The child abuse that is religion

[Augustus]

Today, buildings were burned down and several people were murdered across the Muslim world as thousands of people took to the streets to protest the latest cover of a satirical magazine in France named Charlie Hebdo. Let us pretend for a moment that just over a week ago, the editors and cartoonists of this magazine did not suffer a horrendous mass murder committed upon them by Muslim extremists.

The people protesting today are protesting the publication of a magazine. Let us be clear about what they are not protesting.

They are not protesting the lashing of a blogger for the "crime" of blasphemy.

They are not protesting the stoning of women for the "crime" of adultery.

They are not protesting the beheading of men for the "crime" of homosexuality.

They are not protesting the mass murder of school children in Pakistan.

They are not protesting the mass murder of civilians in Nigeria.


While recent events (and arguably, the last few decades) have put the spotlight on Islam in particular, let us not for a moment pretend that other religions are immune to the kind of mass irrational hysteria and objective evils mentioned above.

Christianity had the crusades. Today, it is relegated to the suppression of women's rights and gay rights. And while there aren't (usually) people taking to the streets to commit murder on a massive scale, there is the occasional abortion clinic bombing and death of a gay teenager either by suicide or homicide.

The evils committed in the name of God usually only vary from religion to religion only by degree, not by the brutality of the evils themselves.

So this is the part where I'm told that religion is not actually the problem. No, the deniers will say: It's the powerful using religion as a weapon as a means to an end. There's nothing wrong with having spiritual beliefs, they'll say. Those beliefs are warped by the corrupt and it is they, the corrupt, who are responsible for the evils, not religion itself.

The deniers make this claim for one reason and one reason only: They are religious. They've never committed evil acts in the name of God, so how can it possibly be religion's fault for the evil acts of others? In addition, many of these religious people may not even agree with the atrocious tenets of their faith - such as homosexuality being a sin, or abortion being murder. Yet they're still part of the tribe. Can't speak out against your own tribe.

These people miss out on (or intentionally ignore) the law of large numbers: One person's probability of winning the lottery is slim. But if 100 million people play the lottery, there's likely to be a winner.

Are the 1.6 billion Muslims on this planet going to take up arms and murder 12 people for drawing a cartoon? No. But two of them did. A few hundred thousand of them took to the streets today to protest the very publication that just lost those 12 innocent people. Not the atrocity that occurred at those offices a little over a week ago, but the "atrocity" of that publication printing more of the cartoons that were the very excuse for their murders in the first place. If these thousands of religious people are not being corrupted by the powerful, they're certainly sympathetic to the evils committed in their God's name.

There are millions of Christian sympathisers to the words of Jerry Falwell, who said, and I quote: "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." Examples abound, and I can literally fill an encyclopedia with them. Horrible, inexcusable, evil, disgusting, atrocious, hateful garbage coming out of the mouths of religious people, horrendous acts committed by religious people, sympathisers and deniers.

The contemptible atrocities committed in the name of God do not happen in a vacuum. Nobody is born with religion. Religion is taught. And it is here that I come to the subject line of this post. To believe in something without question and without evidence: That is the very definition of religion. And it is exactly this lack of critical thinking and reasoning that children possess.

The natural development of the human brain requires that children accept as fact whatever is told to them, without question. It is also a feature of the development of the human brain for children to react violently (eg. Throw temper tantrums) when they don't get something that at the moment they perceive to be the most important thing in the world. Maybe they want to play with some toy, maybe they want some kind of attention. Whatever it is, they don't have the rational capability to be reasoned with, and will cry, scream, and even hit people and things until they either get their way or exhaust themselves or move on to some other distraction.

Sound familiar?

Somewhere, during adolescence, the brain develops the ability to discern fact from fiction, to critically analyse and to question, to demand some kind of rationale, some kind of evidence, some kind of logic to any observation being made or any assertion being put forth. This is the usual course of human brain development, but for one area: A psychological trauma inflicted during the formative years of childhood is extremely hard to overcome.

Many do overcome, of course, but it is not easy. When you are systematically told, from the day you are born, day in and day out, that homosexuality is evil and that homosexuals will go to hell, the adolescent development is stunted. It is psychological abuse inflicted upon impressionable children that carries into adulthood. Consequently, we have thousands of grown adults throwing literal temper tantrums on the streets of Muslim cities today.

They were told, you see, that any depiction of the prophet Mohammed is blasphemy. They were told this virtually every single day from the day they were born. They were taught to pray to God, every single day, and have followed this ritual from the day that they were physically capable of doing so. It is no wonder that the publication of a magazine cover with a depiction of their prophet puts them in such fits of unadulterated rage.

But no rational human being will agree that their behavior is anything but. Let us repeat, lest we forget: They are not protesting atrocities committed on massive scales, they are not even protesting the very atrocity that happened a little over a week ago, but are protesting the "atrocity" of a printed cartoon.

The law of large numbers comes into play, and a certain small number of them will set fire to buildings. A smaller number will murder people. An even smaller number will commit future acts of terrorism. And, sadly, the smallest number of all will actually renounce their faith and overcome the psychological abuse they received as children.

