Impersonal nature of Organized Religion

I can understand the conclusion Kerry Egan reaches after the incident she describes on CNN's Belief Blog. Since it is her experience she writes about in "My Faith: What people talk about before they die" I will not disagree with her.

However, I will offer another possible interpretation to the type of exchange she experienced. I was in no way surprised by the professor's reaction to her response to being asked what she talks about as a student hospital chaplain. I was also not surprised by how he used her for his own purposes. He is an excellent example of the nature of organized religion.  The professor takes the approach encouraged by all formal religions, one-size-fits-all. By its structure religion tends to be cold and impersonal, not to mention arrogant and manipulative. What better time to reinforce the institutions favored concepts then when its followers are at their most vulnerable and impressionable.

Despite claims to the contrary, I do not believe religion focuses on the weak and vulnerable out of goodness alone. The average believer probably does but not the leadership. Those seeking to promote the faith seem to have far more selfish motives. So, the professor's ridiculing Egan is rather predictable. Her approach seems to be the better one, at least if your goal is to support the sick/dying patient. After all, who would know better what a sick patient wants to talk about aside from the patient him/herself. It is certainly the more humane and decent approach.

In the end, I fail to see organized religion as being all that concerned with the wants and needs of individuals. I see this as one of the main reasons more people are leaving organized religion. I also think it would be of great benefit to all if atheists did more to point this out. Many of us tend to focus on the irrational nonsensical nature of religion, which is certainly justified, but the cold impersonal nature of organized religion is just as important to note.