The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Is forcing religion on children a form of child abuse?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AngelBoy
  • Start date Start date
This quote comes from Beliefnet's Jewish Wisdom Newletter:

A Religion is as much a progressive unlearning of false ideas concerning God as it is the learning of the true ideas concerning God.

[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, SANS-SERIF]- Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan[/FONT]
 
I've just read Christopher Hitchens' book god is not great.
He writes a chapter about this very topic, and he establishes to my satisfaction that at the very least certain practises intended by parents to introduce their children to their particular religion do amount to child abuse, in particular religiously-based circumcision performed on minors, obviously without their consent.

It is interesting that people have missed the literal meaning of the question: Is forcing religion on children a form of child abuse? Everyone who says "no" has jumped to an apologist position, citing the need or the right of the parent to transmit their religious fables to their child. But the question is literally about forcing religion on a child. Even persons of deep faith should concede that this is perverse. Come on! What do you do when a child asks impertinent questions of the religious leaders foisted on him by his parents? Beat him until he acquiesces?

That point aside, perhaps the question could be rephrased; "Do parents do their children a disservice by exposing them to only one point of view based on the peculiarities of their own particular religion?"

Here the answer, even for the devout - if they have any sense of decency at all, must be "yes." Of course it is better to allow children to know about all different kinds of religions, and about having none at all, and of course the child's own faith, or lack thereof will be all the richer as it develops for having made up his own mind through enquiry and discourse and reflection.

"Here is the answer..."

If a person of faith said that, that person would be rightly chastised for the utter self righteousness and arrogance in proclaiming that there is only one answer, "the answer" and that they have it.

As well, there is nothing as self righteous as the person who so smugly affirms their own right-ness and swarmily asserts that everyone just must agree with the utter wisdom of their beliefs.

Hitchen's book is a vile tour de force of hate.

And this thread continues new reach new depths in its expounding of the fascism that lays at the heart of Hitchen's ideology - an ideology that is as dangerous as those of the most twisted religious fanatics.

God spare us from people who what is right and the answer for others.
 
This quote comes from Beliefnet's Jewish Wisdom Newletter:

A Religion is as much a progressive unlearning of false ideas concerning God as it is the learning of the true ideas concerning God.


Isn’t this statement rather disrespectful to other religions by implying that any ideas about god/gods or religion are false?

The ancient Greeks believed in their gods just as sincerely and devoutly as any modern day believer – though (in the same way) without any concrete evidence.

It is however likely that the ancient Greeks did force their Gods onto their children – while the Romans were a lot more pragmatic (at least until the time of Constantine)
 
I've just read Christopher Hitchens' book god is not great.
He writes a chapter about this very topic, and he establishes to my satisfaction that at the very least certain practises intended by parents to introduce their children to their particular religion do amount to child abuse, in particular religiously-based circumcision performed on minors, obviously without their consent.

It is interesting that people have missed the literal meaning of the question: Is forcing religion on children a form of child abuse? Everyone who says "no" has jumped to an apologist position, citing the need or the right of the parent to transmit their religious fables to their child. But the question is literally about forcing religion on a child. Even persons of deep faith should concede that this is perverse. Come on! What do you do when a child asks impertinent questions of the religious leaders foisted on him by his parents? Beat him until he acquiesces?

That point aside, perhaps the question could be rephrased; "Do parents do their children a disservice by exposing them to only one point of view based on the peculiarities of their own particular religion?"

Here the answer, even for the devout - if they have any sense of decency at all, must be "yes." Of course it is better to allow children to know about all different kinds of religions, and about having none at all, and of course the child's own faith, or lack thereof will be all the richer as it develops for having made up his own mind through enquiry and discourse and reflection.

Thanks FFWD – I’ve not read “god is not great” yet - but I have read some articles by.Christopher Hitchen – which seemed very sensible and moderate.

I think you’re right that the issue of “Forcing” is quite different from that of educating children in a range of religious beliefs and ideaologies.