It is the very publication of satirical magazines and non satirical works of criticism of religion that increase the numbers of people who do overcome. Without the Charlie Hebdo's of the world, the world continues merrily on with this trajectory of self destruction. I am well aware that many of the things I have said here will offend many people who have taken the time to read this.

If you are one of those people who are offended, I ask you to reflect on that very real emotion you are feeling and to question its source. You might just be one of the few who can overcome. Thank you.

[malokvale77]

1. K & R

Very well stated.

Welcome to DU.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Sorry, but Christianity is not now relegated to suppression of just gay and minority rights.

Whoops, it said "women's rights", my bad.

That powerful people use folks like children, religion most of all, to increase their power, with you on that.

They are not called "the flock" for nothing.

[harrose]

3. This is why we need to ban religion.

It has bought nothing but evil to the world. We need to be rid of it once and for all.

Yeah, I know what you're going to say -- "First amendment."

But you know what? There's a second amendment too. But the world has changed since the 1780s, and we now realize that, perhaps, for the benefit of society, perhaps it's time to reign in (if not eliminate) guns. The same, I believe applies to religion. The world has changed since the Founding Fathers wrote the first amendment. Religion has been shown to be a danger to every person and child in society. It promotes nonsense like creationism, the subjugation of women, murder, mayhem and racism. It's time to end it.

[shenmue]

4. Good luck with that

This "everyone is the same" crock is why you won't get taken seriously.

[harrose]

7. Who said..

.. that everyone was the same? I said nothing about any person. I was speaking about religion in general. It is harmful in all forms.

[Fred Sanders]

5. Communism banned religion, did not work out too well for them.

[harrose]

6. Of course....

... and the first time we tried to ban slavery, it didn't work either. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying.

[Major Nikon]

22. Where did that happen?

[dsc]

71. seriously?

Try the entire Eastern Block, China and Vietnam. BTW North Korea still bans religion.

[Major Nikon]

72. Neither the eastern block, China or PRNK banned religion

All included religious freedom in their respective constitutions. Vietnam never completely banned religion although they did intermittently do so in certain isolated areas among minority populations.

[Skittles]

8. you cannot ban religion, nor should you

but let's stop acting like it warrants respect without question - it's ridiculous

[harrose]

9. Apparently we disagree.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Skittles]

12. there is plenty wrong with wanting to "ban religion"

[harrose]

13. That's fine....

... you're entitled to your opinion. In mine, religion is the root of nearly every evil on the planet and we would all be better off without it.

[beam me up scottie]

30. I agree that we'd be better off without out religion.

I disagree that the way to get there is by banning it.

Education and commitment to secular public policies are a better bet.

Don't destroy religion; neuter it.

[harrose]

35. On the contrary...

... just like child abuse should be destroyed and not "neutered," so should religion.

(And before you get on me for comparing religion to child abuse, keep in mind that this entire thread is based on the equivalence of the two.)

[beam me up scottie]

38. Banning religion makes martyrs out of extremists.

Not interested in making religion a thought crime.

[harrose]

39. The fact that banning something will make martyrs out of its adherents...

... is irrelevant. After all, we didn't worry about making Warren Jeffs a martyr, did we?

As for thought crime, I grant that you can't criminalize what's in a person's head. But if the religion stayed there (in the person's head) and didn't manifest in any outward action, then there probably wouldn't be a problem with it anyway. Thoughts don't hurt people, actions do.

But you and I both know that it's not going to just remain in someone's head. There will always be actions that come out of it.

[beam me up scottie]

40. Banning it would make us the extremists.

Leave that to the religious fundamentalists.

[harrose]

52. Again, I disagree...

... but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[pangaia]

44. The root of all evil on the planet is.....sleep.

[ND-Dem]

77. and sleepwalkers

[pangaia]

96. True.

If people are asleep and they walk, they are certainly sleepwalkers.
If people are asleep and they drive, they are certainly sleepdrivers.
If people are asleep and they talk, they are certainly sleeptalkers.
If people are asleep and they think, they are certainly sleepthinkers.

If people were awake.........

[notadmblnd]

108. I agree that religion is the root of all evil.

However, I do not agree that religion should be banned. I would love to see it die on it own and believe it will eventually.

Curious though, just how do you propose punishing those who would continue to practice if religion were to be banned?

[cwydro]

55. Yes

[rug]

16. What's your plan?

[Skittles]

18. this should be interesting

[rug]

19. If he doesn't have one, I trust you know what to do.

Because that would be EGREGIOUS.

[Skittles]

24. I'm waiting for him to say the magic words "OUR PARTY"

YES INDEED

[rug]

25. !

[harrose]

36. I am utterly confused by the back and forth here...

... what do you mean by "our party?"

Admittedly, I don't have a plan. That's just a personal failure on my part. But the fact that I don't have a plan doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to express an idea.

[beam me up scottie]

41. If you want to discuss this seriously don't waste your time with that poster.

rug is baiting you.

