their own logic and reason to come to a moral conclusion.

Mm, I should clarify.

Exactly what you use to form your opinion about what is right doesn't really matter so much - although more information, more experience, a better foundation on which to build a solid, well-rounded opinion seems like a good idea. What matters is that you've thought about it and it's your decision.

By all means, look at one of the things a religion (or someone you look up to, or just society in general) teaches and say "I agree with that". As a general rule of thumb, I'm quite fond of the "do unto others" bit, personally (although I don't think it's that simple in practice, it's a good start). You might find that you agree with quite a lot (or even all) of a religion's teachings. That's fine, too, of course.

What I disagree with is turning morality into a package deal. Just because you happen to agree with a religion on many things doesn't mean you should have to tie yourself to it. If you came to those decisions for yourself already, what do you need religion for anyway?

The question is, after all, "should a religious body be the sole moral authority?" To which I'm saying no, because in the end you should have the final word on the morals you hold. Take what you like from religion, but you shouldn't be obliged to take all of it.

Morals are nothing more than products of society and no matter how freely you think you're making moral desicion, it's really nothing more than a predetermined response to your experience of society and the world around you.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "predetermined" in this context, but products of society, I'd agree to some extent. Obviously you'll be influenced by the people around you, and your experience of the world, and morals are pretty much inseparable from compromise, consideration, a little give and take. Fairness. But in the end it is (or should be) your choice.

You know, although I mentioned the possible extremes earlier, I'm not actually bent on the idea that a 100% atheistic planet would be the best possible scenario (in terms of human happiness, anyway). Generally, if we could have the positive aspects of religion - the kind deeds, the feeling that life is worthwhile, the do-unto-others - without any of the negative whatsoever, that would be perfectly tolerable.

While atheism is the most logical position to hold, and my fierce intellectual pride would never let me believe something I found absurd just to make myself feel better, ignorance is truly bliss. It can keep some people happy to think there's a god. If religion had absolutely no negative side-effects, I could leave them to it. I have far less of a problem with people who don't force their religion on others, mix it into their politics and such. In fact, from there on out my quarrel with religion is purely rooted in that intellectual pride.

But as things stand the negative is very much there, and I don't see any way of removing the negative without uprooting the religions that spawn it.

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

If religion had absolutely no negative side-effects, I could leave them to it. I have far less of a problem with people who don't force their religion on others, mix it into their politics and such.

Again, this is where it boils down to the difference between stating an opinion and forcing those opinions onto others.

 

[Icalasari]

Oh, I can't deny that it can. But then it can also bring out the very worst in people. You can't deny that.

True *looks at Crusades* >.> Yeah, you go ahead and try to hide yourself...

... And then there are some things that really aren't, like blowing oneself up while also killing as many people as possible in the hopes of getting into that wonderful afterlife with its seventy-two virgins "white raisins of crystal clarity".

X3 It would be funny if their reward was only a bunch of raisins... Anyways, that is true as well. However, you must admit, if the person is stupid/crazy enough to do that in the first place, then it wouldn't matter if they followed a religion or not. They would still find something (idiot who kiledl a cab driver, wondering if it was as easy to car jack as it is in GTA IV
)

Admit it. Religion doesn't spawn idiots, nor is it the only faucet for their stupidity

You can't just brush these things off. Rational atheistic people relying on their own sense of morality wouldn't do these things, there's no incentive. They happen because some people believe in these afterlife fairy tales and are willing to do whatever they think that religion says to get it. Discrimination, murder, all these things can apparently suddenly seem like fair game when you're motivated by greed and rely on some outside authority to give you your beliefs.

This is going to blow up in my face...

Provide proof from the NEW TESTAMENT (not the old testament, I know I would be screwed if you were allowed to use that) that shows that these actions are endorsed. Christianity falls more heavily on the new testament, after all. You can also quote the catechism, if you feel like it

The idea that we need religion just to squeeze acceptable behaviour out of greedy, gullible people (and then that we have to endure the myriad religion-spawned atrocities that it also generates) is appalling.

