Spirituality is highly respectable, but with so many people believing in a variety of gods, beliefs have become a powerful commercial and political asset. With modern communication systems, and so many people disoriented by the erosion of values and the disaggregation of families, religious manipulation has become one of the key instruments of economic and political power.

Credulity may be a form of innocence, and even innocuous in itself, but it provides a standing invitation for the wicked and the clever to exploit their brothers and sisters, and is thus one of humanity’s great vulnerabilities.

(Christopher Hitchens)1

Expedito esse deos, et, ut expedito, esse putemus.

(Ovid)2

The richness of the temples, the churches, the cathedrals, the various monasteries is impressive. I remember visiting the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul—it's absolutely stunning. The various civilisations of antiquity have sown the world with works that move, and Greece and Italy are impressive in this sense. But the economic and political role of many churches is just as powerful. The fact that so much land in medieval Europe belonged to the various religious orders meant that with the Reformation in the 16th century, the reappropriation of land played an important role. And religion played an important role in justifying slavery, colonialism, invasions. In Vietnam, religious people blessed the weapons that the Americans would use to massacre the populations.

Nowadays, with the power of online communication and TV, religion has become a major industry, and it is simply cheap to reach billions of people with moving messages. The industrial dimension in the US is impressive, and is undoubtedly part of the construction of political power, taking advantage of an agenda that captivates the less informed, that of sexuality, Christian morality and the like, while justifying inequality and oppression. In Brazil, Edir Macedo has made a fortune of US$270 million.

As it is difficult for us mortals to imagine this size of a fortune, consider that invested in Brazilian public bonds, he increases his fortune by about 80 thousand dollars a day. The financial capacity to manipulate people has increased radically. So many people bow their heads and follow along. They do not choose the path, they are followers, and they adhere. It's so much easier—spirituality is respectable. Less respectable is the appropriation of religious sentiment for economic interests.

Political use of beliefs has always been with us. From the first rites in Mesopotamia, five thousand years before Christ, through the gods of Egypt of the pharaohs, the tumultuous Greek gods in permanent quarrels and passions—so human—to the narrative of the Bible of the Jews, and more recently Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism, not to mention the evangelical bench in Brazil today, we have always had the use of people's spirituality as an instrument of political power.

When Constantine, in the year 324 of our era, made Christianity the religion of the empire, he simultaneously strengthened its political power and ensured political power to what were already the "bishops", the Church of Rome. From being persecuted, the church becomes a persecutor, owner of power. J.M. Roberts, in his [History of the World] describes it elegantly: "The Church was clothed in the imperial purple.”3" (228) Here, when the state religion is promoted, religiosity becomes an imposition, and woe to those who do not adhere. The use of religiosity as an instrument of power dates back to millennia before Christ.

Roberts, in analysing the great civilisations in the world, shows how practically all political regimes used religion to legitimise themselves, in an exchange of advantages between the ability of governments to root political power and the ability of the clergy to establish their spiritual power. It is no wonder that the most recent struggle for democracy was, and continues to be, a struggle for the secular state, the separation of powers. The collusion of political power, supported by military power, with spiritual power, supported by the diversified structures of the clergy over the millennia of our history, has undoubtedly led populations to accept the various narratives of gods, even converting themselves under penalty of death in so many "civilisations". Today, we are still in prehistory, and it is not only in Afghanistan.

The ability to mobilise people to violence, through religion, is also an important part of the fanaticism that beliefs can become. The tragedy of Muslims in India, which has affected millions of people, is characteristic, and today religious polarisation continues to serve as a political springboard for the right, for example in Israel. The recent war in the territory that was the former Yugoslavia used religious differences to stimulate appalling massacres, with Milosevic and other characters. In the past, with the various wars of religion, the crusades, everything was justified as God's will, including looting.

The Templars of Prussia massacred the populations of Eastern Europe in the name of bringing them the message of Christ. Eisenstein's film Alexander Nevsky is a beautiful document. Centuries later, the Nazi German army used the slogan "Gott mit uns", God is with us. In the American Civil War, the defenders of slavery had a similar motto: "Deo Vindice". Zionism navigates on religiosity. The book A fé e o fuzil, faith and rifles, by Bruno Manso (2023), is an impressive study on how religious sentiment has been weaved into right-wing populism with militias, police, and political parties.4 Will you not mention my name in vain?

Particularly strong, as an element of adherence to religious precepts, is the regulation of sexual activities, and even thoughts. In the most diverse beliefs, God defines love behaviours, with the detailed interpretation of terrestrial males. This involves priests, rabbis, and so many "interpreters" of the supposed divine will. The association of sexuality with sin, the practices of circumcision or excision, the condemnation even of masturbation, sexual abstention as a proof of virtue, the denunciation and persecution of any sexual "deviation", the need to confess "bad" thoughts, all this ensures, in the most diverse religions—but fortunately not in all—a vigilant superego power always present in love attractions. The persecutions and criminalisation that this involves are a disgrace, but in a way, it ties our subconscious to the respective religions.