[Skittles]

66. it's not rug doing the baiting

[harrose]

26. Admittedly, I don't have one.

... but my personal failure to come up with a plan doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Not being financially inclined, I have no clue how to stop money laundering, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

[rug]

27. Uh-oh.

[harrose]

34. What uh-oh?

Is there some regulation that says that I have to have a plan before I put an idea out there? Perhaps if I mention it, someone else might be able to come up with a viable plan.

[Dr. Strange]

46. Great idea: ban religion.

What better way to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr Day?

[harrose]

47. Just because one person managed to use religion in a positive manner....

... does not mean that it is, overall, a positive thing and should be allowed. I'm sure that, if pressed, someone might find a positive use for nuclear bombs, but that doesn't mean that on the whole we should keep them around. The negatives so outweigh the positives that there's no reason to even consider it.

[ND-Dem]

78. just one? i don't think anyone's found that peaceful use for nuclear bombs yet though...

[bvf]

48. You cannot (and should not)

ban religion any more that you can or should ban use of the words "fag," "nickelnose," "guinea," "nigger," "kike," or any of undoubtedly hundreds of others.

What you can do is speak out and take steps to ensure that nonsensical, hateful crap loses its acceptance.

It doesn't happen overnight, but it can happen.

[harrose]

49. The difference is....

... that there is value in free speech. There is no value, however, in religion. It causes war, hatred, anti-science beliefs, discrimination, bigotry, slavery and a host of other ills.

[beam me up scottie]

51. What value is there in KKK propaganda?

[harrose]

53. No, I believe you missed my point.

There is value in free speech. Yes, some of it will be bad, but there is a lot of good that comes of it as well. The benefits of free speech far outweigh the potential for misuse.

Religion, on the other hand, is pretty much all bad. There is very little, if any, real potential for good.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Practicing religion is freedom of speech.

It's protected by the Constitution, and rightly so.

Doesn't matter how you feel about it personally.

[harrose]

59. Of Course it's protected by the Constitution...

... but, as I stated elsewhere in this thread, that needs to change. Just as we recognize that the world is not the same as it was in the 1780s and therefore the second amendment needs to be changed or obsoleted, so too with this. Back then, perhaps, religion might have been a good thing. Today it is no longer so.

[beam me up scottie]

61. In my opinion there is no value in racist literature.

In your opinion there is no value in religion.

Why ban one but not the other?

[harrose]

65. Again...

... literature, as a whole, is good. Therefore we should have it - even if it allows for some bad literature. The potential benefits outweigh the liabilities.

Religion, on the whole, is bad. Therefore any small potential for good to come of it is far outweighed by the liabilities.

[beam me up scottie]

70. And religious literature?

How is it worse than racist propaganda?

I'm not arguing for religion here, I'm arguing for freedom of speech.

[ND-Dem]

79. so you want to ban religion and keep free speech. well good luck with that.

[bvf]

60. What value is there

in being able to call someone a fag?

I'm in complete agreement with you on the concept of religion, btw. I just think it misguided to want to legislate morality and attitude. Let evolution of social mores do its work.

And loudly mock the ridiculous, wherever you find it.

[harrose]

62. I believe you missed my point.

Please see post #53 where I clarified it.

[bvf]

68. No, your point is clear.

There is no law making illegal the belief that pi exactly equals 3, but I wouldn't on a dare knowingly drive over a bridge designed by engineers who thought so.

Should we legislate on this issue?

[treestar]

118. Religions do good things also

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. And when a few hundred million refuse to agree to your ethnic cleansing campaign, then what?

[harrose]

57. Who said anything about ethnic cleansing?

I didn't advocate the killing or removal of anyone based on ethnicity. Just religion. I don't care what ethnicity they are coming from. It's the *practice* of religion that needs to be eliminated, not the people.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. Ethnic cleansing --

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory with the intent of making it ethnically or religiously homogeneous. The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as mass murder.

Ethnic cleansing is usually accompanied with the efforts to remove physical and cultural evidence of the targeted group in the territory through the destruction of homes, social centers, farms, and infrastructure, and by the desecration of monuments, cemeteries, and places of worship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

A few hundred million people are going to tell you to go soak your head, then what? Are you prepared to use force? How would you ban religion without intimidation of the force of law, the tearing down of places of worship, etc.?

[harrose]

67. As I said earlier...

... I don't have a plan to carry this out. That's just a personal failure on my part. But the fact that I don't have an active plan shouldn't stop me from suggesting it.

I have no idea how to go about curing cancer, but I certainly bring up the idea in case someone smarter than I can come up with it.

[ND-Dem]

80. oh, i'm sure there's smart people who can figure it out, if that's what you want.

wouldn't be the first time in history.

[Bluenorthwest]

97. Religious people murder gay people daily. Few ever bother to mention this, but that's genocidal

activity, and as you might know Uganda with masses of Catholics and Anglicans in charge has been seeking to pass a 'kill the gays' bill because of their religion. Other countries kill gay people because of their religions.
So to be blunt, a campaign of genocidal intent is already taking victims while a few hundred million seem to calmly accept that fact and at times they even claim those doing the killing are the real victims.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. And another war for peace will sort this out?