People killing for money is appalling. Raping a child is appalling. Fighting unneeded wars is appalling. Yet religions would say that they would go to hell as a result. So obviously, they need something to convince them that it is to their benefit (because I DEFINITELY know that the laws here in Canada don't... A child rapist that was recently let out of prison recently rapped two more girls, for god's sake!)

Also, in the eyes of people like me who do not believe in this post-life reward scheme, you are essentially condoning mass deceit. If I promised someone all they money they could ever want if they did community service for ten years, and then never gave it to them, that would be cruel, whether or not it benefited some other people. Religion, with its "oh, you only get the reward once you die" bit seems diabolically cruel.

Santa Claus. Used to trick kids into behaving, lest they get coal instead of presents. Yet I bet that most people in your position don't think of it as mass deceit. I could be wrong, of course, but I am pretty sure about this

So does this rule out the Papacy as having any place in this religion-as-supreme-moral-authority deal?

The part you commented on next was to be taken with this >.>

[quoted]If you have a working brain in your head you have all the tools you need to come up with a decent initial response. Why lean on these religious "tools" and let them dictate your opinion? Why do it? I don't get it. Please explain why anyone of rational thought would hand these decisions over to the arbitrary authority of an ancient book.

See my comment to your response to Dannichu

Odd, then, how so many people have looked to their religion and gotten the message "homosexuality is evil and satanic and you need to wipe it out". Funny how they tend to be really sure of themselves about it, too. Whether or not that's actually what their religion says, that's the message a great number of people seem to draw from it. You run that risk when you get people to stop relying on their common sense.

It isn't odd. It is what you get when you introduce idiots to any text and/or group >.>

But I think my major problem with this "but religion sometimes makes people do good things!" argument is its underlying... manipulativeness.

Clarify

Now this is tricky territory, in my opinion. I think a certain level of selfishness is pretty inevitable and built into us. And yes, religion can harness that and channel some of it into good deeds (and some hideously bad, as I've been pointing out).

But it's almost like you're saying "instead of attempting to better ourselves and educate everyone to the greatest extent that we can, let's just put reins on the stupid and benefit from how they chase their imaginary carrot-on-a-stick."

It provides guidelines to help people better themselves. Sometimes, people need a crutch before they can walk [/cheesyoneliner]

I don't need religion. I'm not going to condescend anyone and assume that they need to be fed fairy tales to cope and function well in society, either. In fact, I'll help them out of those reins if I get the chance.

And I'm not saying that either. However, if those reins can help them out, then why not?

One last thing: consider the extremes.

If everyone on the planet was devoutly religious (in their various ways), yes, they might be nice to one another in the street, and give to charity now and then. Maybe they'd even go out and help some people themselves, greedily motivated as they might be. But you'd also have terrible clashes of creed - causing wars and general animosity as religious nations antagonise one another in their perceived righteousness - and catastrophic misinterpretations of the morals presented in holy books and such - causing situations where (regardless of what the religion actually teaches) attempting to obey a moral authority results in discrimination and/or loss of life. Much like now, only more intense.

If everyone on the planet was atheistic and relied on their own logically-considered sense of morality, there probably wouldn't be such great rifts between beliefs (and where rifts existed, there would be no sense of "their belief is objectively and irredeemably evil; stamp it right out of them or you're both going to hell"). Basic instinct says that murder is bad, for example, and without anything interfering with that, it's something that we can pretty much universally agree on. Without any fabulous post-life bribes misleading us, we can focus on what will make life here on earth pleasant and worthwhile for us all while we're around.

Yeah, that has nothing to do with basic instinct. That has to do with values stamped into us the second we are born into society

Anyways, yeah, there is that problem with multiple religions. But taking religions out of the equation, people would find something else to be stupid about. They always do *points to politics*

Mm, I should clarify.

Exactly what you use to form your opinion about what is right doesn't really matter so much - although more information, more experience, a better foundation on which to build a solid, well-rounded opinion seems like a good idea. What matters is that you've thought about it and it's your decision.

