Let’s assume, hypothetically and for argument’s sake, that a religious text contained morally harmful passages. No, it isn’t down to “misinterpretation,” it isn’t down to mistranslation, it isn’t down to us “just not understanding.” The passage really is morally harmful.

What should be done? Spoiler: the answer is obvious. The morally harmful passage should be condemned. What would a lot of religious folks do? Everything but condemn it.

It might be an unpopular opinion here, but I tend to agree with theists on one thing: God isn’t morally responsible for human actions. Saying “God made me do it” isn’t a valid defense when someone does something morally reprehensible. Full stop.

And if that’s true, if we’re truly accountable for our own choices, then the same logic must apply to the texts people claim to live by. One can’t outsource morality to an ancient scripture and then claim innocence when its commands lead to harm. If a passage endorses slavery, prescribes offensive and unjustified violence, or dehumanizes entire groups, and someone follows it because it’s sacred, then they’ve made a moral choice that reflects on them, not on some divine mandate.
To act on such a text without critical conscience is to abdicate responsibility, not fulfill it. And in doing so, one doesn’t defend God; one uses God as a shield for human failure. That’s not “faith.” That’s evasion.