[Bluenorthwest]

100. Is that what I said? No. What I said the pogroms are already going on, the religious are not the

victims, they are the oppressors and it is not theory but current events. Folks who do not speak out against that, but instead paint religion as victimized itself seem not to care much for the dead, the prisoners and those beaten to a pulp in the genocidal anti gay nations.

I just don't agree that people object to targeted killings of minorities, because when it is religion killing gay people no one gives a shit.

I would never propose any limits to religion much less any elimination of it. I will also not accept the characterization of those who are killing my people as victims.
This last week, many people who lecture gay people to just silently accept extreme denigration from religious people claimed they understood why those terrorists killed people-they'd been denigrated, and those who denigrate others should expect strong responses. It's a disturbingly bigoted form of hypocrisy which says 'if they insult you, you must let them, if they kill your brother you must allow it and you must never criticize them in anyway in return, no matter how much they harm you'.
I reject bigotry, wrap it up in whatever God shaped excuse you want, I reject it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

105. "I would never propose any limits to religion much less any elimination of it."

Okay, but the person I was originally speaking to does endorse ethnic cleansing against religion. Hence my response.

For what it's worth I reject bigotry and I would never tell anyone to just accept it. We will never cure bigotry; that's just the human condition but we can decide how we respond to it.

No one is obligated to be a victim. Everyone has the right to stand-up for themselves and to defend themselves.

[NaturalHigh]

104. You have some very fascist ideas of how society should function.

Thank God we aren't obligated to pay any attention to people like you.

[treestar]

117. That cannot be done without being as evil as

those who burned others at the stake for being wrong in religion.

How would you punish the people who kept it up?

[Marengo]

135. What, exactly, do you mean by ban?

Prohibit the practice of religion, or the holding of the beliefs? What would be the penalties?

[cleanhippie]

10. That's good stuff.

[malaise]

11. You think they are not protesting the slaughter of their people by Western powers?

Dream on - there will never be garlands for Bushco's illegal war an occupation.

[cleanhippie]

14. If that is what is inferred from the OP, then the extremists have already won.

[rug]

15. There is something vile about using children to make a political point.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. You must mean 'unless it is a religious person opposing LGBT marriage' because even the Pope

in a Church rife with child abuse, makes rhetorical use of children when speaking against the rights of some adults.

[rug]

103. Actually, I must not.

I'm quite capable of using words.

[notadmblnd]

110. Your ability to use words are not in question

What I would question though- is your ability to use words that will win your argument and not just personally attack?

Suggesting that the poster is vile because they used children as part of their political argument is indeed a personal attack and not very Christ like. Wouldn't you agree?

[rug]

112. And you are who?

Well, whoever you are, yes, analogizing children brought up in a religion with child abuse is vile. Anyone experienced in actual child abuse immediately recognizes the difference.

Using that analogy to male a stale, recycled diatribe against religion is equally cynical because anything at hand will do to trot out the talking points.

Do you consider that a personal attack? Are you offended?

[notadmblnd]

115. I don't let annonymous people on a discussion thread offend me

I'm just pointing our your hypocrisy, which I noticed that you failed to address. If you feel you are an important person here at DU, then I guess I am too. If you feel that you are an insignificant no one, then I guess I am no one also. I am as equally significant as you are here at DU. In answer to your question as to who I am? For all you really know, I could be God.

[rug]

116. "I'm just pointing our your hypocrisy"

Nope, not a personal attack there at all. What's going on here is irony not hypocrisy.

[notadmblnd]

120. you have a good day now.

On edit: I'm going to reply to your comment on the irony of who is the hypocrite.

I am not the one claiming to be a Christian, i.e Christ like, while engaging in the un-Christ like behavior. You, on the other hand are.

[rug]

124. You're the one who broght up "Christ-like behavior".

Too bad you said it to someone who's not Christ.

[notadmblnd]

123. Not Irony. To be Christian is to be Christ like, no?

I do believe that the point of being a Christian is to be Christ like. Christians buy into that else why would one call themself Christian? To engage in name calling and making judgement upon others, is very un-Christ like.

I've never claimed to be Christian, hence I an not a hypocrite. Are you going to deny that you are a Christian?

[rug]

125. Oh? I thought you were leaving.

[notadmblnd]

127. Well hey, I decided to take your bait.

So, you are not a Christian? IIRC, there was someone else who denied Christ, a long, long time ago. Do you think he's in heaven now?

[rug]

128. You'll have to wait. I have to meet someone about an arraignment.

(Regarding Peter, if that's who you mean, there's a reason he's called Saint Peter.)

[notadmblnd]

132. that's right- Christians gave themselves an out

commit the sin, then just say you're sorry and all will be forgiven. Rinse, repeat.

[treestar]

119. Some religious people don't, so it's bigger than that

You may as well ban everything, since there might be one homophobe somewhere. There are a few in Congress, so let's ban that body. Imagine the Congress of 1880. It should never have existed.

