What is the value of choosing to live be a certain set of rules if those rules offend one's moral or aesthetic sensibility?

Commitment to a certain set of rules regardless of one's personal moral judgement has been has been led to acts of great evil throughout history. If one considers one's commitment to a particular belief system, religious, political or what have you, a certain party, a certain leader, a certain deity, if one considers one's commitment to an outside authority to be more important than one's own moral judgement, one's own respect for human life, human suffering, one simply continues the perpetration of great evil, suffering, harm to one's fellows.

I'm not considering people who follow no religious or moral authority and have no interest in this question for themselves, who simply do as they like when they like to whom they like. I am talking about the serious person, the person who explores these questions of morality, takes an interest in them.

If one takes a step back, if one surveys events--we don't have to go far back in human history, we can look at the world as it is now: Osama bin Laden and many of his compatriots, followers, fellow-thinkers, they believe they are right. They believe they are interpreting Islam correctly. The U.S., bombing Afghanistan, killing the innocent and the guilty alike, many people here believe this is right. Some on religious grounds, some on political grounds. The I.R.A., bombing and shooting Protestants believed they were right. The Protestants returned the favor and felt they were acting in accordance with a higher authority, whether religious or political or both. Israel and Palestine, the Soviet Union, the Red Brigade, Fascists, pro-life/anti-abortion activists, eco terrorists, on and on and on and on.

The question is, from a very basic, pragmatic, objective view: when has the appeal to a higher authority justified an action? When has obeying a leader, a deity, a cause, ever alleviated human suffering? When a higher authority outside of oneself ever altered this suffering or changed it in a significant way?

One obvious counterexample among many is, of course, someone like Mother Theresa. Surely she was a devout Catholic, surely she worked to relieve the suffering of others. But this begs the question: did she have to do so as a Catholic? Could she not have done the same work as a person unaffiliated with any movement, ideology, group? And in acting as an agent of the Catholic Church, did she therfore bring about negative consequences, repercussions, hostilities, that she could not foresee? For instance, in supporting an institution that does not allow women the same access, power, and agency as men? (to take a single example)

In other words, by proclaiming, I am on this side, I am a member of this tribe, this group, and you are not, doesn't that naturally create hostility, confrontation? To say, I have the truth and you do not because I belong to this organization and you do not, isn't that fundamentally hostile? Understand, I'm not saying that a truth cannot be distinguished from a falsehood, or that a person cannot or should not proclaim x a truth or y a falsehood. What I am saying, though, is that to do so on the basis of an appeal to a higher power, a leader, or membership in a group, an allegiance, that this creates hostility and anger, that this hostility and anger inevitably leads to conflict, that this conflict leads to suffering, harm, evil.

I'm really sorry I just have a couple more things I win the tendentious pedantic award, but--

Understand I'm not also saying that no good thing can ever come from a religious organization, a political leader, etc. Obviously good things can happen as a result of the work of a charitable organization, labor union, church group, etc. What I am trying to do is look toward the bigger picture, take the longer view. Are these external authorities necessary? Can one not do any good without them?

I'm not talking about any group, any form of cooperation. I'm not saying cooperation in any form is inherently bad. But without an individual's autonomous agency, without the freedom to think without fear of consequence, the freedom to engage the world without fear of reprisal, I don't see how true morality is possible.

Fear, after all, is what rules are about. You are afraid to break the rules. You may not necessarily be in full agreement with the rules, your are not free to think without fear, free to explore, investigate, play, because the fear of punishment is always there.

And when you get right down to brass tacks, how do you feel about someone who gets you to do what they want you to do by making you afraid?

And now I apologize for winning the windbag award as well. But I have one more question for followers of any particular religion out there:

Why did you elect to become a member of a particular religion? If you were born in a predominantly Christian area, does it bother you that you elected to become Christian, as opposed to say, Hindu? And so forth...if you were born in India, for instance, does it bother you that you declined to become Christian or Jewish? In other words, if what you are looking for is absolute truth, god, etc., does it give you pause that your membership in this or that religion is historically, geographically, sociologically determined or conditioned? That many people may never have had the chance to hear about your religion? That a particular religion seems to favor a particular ethnic, racial, cultural, or national group? Or did you elect a particular religion at odds with community standards or norms, and if so, why? I'm not asking this rhetorically either, I'm really curious on a personal level.