Male circumcision is obviously a surgical procedure done without the child’s informed consent – however it does not have serious consequences. So called “female circumcision” still practiced in some parts of the world in the name of religion is a far more serious assault on the child

The response to your post (quoted below) merely seems to assert that Hitchen's writings are vile, full of hate, facist and dangerous.

Without ever presenting any logical argument as to why this is the case – the writers comments would seem to be little better than “school yard taunts”
Hitchen's book is a vile tour de force of hate.

And this thread continues new reach new depths in its expounding of the fascism that lays at the heart of Hitchen's ideology - an ideology that is as dangerous as those of the most twisted religious fanatics.
 
angel, dear boy, school yard taunts?

you think no one is actually familiar with the literature? The province of school yard taunts - and a fascist disdain of humanity that would be dangerous if Hitchens were not jut a bitter man selling books for his personal gain - is all Hitchens

to get it from a source other than me, the New Yorker:

Hitchens is nothing if not provocative. Creationists are “yokels,” Pascal’s theology is “not far short of sordid,” the reasoning of the Christian writer C. S. Lewis is “so pathetic as to defy description,” Calvin was a “sadist and torturer and killer,” Buddhist sayings are “almost too easy to parody,” most Eastern spiritual discourse is “not even wrong,” Islam is “a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms,” Hanukkah is a “vapid and annoying holiday,” and the psalmist King David was an “unscrupulous bandit.”

It’s possible to wonder, indeed, where plain speaking ends and misanthropy begins: Hitchens says that the earth sometimes seems to him to be “a prison colony and lunatic asylum that is employed as a dumping ground by far-off and superior civilizations.” He certainly likes to adopt the tone of a bemused Martian envoy hammering out a report for headquarters. (We hear of “a showbiz woman bizarrely known as Madonna.”) In a curious rhetorical tic, Hitchens regularly refers to people whom he wishes to ridicule by their zoological class. Thus the followers of Muhammad are “mammals,” as is the prophet himself, and so are the seventeenth-century false messiah Sabbatai Zevi and St. Francis of Assisi; Japan’s wartime Emperor Hirohito is a “ridiculously overrated mammal,” and Kim Il Sung, the father of North Korea’s current dictator, is a “ludicrous mammal.” Hitchens is trying to say that these people are mere fallible mortals; but his way of saying it makes him come across as rather an odd fish.

He is also a fallible one. After rightly railing against female genital mutilation in Africa, which is an indigenous cultural practice with no very firm ties to any particular religion, Hitchens lunges at male circumcision. He claims that it is a medically dangerous procedure that has made countless lives miserable. This will come as news to the Jewish community, where male circumcision is universal, and where doctors, hypochondria, and overprotective mothers are not exactly unknown. Jews, Muslims, and others among the nearly one-third of the world’s male population who have been circumcised may be reassured by the World Health Organization’s recent announcement that it recommends male circumcision as a means of preventing the spread of AIDS.
 
angel, dear boy, school yard taunts?

you think no one is actually familiar with the literature? The province of school yard taunts - and a fascist disdain of humanity that would be dangerous if Hitchens were not jut a bitter man selling books for his personal gain - is all Hitchens

to get it from a source other than me, the New Yorker:


Fair comment – it does seem from the review in the “New Yorker” that Hitchens has used quite a lot of “school yard taunts” himself.

As I said – I haven’t read “God is not great” so can’t really either defend or criticise the book. On the other hand it does seem rather strange him referring to individuals as mammals (this is an obvious fact about any person that seems to add no additional information – but maybe he was being paid by the word).

If the other comments quoted in the review were all that was said about these subjects in the book then these would just be slurs that provide no information.

Among the “targets” of the book referred to in the review- C. S. Lewis can be criticized for the poor quality of his religious justifications. While Emperor Hirohito is just a War criminal that was lucky he cut a good deal with the USA (helped by a shrewd guess the US nuclear weapon production capacity was limited).

I suspect that the “emotive” comments quoted in the review were related to a detailed analysis of the reason why these could be justified - but that’s only based on his other writings – not from this book itself.