[seveneyes]

17. Bingo. Exactly. Brainbent from infancy

It takes bad people to make more bad people. This could all be curtailed to a great degree if the good stood up to the bad and put an end to the destruction of compassion and love.

[rug]

23. So, let me be clear. A child brougt up in religion is brainbent from infancy? Do I have that right?

Prove it.

[seveneyes]

28. A child taught to defend its religion to the death will do so in most cases

Check any country run by extremist religion. They ain't teaching Dick and Jane.

[rug]

29. What, do you think they're all Chucky?

Where are yo getting this crap from?

[seveneyes]

32. Some may be hormonal Chuckys

Others are blind followers of misguided beliefs. Teaching that Women and minorities are sub class will also make the more hormonal males do really bad things to the underclass. Check past news stories for details.

[dissentient]

37. "hormonal Chuckys"

Wow, that is a new one to me!

[bvf]

73. Deflect much?

[cleanhippie]

31. Let him have the last word.

He'll never let you have it.


It's not worth the hide, I promise.

[beam me up scottie]

33. What cleanhippie said

Some folks hate it when religion is dissed in plain sight.




Ignore them.

[Bluenorthwest]

102. The Pope says that gay people being parents is a form of discrimination against children.

Will you call that 'vile' as you did the OP's rhetorical use of children to make a point? You said that to do so is always vile.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/pope-francis-gay-marriage-anti_n_2869221.html

[notadmblnd]

111. You've got to be carefully taught

You've got to be taught to hate and fear
You've got to be taught from year to year
It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made
And people whose skin is a different shade
You've got to be carefully taught

You've got to be taught before it's too late
Before you are six or seven or eight
To hate all the people your relatives hate
You've got to be carefully taught
You've got to be carefully taught

[blkmusclmachine]

20. http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/files/2013/10/AX069_2392_9.jpg

[dissentient]

21. Powerful OP. Recommended.

So right, look at the things they are protesting, then look at the things they are not protesting. That puts things in a rather stark perspective.

[ND-Dem]

81. then lets look at the things americans aren't protesting. that would be the murders of millions

and worse by their 'leaders'.

[hifiguy]

42. A GREAT post.

I am also reminded of a great Frank Zappa quote: the best way to raise mentally healthy and well-adjusted kids is to keep them as far away from any church as possible.

[Curmudgeoness]

45. Jury results

On Sat Jan 17, 2015, 06:24 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

The child abuse that is religion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026099307

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This OP is nothing more than bashing religion in general and is, IMO, insensitive to fellow DU members that participate in religion.

It has nothing to do with current events and has no place in General Disscussion. Per Skinner. religion is allowed to be discussed, but as I understand it within the realm of current events. This belongs in one of the religion groups on DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jan 17, 2015, 06:40 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter is offended. Too bad. The alert/hide system shouldn't be used to protect your feelings. The post is excellent and well written, and it says something that very much needs to be said. If you disagree, debate the poster.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is an SoP alert not community standards. and really, you want to censor the one thoughtful piece on DU? donnez moi un break.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see it as insensitive or unrelated to current events. On the contrary, it is completely pertinent regarding protests against Charlie Hebdo. And it is so well done that I will rec it before the vote of this jury is done.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[beam me up scottie]

50. LOVE juror #7!

[Curmudgeoness]

69. Thank you.

[progressoid]

131. 1-6 to LEAVE IT

That's a good sign.

[Ligyron]

58. best OP I've read in a long while

Welcome to DU and please keep posting!

[oberliner]

64. Some protestors are also setting fire to churches

This has thus far resulted in a man being burned alive inside of one of said churches.

These actions (and killings) are in protest against a cartoon.

[kwassa]

74. The OP is psuedo-profundity with a false premise at it's core.

Also, a thousand words where a hundred would do. Or maybe ten.

The contemptible atrocities committed in the name of God do not happen in a vacuum. Nobody is born with religion. Religion is taught. And it is here that I come to the subject line of this post. To believe in something without question and without evidence: That is the very definition of religion. And it is exactly this lack of critical thinking and reasoning that children possess.

No, this is YOUR definition of religion. The idea that religious people have no critical thinking skills is absurd on it's very face. Thousands of years of commentary and religious scholarship in a variety of different religions would prove you wrong.

But the ultimate failure is this. Nobody on DU was in those demonstrations today, and nobody in those demonstrations will read your commentary. Why do you address this to us?

Head over to Niger and give them this lecture ...

[bvf]

75. Heh.

"The idea that religious people have no critical thinking skills is absurd on it's (sic) very face. Thousands of years of commentary and religious scholarship in a variety of different religions would prove you wrong."

The very thought of religious "scholarship" extending beyond anthropological limits is absurd. Unless you want to talk about precisely how Moses parted the Red Sea, or whether Jesus' foreskin and toenail clippings followed him in the ascension.

[ND-Dem]

83. you don't know much about religious scholars or scholarship then.

