Can turn to religious aggression on a dime. In ancient times this looked like stoning someone to death, while in modern times it looks like trolling someone on social media, or a churchified version of cancel culture.
This turns many people off to religion. Understandably so. But I think that results from jumping to a conclusion that may or may not be accurate. For me it raises a question: Is the problem with the religion, with the zeal, or with the people?
The problem could be with the religion itself. If there is an inherent bent towards aggression and even violence baked into a particular religion, then yes, you might want to steer clear. Of course, the sub-question about whether or not such characteristics are orthodox or represent a fringe misrepresentation of that religion is worth careful consideration.
The problem could also be with the zeal. Maybe the religion is fine, but taking it too seriously is simply not called for. Wouldn’t it be best for everyone to just take it easy, to do religion-lite? Yes, it would be. This, I think, accounts for much nominalism, in whatever religion.
The problem could also be with the people. Even a good religion carried out with appropriately passionate fervor can go sideways in a second in the hands of someone with a dark heart. An aggressive or violent person doesn’t need more reason to go on the attack, but only a justification. And if the history of religion can teach us anything, it’s that evil people can misinterpret holy things as an alibi for causing harm.
