I’m not sure which one you’re talking about, but I think you mean this?
I just did sort of a quick viewing, so these are just the first things that struck me. First, this entire concept (love Jesus, hate religion) is extremely hypocritical, at least in the way he portrays it. To say “Religion has done terrible things, but it’s because they weren’t real Christians!” is just propagating the No True Scotsman fallacy, and really does nothing to support his argument. By this same thread, Jesus could have been the only real Christian, and all followers would be inherently lacking in their beliefs. Silly argument to set up.
The other thing that I found poorly worded and explained (okay, I actually laughed a little) was his vehement dismissal of religion as “man-made”, while lumping the Bible in with the things he believes in (ie. Jesus). I should say, I suppose, that for the purposes of this response I’m willing to accept that Jesus may have been real, as that discussion is a post for another day. The Bible, as we know it, is a document entirely comprised of mostly inaccurate, multi-authored and heavily edited stories that were written by men. Written by human beings. In fact, the New Testament was written (as estimated by Bible scholars) at least 60 years after Jesus’ death. I don’t know about you, but I couldn’t remember what my friend said to me 60 years ago. Okay, I wasn’t alive 60 years ago, but you get the point. As well, in a man-made intervention, the Bible was reduced to only canonical stories, and all others (that didn’t quite ‘fit’ the story they wanted to portray) become the Apocrypha. To say that you don’t believe in religion because it is man-made is one thing, but to argue in the same breath that you DO believe and rely on the Bible, is essentially to say “I like processed cheese slices because I can do with them what I want, but I don’t like the processed cheese at McDonald’s because someone else has already put it on my food.” It’s ridiculous.
The last thing I noticed was his declaration that “religion puts you in bondage, Jesus sets you free”. Any doctrine, be it that of Jesus or Bush, removes your free will, thus putting you ‘in bondage’, as he says. To subscribe to the writings, sayings and thoughts of another, particularly those of Jesus, is to say “I don’t want to think for myself, so I’ll just do what this guy said”. No matter what the doctrine is, you are still relinquishing yourself to another person’s words, actions and thoughts, and thereby releasing yourself from the freedom of your actions. You become a happy prisoner, I suppose, but a prisoner nonetheless. For those of us who call ourselves “freethinkers”, it is precisely because we don’t want to be told how to live our lives. We want the freedom to choose how to conduct ourselves, to choose how to think. He has replaced, in my opinion, one set of shackles for another.
I hope that was alright; I don’t often do these analyses. I’m out of practice, clearly! Thanks for the question - and if you were referring to another poem entirely, I’m sorry, feel free to re-submit.