[bvf]

85. Well,

beyond a strict catholic upbringing, years of Jesuit education, and a stay in a Trappist monastery, no, I don't know much about the subject.

Please continue if you have anything of interest to add.

[ND-Dem]

86. If this is what you learned from that, I don't think you have much of interest to add:

The very thought of religious "scholarship" extending beyond anthropological limits is absurd. Unless you want to talk about precisely how Moses parted the Red Sea, or whether Jesus' foreskin and toenail clippings followed him in the ascension.

[bvf]

90. l learned a lot, thanks,

and gave it years of thought.

If my abstract troubles you, that's your problem.

[beam me up scottie]

89. LOL!

I was waiting for that.

[Arugula Latte]

129. Mark Twain could have saved you some time, bvf.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

[bvf]

134. D'oh!

Good point. It took me thirty-some years to arrive at the same conclusion!

[ND-Dem]

82. +100. pseudo-profundity indeed.

[Augustus]

94. Religion

Religion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Belief
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Thousands of years of commentary and religious scholarship in a variety of different religions would prove you wrong.

Having profound knowledge of an imaginary subject does not make one a critical thinker. Quite the contrary, in fact. Spending your time "studying" religion outside of its anthropology makes one the very opposite of a critical thinker.

But the ultimate failure is this. Nobody on DU was in those demonstrations today, and nobody in those demonstrations will read your commentary. Why do you address this to us?

Sounds like you're sympathetic to those demonstrations. If you're not, why are you taking offense?

[whathehell]

101. Thank you.

[greyl]

76. I think many just protest that which threatens their personal faith.

That's the real insult to them.

The very-public cartoons might only be a convenient scapegoat.

[ucrdem]

84. Sylvia Plath wanted to become a Catholic and her mother laughed at her.

She wrote:

Lately I had considered going into the Catholic Church myself. I knew the
Catholics thought killing yourself was an awful sin. But perhaps, if this was so, they
might have a good way to persuade me out of it. . . .

I thought I might see how long you had to be a Catholic before you became a nun,
so I asked my mother, thinking she'd know the best way to go about it.

My mother had laughed at me. "Do you think they'll take somebody like you,
right off the bat? Why you've got to know all these catechisms and credos and believe in
them, lock, stock and barrel. A girl with your sense!"

That's from page 86 of the "Bell Jar," which is autobiographical fiction but by all accounts a more or less accurate account of Plath's youth. The point is that some people understand religion and others don't. Her mother evidently didn't.

[bvf]

87. Score one

for the religion-can-keep-you-from-killing-yourself-if-you're-considering-it-and-are-willing-to-become-a-"bride of christ"-instead school of thought.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Yawn.

Yes the Liberal Atheists of Democratic Underground, who all want to ban religion!

[Augustus]

95. Point out, exactly, where I said that

You can't, because I didn't say that. I think you meant to reply to someone above.

[Warren DeMontague]

133. You didn't. You'll have to excuse my jaundiced view of some things, around here.

There are a lot of disingenuous dances that go on, that become harder to ignore once one has been here a while. There are also a lot of people who think they're being way more clever than they actually are. Whole drawers full of would-be funny bunnies.

Easy, easy, easy to spot... yeah.

So you'll excuse me, on that, please.


That said- on the topic of your OP- look, you won't find a more vociferous critic of relgious indoctrination, particularly the fundamentalist variety, than yours truly. I'm an Atheist but my primary goal with my own kids was "teach them that they should make up their own minds and always keep them open to new information". That's ALL. So I never went "hey, I don't believe in God, you shouldn't either"... if anything I soft-pedaled that aspect, not because I think kids should or shouldn't believe anything, but rather because, again, I wanted to give them room to make up their own minds..

And yet they have come to Atheism totally on their own. Imagine that.

So I kind of feel like with all this stuff, the goose has to get itself out of the bottle. I'm not going to tell anyone else what to think or do.

[pathansen]

91. K&R

[F4lconF16]

92. Kick and recommend

I wrote an essay that touched on this in relation to teaching creationism in schools. You said it far better than I could.

Religion teaches belief without evidence (and a whole host of other negative behaviors, but that's another story), and that is harmful. Period. How harmful is determined by the individual, but it is never a good thing.

[Pooka Fey]

93. So many problems with this OP

and not because I'm offended. I see your arguments falling into the same sort of gaping blind spots, exaggerated appeals to emotionalism, and binary absolutism that guides the actions of your opponents. You titled your OP "Religion is Child Abuse".

And I dare write this as the world is burning due to religious extremism. Pooka Fey is nothing if she is not a paradox.

On edit: A case can be made that religious practice is hard-wired into humans, since it exists in all cultures and throughout human history.

To point out just one problem with the OP: the central argument of atheists is that religion can't pass the test of scientific rigor, therefore it is suspect/of questionable value/bunk/a delusion. You claim, "We modern scientists can't set up an experiment and test whether or not a god exists in the universe, in the same way that we can set up an experiment and test whether or not there is arsenic or cadmium in a water sample." Then you go on to conclude "Because religion doesn't fit into our rational scientific mold of how the world is to be understood, it has no place in modern society."

