I an now coining a phrase: religionwashing. Like whitewashing, it’s when apologists for a religion attribute all the good things in history to their religion while absolving it of any responsibility for the bad things in history. An apologist named Tom Dickson on Fox News demonstrates religionwashing:
Dickson explained that many people were turned off by the Bible because it had been used as a “tool for oppression and slavery and violence.”
But he argued that those were “universals of human culture, you don’t need the Bible to have war, violence and slavery. They were there in Greece and Rome before the Bible.”
According to Dickson, “the Bible gave to Western culture its tradition of charity for the poor, love of enemy, human rights. These things didn’t come from Greece and Rome, they came from the influence of the Bible.”
Yes, you see, if any bad thing existed prior to the Bible then the Bible can’t be blamed for it even though the Bible endorses it explicitly. And any good thing that happened after the Bible was compiled is directly attributed to Christianity even if the Bible conflicts with it. Take human rights, for example. I’d love to hear just a single example of the Bible endorsing “human rights” that isn’t completely in conflict with direct orders from God in that very same Bible. Is genocide a violation of human rights? Then you certainly can’t give credit to the Bible for being against genocide because God orders it repeatedly in that book. Slavery? Same thing.Another example of religionwashing: All terrible behavior exhibited by the adherents to all other religions is directly attributed to their religion, but none of the kind and generous behavior. For one’s own religion, the reverse is true: Any adherent to their religion who does something terrible is obviously not a Real Religion Member, while everything good they do would obviously not have happened without being an adherent to said religion.