Today I was sent an invitation on Facebook in regards to banning "religious child grooming". My natural instinct upon being invited to something with the word religion in it is to go look first; I can't express how many (awkward) moments I've had after joining a cause and realizing that it doesn't fit into my belief, culture, or faith system.
I went in to the room and started reading.
Got to halfway through what should have been the first paragraph (sloppy) and exited the page. Thought about it. Went back and read the rest. Climbed back up onto the soapbox I stepped off of years ago and created this blog.
Here is the "essay":
Here is my POV:
When I say you I'm referring to the author, not anyone in general.
This writer(s) are massively confused. He isn't debating religious points of view; he is debating politics, faith, spirituality, ethics, society, morality, AND religion. I'm also wondering if he has children and if so are they allowed to believe in Santa Clause; being that "grooming children to place their faith in a non-evidential supernatural world is unethical and educationally counterproductive towards raising normal well-adjusted people." REALLY? Shall I stop reading Aesop's Fables to my kids because the stories aren't real? Tell my nieces "sorry sweethearts, no more fairy-tale happily-ever-after stories because I want you to be nice, normal, and well balanced"? This isn't religion, this is ethics, society, culture, and child-rearing. In a world where I had no belief in God, I'd shoot your stupid ass for the mere suggestion of telling me how to rear my children because I wouldn't be worried about going to hell; and before I even hear I'll be punished by law if I shoot you; think about where that law, and where the morality of shooting someone is bad came from. I bet it didn't come from the monkeys.
Bible v.s. Darwinism. Fine, we evolved from this to that to the other. I've also heard from my atheist friend that the Bible is a lie because God said he created the world (insert x here) amount of years ago and science has proven that the earth is (insert x here) old. My personal thought on this is perhaps god created the universe, then atoms, then plants/animal life forms, then humans. That lends credence to Darwinism as well as other theories, and lends answers to people that bases opinions on fact over faith. Can I prove it? Of course not, but Darwinism isn't proof either, hence the term THEORY. Faith v.s. Proof is an ever circular debate that has been going on several billion years (maybe exaggerated a bit =p) I can prove that I have faith, where is your proof that you shouldn't?
Another thought, people are attempting to literally translating the Bible (which has probably never been read entirely, most atheists don't) and one shouldn't. It's just like reading a bedtime story or a fairy tale. The Bible has different meaning to the person that is applying it to their life. I myself have hang-ups about some of the things I read in the Bible. Does that mean that I shouldn't read it because everything in it is "a massive catalog of proven lies and deceit?" No because (especially the New Testament) is full of stories about ethical dilemmas, politics and societal beliefs of ancient times, and cultural practices. If nothing else you are learning about the writing style of an ancient time period. Before you blast it, try the grown up thing and read it.
I don't know where religion was founded but I highly doubt that such intricate proceedings came from the brain of a primate. That being said, I do not believe Christianity was the first religion. Christianity came into being in a society where there was no rules. Pillage, plunder, war, rape, murder and so on were a reoccurring theme before "religious enlightenment" came along. Would you like to live in a world like that?
Now for the part of the essay that sent me on a rant in the first place. "Religions work on children's minds in the same way as pedophiles". I have read this line 5 different times in disbelief. The author compared God to a child molester. You don't want to believe, I'm fine with that. I'd just like to know who the hell you think you are. It's apparent to me you are uneducated and know very little about the real issue going on here. What happened, Mommy make you sit still in church one too many times as a child? Go to therapy, get your facts straight, then get over yourself.
The one thing I do agree with out of all this is the Youtube link that was posted in the "essay" as the reason given for such unthinkable ignorance.
Religious Child Abuse
Yes, that's insane. I don't find fault with religion here however; I find fault in the parents that send their children to places like this at an age where they can't possibly understand the dynamics of what they are hearing. All they are being taught here is how they should feel terrible for being alive. The obvious pain and suffering on the faces of these children damn near made me cry. If ANYONE EVER put my kid through something like that; religion, morality, faith aside, their face would meet my fist. There again, I wouldn't put my child into something like that because whether or not to believe is an adult decision. He's been to Sunday School, but his Mommy went the week before because she wanted to know what he'd be learning. Noah's Ark is rather harmless, I felt he was capable of handling that story.
I think I'll end this rant in saying I was raised to practice and believe whatever I wanted, however I wanted. My child will have the same options and all the knowledge I can give him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although I can agree with a lot of this Nicki, let's ask ourselves a question.
ReplyDeleteYou say that its up to parents to raise their children properly and such, but what happens when the parents are brain-washed by religion?
I have an arabic friend, who is from Egypt. His mother, literally, abandonded him a few years ago when he decided to start dating a girl at our college. It was against her religious brain washing.
Furthermore, you described one of my biggest issues with the bible, Quran, and other such text -- they're subjective and open to interpretation.
One person says, "The bible means this", a second argues, "No, it meant that", and a third says, "Ah, but it really means this."
As a result we have like 30,000 branches of Christianity alone, and a religion divided is no religion at all. On top of that, we have people like Hitler using their own sick interpretations of religious meanings.
Yes, the author of the essay said the same thing. My question back is: Is it considered brain-washing because the guy is an atheist or because of something he seen. I will not counter the fact there are religious zealots out there that have deep problems. Just like anything, however, you can't let the few idiots poison something for the whole. There is a spiritual level to religion that can be measured too (I think; somewhere I read that a soul can be measured; therefore it must exist in an atheist book right?)