That is where your train derails.

Nothing obliges the world to conform to the modern scientific method as it is practiced since the 17th Century. The scientific method is and was a huge advancement for mankind in just about any human endeavor you care to name. No question of that, but we are finally seeing the limits to a scientific worldview and are able to also recognize some of its shortcomings.

One of these shortcomings, where the scientific worldview falls flat on its face, is in the realm of faith, spirituality, and religion.

I hope I was on topic and that that made sense.

Cheers

[oberliner]

109. Faith means accepting as true things for which there is no evidence

And when evidence is presented that strongly suggests it is not true - the faith abides despite.

This is dangerous.

And it becomes more dangerous when said faith is something other than a private belief but one that wishes to impose upon others who don't ascribe to said faith.

This is even more dangerous.

[Pooka Fey]

113. I'll start by saying I'm a firm unwavering supporter of Secularism/"Laicité" à la française

so that we don't have to debate that. In a civil society, religion must remain in the domain of the private sphere. We agree that imposing one religious beliefs on others and on the society at large leads to problems and is dangerous.

But it is a false premise in the OP to assert that seeking to convert non-believers/evangelism is an inherent and inseparable component of religion in the broad sense of the term. So that is logical fallacy.

We can agree on your title line: "Faith means accepting as true things for which there is no evidence.". Fair enough, but its not the definition I find in the closest dictionary at hand (Larousse): "1) trust 2) belief in a dogma or a religion

My point being that lack of evidence, for example of the existence of a god, doesn't invalidate faith in a god. Neither does it relegate that faith to same category as delusions or fantasies, not necessarily. Some religious people are delusional, of course, but because of mental illness or some other problem, not because of their religious beliefs.

You wrote if faith persists when evidence is presented that strongly suggests it is not true, that is dangerous. I have lots of questions that need to be answered before I can agree. What is the quality of the evidence? Whom do you assert I place in danger if I believe, for example, that Gaia exists and that the Earth is in itself a unified entity with consciousness? Is not the accepted scientific definition of the Earth as a dead resource to be exploited for maximum profit, despite the fact that we are killing our ecosystem, not arguably an even more dangerous dogma? (see above definition of "faith&quot

Make no mistake, I am pro-science. But I tend to reject "scientism" as another unexamined faith, and it is by no means an untarnished one. I assert that one cannot force every human phenomenon into the scientific model. Matters of faith, spirituality, and religion fall outside the scientific rationalist model, but that does not make them inherently dangerous or worthy of elimination.

***Phew***

[oberliner]

114. Very good points

A lot to think about certainly. I may be wading into a debate that I am unqualified to participate in so I will stick to what I know I feel strongly about.

I would suggest that while lack of evidence does not necessarily invalidate faith in a god, I do feel that those who profess to have faith in a god to at least be able to assert what evidence could be provided that would cause them to renounce (for lack of a better word) that faith.

For instance, if a person says that they believe that Gaia exists - what information could be presented to them to no longer hold that belief?

Every decent scientist can usually say that - if you can show this, then I will no longer assert this. I think that a religious philosophy ought to be able to withstand similar challenges.

[Pooka Fey]

122. Thank you

Last edited Sun Jan 18, 2015, 03:58 PM - Edit history (10)

Credit goes to John Michael Greer's peak-oil blog and books (yes, JMG is a Druid), and also the book "Harmony" by HRH Prince Charles for those ideas. Both writers discuss "Scientism" -the post Enlightenment modern world view, which today has become a dogma as unquestioned as most religions. Not to invalidate in any way the value of science and its contributions.

Re: the questions, 'what information could be presented to you/them to no longer hold that belief?' and "if you can show this, then I will no longer assert that": those are valid questions in matters dealing with the material world, but they are not particularly interesting or useful questions in discerning matters pertaining to the realm to faith. I don't agree with your assumption that being able to answer your question is necessary for my faith to be considered valid.

I do think that classical Greek philosophy, logic and argumentation are important in matters concerning faith and religion, because their purpose is the search for truth, and to teach one to discipline the mind. They help one avoid falling into some of religion's more obvious traps.

To tie all this back to the OP, many of Augustus' premises about religion are far from rational and logical; I found the Argumentum ad populum, the "False Cause" fallacy, and the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, which place the whole OP on very flimsy ground.

[Jawja]

106. Great Post.

Thank you and welcome to DU. I don't write a lot; I come here to read. I look forward to more from you.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

107. What about insisting on "breaking a child's will"??

There are books by Christians about how to deal with a strong-willed child, which consists of smacking them if they so much as crawl off a blanket to explore before they can walk. Making a child be obedient at all costs? Obedience because the parents insist that they are always right? You get the Nuremberg Defense which didn't work. "I was only following orders".

Telling a child, or any person, they are worthless sinners going to hell, just because of a story about a woman eating an apple in a mythical garden, tempted by a talking snake? That is emotionally and mentally abusive and can drive some people to suicide.
You'll never be perfect like Jesus, you'll always make mistakes, so why go on living if you're failing to live up to those impossible standards of perfection?