Based on just reading a review (as you have done) or some of his other articles (as I have) neither of us has enough knowledge to say that the book is either a “Great Work” or “Vile, full of hate, facist and dangerous”.
 
angel, I gave you a New Yorker review, not because I haven't read the book, but because I felt you needed a source other than myself on that issue -

and ffwd, even when you try hard, you speak of what is "compulsory" for others to do -

as early you said
Everyone who says "no" has jumped to an apologist position,
and
Even persons of deep faith should concede concede that this is perverse...
and
Here the answer, even for the devout - if they have any sense of decency at all,

those who disagree with you are perverse or advocate that which is perverse

those who disagree with you are people without decency

"everyone" who sees things differently than you is an apologist or whatever you decided they must be because they disagree with you.

You have no room to accept that others can, perfectly reasonably, have opinions other than yours, and should be accepted, not insulted, for that.
 
Regarding original question of thread. YES religious indoctrination DOES abuse a child. Very much so.
Imposing harmful beliefs on a child is mindcontrol, And this can seriously damage the child's sense of hirself.

But most often, theones doing the damage are themselves damaged. All the way down the line! So its important for some outside source to try undo this damage, even if its much later in person's life. because usually the poor kid is at the mercy of the grownups around them. That is the curse of many kids. They got mad parents, mad schools, mad TV, you name it. All doing the kids head in in various ways

Did you know this. That how they train young people in the armed forced now is through making them watch and participate in violent video games.,......???
And guess what many kids in society get pushed them via media, and peers. The same. So that is what I mean by doing the kids heads in

Then you might get the religionists coming in to protest that and 'help' them. And THAT does their heads in. So its all around.

But any parent, or guardian who really loves their kid should not force any divisive belief on them. One that makes them feel ill at ease with how they are, and about Nature, and other people different than him
 
Isn’t this statement rather disrespectful to other religions by implying that any ideas about god/gods or religion are false?

The ancient Greeks believed in their gods just as sincerely and devoutly as any modern day believer – though (in the same way) without any concrete evidence.

It is however likely that the ancient Greeks did force their Gods onto their children – while the Romans were a lot more pragmatic (at least until the time of Constantine)

The idea is that we are taught one thing as children, then, as adults, we learn (or unlearn) what we will.

The statement is from a rabbi, so he uses the term God (one God). You can substitute gods, or she for he, or etc. .
 
this thread is ridiculous and unoriginal

the original idea comes from a man, christoper hitchens, who is known for his rather eccentric views ....its a a joke that it has gone on for this long...

here are some mainstream responses to mr hitchens book god is not great...

and note that I am not plegiarizing other peoples ideas as if they are my own

With God in His Sights

Hitchens takes on Gandhi, Billy Graham—and the Big Guy.


By Jerry Adler
Newsweek

May 14, 2007 issue -



The psalmist writes, "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God." It takes a certain sang-froid to quote this verse in a book promoting atheism, butto the journalist Christopher Hitchens it's an opportunity to remind his readers that in the iron-fisted Kingdom of Judea, "it would perhaps have been a fool who did not keep this conclusion buried deep inside." Today the risks associated with heresy are smaller, although not negligible. Just ask the novelist Salman Rushdie, who spent a decade under fatwa of death for apostasy—or Hitchens himself, who was warned of possible reprisals merely for having Rushdie stay in his apartment. After a lifetime of iconoclasm, Hitchens finally takes on, in his new book, "God Is Not Great," the Father of all icons. Now the world can judge what's in his heart.


Vitriol, of course, but the British-born Hitchens, who now lives in Washington and writes for Vanity Fair, Slate and other publications, has long been known for that. "Religion poisons everything," he expostulates (italics his)—from such minor pleasures as a slice of ham (Hitchens's mother and wife were born Jewish), up through sex, and on to the future of life on Earth, whose end is both predicted and welcomed by fundamentalists of all stripes. "Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience."

