Imagine what the United States might look like if 35 million women didn’t use any form of birth control. 

It would probably look something like Sub-Saharan Africa, where 1,006 women out of 100,000 die during childbirth. We would see disturbingly high rates of infant mortality, rampant poverty and significant public health deterioration. 

This hypothetical dystopia could be expected if every Catholic woman in the country truly believed and practiced the religion’s official stance on contraception. Why don’t we actually see this?

It is because nearly all women who identify as Catholic — including those who consider themselves “deeply religious” — don’t see contraception as contradictory to their beliefs  — not to mention that 99 percent of all sexually active women, including Protestants, Catholics and Muslims, have used a contraception method other than family planning at least once in their lives 

Although stances on reproductive rights aren’t as clearly canonized in other religions practiced in the United States, organizations from a variety of faiths — like the American Life League, Pro-Life Action League and Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission — have condemned the use of contraception and abortion on the basis of their religious beliefs. But according to the statistics, there is no way that the majority of their faith’s followers are actually heeding this condemnation.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, on June 30 that for-profit companies with religious objections can avoid paying for contraception coverage required under Obamacare in a case brought forth by the Evangelical Christian leaders of Hobby Lobby, a national craft store chain, and the Mennonite owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties in Lancaster County, PA. Now, Hobby Lobby founder David Green can impose a religious belief on his employees that many of his own fellow believers don’t practice.

The decision to grant Hobby Lobby and other closely held businesses their religious freedom is only a culmination of our subtler cultural reflexes to cater to organized religions that, quite frankly, don’t deserve it. As long as you promote sexism, violence, self-hatred and sexual repression under the banner of a god or some form of access to the unknown, you can expect little backlash in America.

My main criticism is aimed at those who have at least proven themselves capable of critical thinking: the ones who reject these immoral beliefs, like limiting reproductive rights for women while still identifying with the same faith as the people they disagree with. 

Don’t get me wrong — I think it’s a major positive step when religious people have the courage to stand up to their leaders and defend what they believe is right. But why keep the title? Why continue to read the same texts, attend the same services and practice the same traditions that lend credibility to such bad ideas? 

For example, active members of the Mormon church have recently formed an organization called Affirmation, which supports LGBT Mormons, families and friends. It’s commendable that the organization offers support and community to this often-ostracized group but if these members pay their tithing — which is expected from all members age eight and older — they are indirectly paying for campaigns against LGBT rights, see: Proposition 8.

A common argument is that the extremists and violence-prone zealots are simply misinterpreting the inherent goodness of the religious text. To be fair, most religious texts are blatantly contradictory — there are several sections of religious texts that cannot be dismissed as a problem of interpretation, nor redeemed by God allegedly changing his mind a few chapters later. 

For instance, how can the Quran’s “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5) be taken out of context? Was God being metaphorical when he condoned beating slaves to just before the point of death (Exodus 21:20-21)? What about the gratuitous descriptions of eternal damnationin the New Testament, where most apologists draw their favorite quotes from? Can we really take seriously the moral worth of a text that threatens violent, unending punishment to anyone who disagrees with it? 

Of course, many religious people simply ignore or justify these more problematic passages but why identify with an entire religion when you only accept a portion of its tenets? When you call yourself a Christian or a Democrat or some other identification based on dogma, you not only discourage yourself from challenging views that don’t sit as well but you also empower those views — like the ones that have given the Hobby Lobby case “moral” clout. 

Although I think all ideological identities should be approached with extreme caution, what makes a religious identity distinct from any other is that it claims infallibility. This is not to mention that the very nature of religious faith asks that you believe without reason — the very antithesis of law and order. 

We sacrifice our intellect and autonomy for the sense of belonging to a certain culture, the peace of mind brought on by rituals and the comfort of being given answers that no one else has about life and death.

These benefits certainly are not trivial but if Hobby Lobby has taught us anything, it is that anyone honestly invested in morality has to ask themselves this question: Is it worth the risk of validating the beliefs and behaviors of the people who aren’t as willing or able to skip over the less palatable parts of the text?

Write to Natalie at [email protected]