Oh, so what if I decide to kill someone? Is the fact that it was my decision and that I thought it through all that matters?

By all means, look at one of the things a religion (or someone you look up to, or just society in general) teaches and say "I agree with that". As a general rule of thumb, I'm quite fond of the "do unto others" bit, personally (although I don't think it's that simple in practice, it's a good start). You might find that you agree with quite a lot (or even all) of a religion's teachings. That's fine, too, of course.

What I disagree with is turning morality into a package deal. Just because you happen to agree with a religion on many things doesn't mean you should have to tie yourself to it. If you came to those decisions for yourself already, what do you need religion for anyway?

No argument there

The question is, after all, "should a religious body be the sole moral authority?" To which I'm saying no, because in the end you should have the final word on the morals you hold. Take what you like from religion, but you shouldn't be obliged to take all of it.

I'm not saying that it should be the sole moral authority either. I'm just saying that, if used with other things, it can be used alot more effectively in allowing one to develop a decent sense of morality

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "predetermined" in this context, but products of society, I'd agree to some extent. Obviously you'll be influenced by the people around you, and your experience of the world, and morals are pretty much inseparable from compromise, consideration, a little give and take. Fairness. But in the end it is (or should be) your choice.

Ok, I cannot argue this without contradicting myself

You know, although I mentioned the possible extremes earlier, I'm not actually bent on the idea that a 100% atheistic planet would be the best possible scenario (in terms of human happiness, anyway). Generally, if we could have the positive aspects of religion - the kind deeds, the feeling that life is worthwhile, the do-unto-others - without any of the negative whatsoever, that would be perfectly tolerable.

That is where religion should and can improve itself

While atheism is the most logical position to hold, and my fierce intellectual pride would never let me believe something I found absurd just to make myself feel better, ignorance is truly bliss. It can keep some people happy to think there's a god. If religion had absolutely no negative side-effects, I could leave them to it. I have far less of a problem with people who don't force their religion on others, mix it into their politics and such. In fact, from there on out my quarrel with religion is purely rooted in that intellectual pride.

I am quite intelligent myself, and I refuse to believe that there is a deity that cares about everyone, defies the laws of physics, etc.

So yeah, if people can stop being idiots and stop forcing religion down people's throats and combining it with politics, then it would be a lot better

But as things stand the negative is very much there, and I don't see any way of removing the negative without uprooting the religions that spawn it.

And the politics, races, social classes, money, property...

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

X3 It would be funny if their reward was only a bunch of raisins... Anyways, that is true as well. However, you must admit, if the person is stupid/crazy enough to do that in the first place, then it wouldn't matter if they followed a religion or not. They would still find something (idiot who kiledl a cab driver, wondering if it was as easy to car jack as it is in GTA IV
)

In fact, many people would not do that without the religious motivation, or, at least, not nearly as easily.
Religion is a simple amplification of their "craziness" or so.

Dogmatic roots are the strongest.
Also, it is what they have known for their entire lives, usually. It's much easier to manipulate someone when you can start from birth/early childhood.

 

[Mirry]

As far as "crazy religious people" who kill people in the name of God, I think that in some cases they may have been crazy whether religious or not. However brainwashing, especially from childhood, can be very powerful indeed... in this case, religious brainwashing. Think of people who are born into extreme religious cults... they may have been ordinary people otherwise, but because they've been so heavily brainwashed, they're likely to do anything they're told.

As to the main question: no, I don't think that any religious body should be the sole moral authority. In fact, I don't think that anybody should be the sole authority on anything, whether it be morals or how many loaves of bread are in the pantry. You're bound to have a biased opinion if you have only one opinion; so to speak, we mustn't "put all our eggs in one basket".

If we must defer to a religious text for our morals, would it perhaps not be better to learn about the morals of MANY religions, and base our opinions on that? Although really, I think that there must be some books out there discussing morals that are removed from religion; and so if we do need some moral guidance, those are probably the best sources from which to draw it.