These arguments are familiar from two recent best sellers, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion." Compared with these, "God Is Not Great" is both more political and more personal in its attacks on believers. Politically, Hitchens has a keen eye for the ways in which the godly ease the paths of the powerful, or even just celebrities: how Mother Teresa campaigned to defeat a law to allow divorce for the ordinary citizens of Ireland but approved it for her friend Princess Diana. The book comes at a time when Hitchens has alienated many of his former allies by supporting the war against Saddam Hussein—who, he writes, was not the secular leader of an Arab nation-state but "had decked out his whole rule ... as one of piety and jihad."
One might naively imagine that an attack on fundamentalism would help restore his credentials on the left, but Hitchens is under no such illusion. "This book is a repudiation of left-liberal weak-mindedness," he says in an interview, in particular the tendency to see Islam as a religion of the oppressed and to excuse its radical excesses. "It will probably make [the left] hate me more. If that's possible."


In person Hitchens can be charming; he insists on roasting a chicken in his home for a reporter's lunch rather than being taken to a restaurant (albeit, because that way he can smoke with his meal). But he is fierce in argument. "I don't think Richard [Dawkins] would mind my saying that he's terribly rude to [believers]," Hitchens says, but in a debate over religion last month in London, where the two were on the same side, it was Hitchens who was caught mouthing the word "wanker" at his opponents. "God Is Not Great" leaves no major religious figure of the last hundred years unscathed. Not Gandhi (instead of "a modern secular nationalist leader [India] got a fakir and guru"). Not the Dalai Lama ("he makes absurd pronouncements about sex and diet and ... anoints major donors like Steven Seagal and Richard Gere as holy"). Not Billy Graham ("His absurd sermon [at the National Cathedral after 9/11] made the claim that all the dead were now in paradise and would not return to us if they could. I say absurd because it is impossible ... to believe that a good number of sinful citizens had not been murdered that day"). Hitchens is entitled to his judgments, but in fact Graham, on a recording of the sermon posted on his Web site, makes the distinctly less fatuous claim that "many" of the victims were in heaven.

But who's counting? Not Hitchens, who considers heaven a ridiculous and potentially dangerous fantasy in any case. His occasional posture in this book is of a mild-mannered academic drawn reluctantly to combat the gross idiocies and superstitions of the faithful. This would seem to be contradicted by the zest with which he has been known to give the middle finger to audiences who disagree with him. They get off lightly, compared with God.
and another response to his vitriol and angst....
Leora Tanenbaum

Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

If I were sitting in the pews listening to Christopher Hitchens delivering a sermon on his new book, a denunciation of religion, I would roll my eyes, perhaps doze off, maybe even walk out. This is what believers in houses of worship do when confronted with overblown, out-of-touch, and insulting words from the pulpit. But as Hitchens imagines it, we sit docilely to even the most inane homilies from our religious leaders, listening and absorbing. Then we go off, clutching our sacred texts, to abuse, oppress, and murder.

Unlike most preachers, admittedly, Hitchens is entertaining and erudite, and he studs the pages of his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, with golden nuggets of rhetoric. But as an observant Jew myself, who also happens to be involved in the movement for women's meaningful participation and leadership in Orthodox Judaism, I read this book feeling as if I were watching the local news with its endless worst-case scenarios and hyperreal depiction of daily life.


Hitchens calls all religions --not only Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-- to task for being transparently man-made ("the 'revelation' at Sinai and the rest of the Pentateuch was an ill-carpentered fiction, bolted into place well after the nonevents that it fails to describe convincingly or even plausibly"). They are foolish and delusional ("The real 'miracle' is that we, who share genes with the original bacteria that began life on the planet, have evolved as much as we have"). They're not even functional ("Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, [religion] no longer offers an explanation of anything important"). They're stupid (in 2005 in Nigeria, a group of Islamic religious leaders "declared the polio vaccine to be a conspiracy by the United States" against Muslims. Believers refused the vaccine and within months, polio was back and spreading fast).