ReplyDeleteYour friends mother is an ass (sorry). I don't believe in a God that would punish because of love. However, I'm doubting it is God turning her favor, more the culture she lives in and the faction of "Christianity" she applies to her life.
The Koran(IDK how to spell it either) was never meant to be a Bible. It was meant to be a military guide to reduce the fear of the combatants as they went to war. Before Allah (again spelling?) died he ordered it destroyed so it wouldn't corrupt the souls of his soldiers. He passed on before the message was sent.
As for the many factions of Christianity, or ANY religion for that matter, they all have things in common; the biggest being faith in higher beings. How they choose to warship, practice, and lead their lives based on those beliefs is what differs.
Yes but none of this solves the issues associated with the systematic neurosis caused in billions (no I'm not exaggerating...) of people due to religious superstition.
ReplyDeleteThe only true thing religion has to offer is morality; and as it stands now, even this is often 2000-years out-of-date.
My response was too long, so I'm moving it to my blog.
ReplyDeletehttp://avril-writes.blogspot.com
Nicki,
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the mother is an "ass". She was practicing the only thing she knew on how to raise her children. The foundation of every religion, whether it is for good or bad intentions, is restrain and control. Like you said, before religion it was pretty much a anything goes anarchy and religion came in an restrained and control humanistic behavior. But it did not stop there did it? The brainwashing has led to some people sending their children off to camps to become warriors for Jesus, such as with some Evangical cases. Or how about Amish societies that has secluded themselves from mass society. Or men and women who would actually intentionally kill non Muslims and themselves for this "higher being". If there is a God, then Lord have mercy on my soul for he is a violent, violent God.
Ramy, your beliefs in the origins of religion, while they seem logical, are not accurate. If you don't want to read my entire blog response, check out the fourth paragraph. I base my blog on readings from several textbooks and tons of sludging through junk to find gold, because I have a certain fascination for world religions.
ReplyDeleteCulture and social norms have always controlled people because we're a social animal. The human world was not anarchy before religion, and religion did not start off as a means to induce morals in humans.
Seems to me about half of all gods have been violent ones. In fact, the Christian god seems pretty tame when you compare him to, say, the pharoah-gods of ancient Egypt or Zeus, who was temperamental as a child, or Mars, the Roman god of war. But sure, he's pretty violent compared to any of the Hindu gods (except maybe Kali) or Buddah (who was a flesh-and-blood man, only believed to be an immortal god after his death--ironic considering what he preached, but that's another blog).
Hey Nicki, I would like to follow your blog--can you add the option to follow in your preferences?
ReplyDeleteIgnore my last comment; there's a follow button automatically set up at the top of everyone's blog--I was looking for one included in the body of the blog, like other people have. ;)
ReplyDeleteThe Christian god is accountable for more deaths than Hitler... not sure we can consider that "tame" lol.
ReplyDeleteI was obviously referring to his character, not what his followers do. I said he was considerably tamer than some of the gods of ancient religions. You don't do yourself any favors by twisting my words or using them in a context to fit your agenda.
ReplyDeleteThe Christian God IS tame in comparison to Zeus or Mars, who killed on personal whims. At least the Christian God (in his personality) had rules and guidelines. In fact, now that I'm thinking about this--and I haven't thought it through, I'm typing this as it's occurring to me--maybe the reason so many people have killed in his name is because his message IS a good one and he's worth following (assuming he existed at all, of course). The fault then lies with the followers, not the message of the religion. Hm. Something to think about. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that justifies or absolves the religion of all the deaths that have occurred in the name of Christianity or Islam or any other religion. I'm just saying that if such a being existed and was so worth following, people might be easily provoked to defend it with death.
::Wanders away, deep in thought . . . ::
But twisting your words is so much fun... Jokes =) I love god and I love you (both of you) Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteYou make a very valid point Krispems. But if we were to maintain that god doesn't physically exist, then it would hold that he only exist in the minds of his followers. Therefore the actions of his followers are what make him real.
ReplyDeleteBut as far as historical religious text are concerned, kudos!
I'm not too familiar with other gods, so I guess I have no real right to compare.
I was merely pointing out that you completely twisted my meaning, and I didn't appreciate it. Whether the followers or the religion itself or the god himself are responsible for the atrocities committed in the name of the religion or the figurehead of such religion is completely debatable. I recognize that. And to an extent, I agree with you, but that doesn't mean I blame the god himself or assume he's violent because his followers do violent things. If a Buddhist killed someone in the name of Siddhartha Gautama, I wouldn't hold Siddhartha Gautama responsible--he was a real person, by the way, and like the current version of the Christian god, preached tolerance.
ReplyDeleteDid you know Siddhartha Gautama didn't even try to start a religion? You'd know him as the original Buddha. He was born in the Hindu religion, but broke away later in life to spread his message of tolerance and enlightenment. After his death, people revered him so much that they named him a god and started a religion in his name, as opposed to the teachings he originally made. Do you blame Siddhartha Gautama for that? No. His followers took what he preached and twisted it into something they wanted; in the same vein, whether the Christian god is fictional or not, you can't blame him for what his followers do. So I'm sorry, but I'm not buying your argument.
I believe religion is much more complex than simply boiling it down to the personality of the god to begin with, but in my estimation, Ramy's views on the Christian god were wrong anyway--if he's going to give credit for the violence he's brought into the world, at least he also ought to give credit for the good he's brought too. It's not one way or the other. And he HAS brought more good into the world than Zeus ever did, or Mars.
Sooooo yes, blame the religion. Just don't blame its figurehead if you're going to use the figurehead's personality as the springboard for that argument.