What I meant was that religions, by dint of appeal to a super-human creator being have established unassailable beachheads of thought that can reconcile any demand or dogma with the "well, the Sky Fairy says it has to be this way, too fucking bad if you disagree." Their "greater good" is thus structured to ignore any signs of suffering on Earth--and their thinking cannot be challenged by suffering on Earth. Their illogical, unreasonable demands lead them more often than not back to the "greater good" argument because they can't defend much otherwise. Non-theist dogmatics also appeal to "greater good," but with rare exceptions, they tend to lose power if there isn't some proof that their deeds actually produce a tangible, physical improvement in general welfare. A religious zealot has no such limitation--everything can go to Hell on Earth so long as the greater good is done by Heaven.

That's why I call it the "greater good" argument against religion: people who judge what is good and what is not entirely by rules that are immutable and out-dated and who will ignore the evidence of their eyes and their experience are not worthy to hold power over anybody. In essence, if someone starts spouting about the greater good their work will do by your soul rather than your mind, body, or spirit (in this case your emotional response/joie de vive more than soul), DO NOT TRUST THEM.