John Bradshaw, Ph.D. has several books about dealing with the inner inadequacy that most people have from their values instilled by their parents. People get addicted to certain behaviors and ideas because they have an emptiness in their soul and have never been loved "for being the very one you are". The parents don't say "I love you no matter what". The parents say, "I will only love you if you act a certain way. They eat too much, work too much, have too much sex, obsess on being religious, going to church and praying, and insist on looking perfect to the outside world when everyone inside the family is hurting terribly.

He expanded on the work of Alice Miller and Jean Piaget with BRADSHAW ON THE FAMILY, HEALING THE SHAME THAT BINDS YOU, and HOMECOMING:RECLAIMING AND CHAMPIONING YOUR INNER CHILD.

Alice Miller, who is German, came up with the idea that the "poisonous pedagogy" in which the parent is always right, and physical abuse of children is considered necessary to make children behave, is what turns out little Nazis in which the highest value is obedience. Not thinking "Is this right or wrong?" but "Mother and Father are always right and I must do what they say, or I will be beaten."

I recommend these books by John Bradshaw highly. When a person feels like they are inadequate and failures, these modes of thinking are often the reason. Putting original sin and substitutionary atonement on a kid is a heavy burden. It means that they will never feel like they are adequate or live up to the impossible standards their parents set for them. That's emotionally abusive to children and adults as well. Original sin and substitutionary atonement are the basic foundational beliefs or starting premises of Christianity. So Christians start out being told they are not good enough, that they are bad people and sinners. The emphasis on sin makes some people obsess over every single thing they do as a big deal moral decision. Everyone has to make moral decisions in their daily lives, not just Christians.

The idea of ideas spreading through millions of people, through mass media, for example, or societal teaching, and a very small percentage of those people will become terrorists, whether blowing up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Muslim suicide bombers, or killing abortion doctors to save babies, or killing liberals, as happened in a Unitarian church in Knoxville, is known as stochastic terrorism.

[hunter]

126. This is as true of religion as it is of certain ideologies.

Demanding children blindly respect an authority, and punishing them whenever they don't "properly" respect that authority (punishment in whatever manner that religion or ideology demands) will mess children up.

Fundamentalist of all sorts are hazardous to our children and our society, and converts from one sort of fundamentalism to another are among the worst.

[sarcasmo]

121. Kick

[marym625]

130. Bravo!

K&R!

[Blue_In_AK]

136. I went to church and Sunday School every Sunday when I was a kid.

It's just what we did. We were Quakers/Church of the Brethren/Methodist, and even though there were times when I would have preferred not going, I don't think it hurt me any. My parents were good, moral people, who were kind to us kids and to strangers. They were always inviting visitors from church over to our house for Sunday dinner. During the Vietnam War, some of the conscientious objector kids who were doing alternative service in Houston where we lived spent holidays with us because they were far from home.

Would we have been moral without church? Most likely. But I don't feel abused because of what I had to "endure."

I have not raised my own kids within a church setting, and they're good, moral people, too, so I guess you just are who you are, no matter what the religious upbringing.

[Augustus]

139. It's all about the degree

Are you afraid of burning in hell for masturbating? That would be just a small example of where your religious upbringing may have hurt you. And if you've overcome the superstition of believing in such a thing as hell, do you feel guilty, even a little bit, after having masturbated? Because that little pang of guilt? That would be an example of psychological damage carried right into adulthood.

Substitute "masturbation" with any other irrational superstition. Premarital sex. Lustful thoughts. Saying the Lord's name in vain. Anything where you might feel guilty or afraid over something that clearly shouldn't make you feel guilty or afraid. This is childhood psychological abuse that you have carried into adulthood.

[Blue_In_AK]

140. I understand that a lot of denominations

and religions have those kinds of harmful proscriptions. My "religious" upbringing was based more on service to others and less on hellfire and damnation. Generally speaking, Methodists aren't Baptists.

(And I know there are good Baptists out there, before anyone gets offended.)

[Brigid]

137. Do you hear yourself?

I thought while I was reading this that my insomnia must be getting the better of me -- but no, I read it right the first time. And some of the replies are even worse. What would you people do: Send storm troopers to close the churches, "disappear" the clergy, raid people's homes to and burn Bibles or Qur'ans or whatever religious articles are found? Are you going to build gulags to house us all? Or maybe re-education camps? I cannot believe this OP not only survived a jury, but the decision was almost unanimous. This place is getting really fucking scary. I'm outta here, and I won't be back until the admins bring it back under control. Un-fucking-believable.

[Augustus]

138. Apparently your insomnia did get the better of you

Because I didn't write a single thing you wrote. "Send storm troopers"? "Close churches"? You clearly didn't read it right the first time, nor any other subsequent time.

[beam me up scottie]

141. Wow.

What's "Un-fucking-believable" is how you got all of that from the op.

Might I suggest taking a course in reading comprehension while you're away?