The celibacy of priests in Catholic Christianity is particularly harmful, with the deviations that we know today. The fact that religions, as well as their precepts, are essentially masculine, and criminalise women with particular violence, is very significant. There have always been candidates to throw the first stone, it's exciting. And in many places, as in many heads, little has changed. Blaming women is profound cowardice. Excision and infibulation, which still affects millions, constitutes criminal barbarism. The book Anti-Gender Politics in the Populist Moments (2021) details the modern anti-feminist articulations in so many countries, showing how it blends into political and religious fundamentalism in far-right populism.5

In my childhood, I was strongly inculcated with the idea that without religion, without the fear of God, people become uncontrolled, savage, dangerous. Indeed, human beings are dangerous, and have instincts that turn them into threats. But there is no basis for considering that religious men present more moral, more cordial, more respectful behaviours than the general average. Jonathan Haidt, in his The Righteous Mind brings an excellent overview of this complexity of contradictory motivations.6

What is unacceptable is that immorality is covered with legitimacy through religions, with a legitimacy lent to the sacred, as many even do with the concept of patriotism. The concept of hypocrisy surrounds these arguments. But for many people, "fearing God" and the threats of hell would justify religiosity. I frankly believe more in rationality, and in particular in ensuring each of us has enough for a dignified life. We can have more down to earth Ten Commandments. For example, you will respect women, not just your neighbor's woman.

Fanaticism is powerful. Religious feelings can give vent to the most visceral hatred in the name of the highest principles. The witch hunt allowed tensions to be channeled, and it is impressive to find in the Bible the phrase, "Thou shalt not allow witches to live". It was also widely used against the wider universe of heretics, people who thought about religiosity differently, for example being against or in favour of religious images.

Burning people was exciting, and mobilising, and the Catholic Church published a torture manual for accused people to confess their pacts with the devil: the Malleus Maleficarum (1486), an absolutely impressive read. Being able to unleash one's hatreds in the name of God was very appealing, and unfortunately the practice still persists. The KKK used crosses, fire, and assassinations, and reached multimillion membership in the US—God as justification.

The interesting thing is that the strong presence of religions, in the most diverse populations, and with the most different narratives, does not result from the fact that there is any proof of the existence of the supernatural, but from the convergence of a set of motivations, the fear of death, the desire to belong to society, the construction of an identity, but also of the political strength allied with the organised clergy, the power of narratives, the warlike mobilisations, the giving vent to hatred, the control of sexuality. It is a set of factors that contributes to the weight of religiosity in different societies, and in different times. It is not simply a matter of being for or against, but of understanding a factor of social behaviours that we cannot ignore.

With the explosion of inequality in the world, as people are becoming more insecure, and frustrated, frequently anguished, resorting to supernatural forces, even if imaginary, can be helpful. But justifying such propagated arguments as being the chosen people, such as (but not only) the Jewish religious, which would allow them to dispose of other peoples; the practicality of explaining evil through the devil, or devils; the taste of particular gods in the form of a saint for each profession or city; the pleasure of meddling in the sexuality of others in the name of morality or faith—a deformation that I attribute to keyhole religiosity, with the pleasure of intervening in the intimacy of others—and in general resorting to magical thinking in the face of misfortunes, would be better faced with rational action to build a more inclusive society.

In my case, I have known many religions in different countries, and so many different narratives, by people convinced that they are the ones to know the Truth, that I see them as human constructions. To attribute the responsibility for what we do to Gods, frankly, is not serious, especially if we consider the wars, the violence, the exploitation, the uncontrolled greed, the frightful hunger of millions of children when we have enough for everyone. We must take our responsibility, as humans, for the barbarism of what we do. But in the main, I am sure that for many people the feeling of spirituality is necessary, and it is deeply respectable. What is not respectable is the political and commercial use of spirituality, which is now widespread.

The industry of beliefs is a shameful activity, but it has been radically expanded with the new technologies of communication, allowing the use of our most intimate feelings for interests that are not mystical at all. Not to use the word of God in vain would be a good precept to recommend to these swindlers. And if there is one thing that religious people have to learn, or apply in a generalised way, it is tolerance of what is different.

Human beings are easily manipulated, and they frequently justify hatred and violence against those they qualify as infidels, pagans, atheists, sometimes with absurd differences such as between Christian groups or between Sunnis and Shiites in Islam. Differences are human, hatred of the different is pathological. This attitude of tolerance, of understanding of differences, is a question of elementary human dignity, and demands a good-humoured attitude in the face of those who think they own the truth, the Truth.

An open-minded approach can be simply found on Wikipedia: “Historically, the process of secularisation typically involves granting religious freedom, disestablishing state religions, stopping public funds being used for religion, freeing the legal system from religious control, freeing up the education system, tolerating citizens who change religion or abstain from religion, and allowing political leaders to come to power regardless of their religious beliefs.” Just good common sense.

Notes

1 Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great, 12, New York, 2007, p.161.
2 “It is useful that gods exist, and since it is useful, let us think they do”, Ovídio, Arte de Amar, Quetzal, Lisboa, 2023, p.85.
3 J. M. Roberts, History of the World, Oxford University Press, 1993.
4 Bruno Paes Manso, A Fé e o Fuzil: crime e religião no Brasil no século XXI, Todavia, São Paulo, 2023.
5 Agnieszka Graff and Elzbieta Korolczuk, Anti-gender politics in the populist moment, Routledge, 2021.
6 Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion, Pantheon Books, New York, 2012.