And of course, they are abusive --witness the Vatican's complicity and cover-up of "a huge racket of child rape and child torture, mainly but by no means exclusively homosexual, in which known pederasts and sadists were shielded from the law and reassigned to parishes where the pickings of the innocent and defenseless were often richer." And murderous --"I leave it to the faithful to burn each other's churches and mosques and synagogues, which they can always be relied upon to do"; "Conceivably, some readers of these pages will be shocked to learn of the existence of Hindu and Buddhist murderers and sadists. Perhaps they dimly imagine that contemplative easterners, devoted to vegetarian diets and meditative routines, are immune to such temptations?"
Yes, yes. Atheists and believers alike know that religion has lubricated mass acceptance of misogyny, slavery, and tyranny. But so have secular, non-religious leaders and regimes. Even after reading Hitchens' catalogue of atrocities committed in the name of religion, I am still unconvinced that religion, in and of itself, is the problem.


Fundamentalism, not religion per se, is the real culprit. Hitchens confuses the part for the whole: not all believers are fundamentalists. In fact, most of us aren't. Believe it or not, for all of his influence in creating the "religious right" as a formidable political force, even the late Jerry Falwell did not represent all evangelical Christians (those who consider themselves "born-again" and embrace a personal relationship with Jesus). Millions continued to find Tinky Winky of the children's program Teletubbies adorable despite Falwell's trashing of the character's gender-bending, and cringed when he blamed political liberals for September 11. Millions of evangelicals today defiantly align themselves with the political left, are appalled by religious attempts to control their votes, and want nothing to do with the Bush administration's hypocritical born-again political agendas.


Likewise, when the Ayatollah Khomeini put a hit on novelist Salman Rushdie, the ayatollah did not speak for all Muslims. (Hitchens once had Rushdie spend the weekend in his Washington apartment, an act of bravery and friendship; Hitchens and his family consequently became potential targets themselves.) Over 97 percent of U.S. Catholics reject the Vatican's ban on contraception. And let's face it: how many Jews support "metzitzah b'peh," a disgusting act committed by very few ritual circumcisers that involves sucking off the foreskin with the mouth?


Using these examples and others like them, Hitchens bases his argument on the lowest common denominator. But millions of believers wrestle with their faiths and don't take doctrine at face value. Around the world, there is a growing movement of devout women across religious lines standing up for their rights. Many of them call themselves "feminists"; others avoid the term like they wish Eve had spurned the serpent's fruit. No matter what you call them, these are women who want to maintain their tradition, only make it better. They are Catholics --including nuns, supposedly the most obedient of the faithful-- active in the movement for women's ordination; evangelicals who reject the "headship" belief, traced to the New Testament, that husbands should rule over their wives; Orthodox Jews who find no obstacle in Jewish law to women's ordination or reading the Torah in synagogue; and Muslim women who refuse to pray behind the men in mosque and who denounce last year's attempt in Ontario to adopt sharia-based law to settle Muslim family disputes.


Feminists certainly don't have a monopoly on religious dissent. Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong titled his 1998 call for reformation Why Christianity Must Change or Die. Every faith and denomination is confronted with supporters of gay rights. And as the pope reminded us last week, liberation theology --which fuses religious belief with social action for the poor-- is alive and well in Latin America.
To Hitchens, religion is all theology, all the time. But one of the main reasons that religious feminists, gay-rights activists, and others refuse to leave their faiths is that theology isn't always what it's all about. In fact, mainline Protestantism and Conservative and Reform Judaism are often derided for not adhering to traditional doctrine. Religion offers community, a framework in which to celebrate lifecycle events and mourn loss of life, distinctive recipes, and a code of values for moral living, among many other positive things.


We all know that religion often leads to oppression. But instead of ditching their faith, millions of believers are doing something much more challenging and worthwhile: working on reform. Sister Joan Chittister, a Benedictine nun and tireless lecturer and writer, asked 3,000 Catholics assembled in Milwaukee last November celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of the reform organization Call To Action: Why should Catholics speak up for reform? Her thunderous answer was that "What happens in the world and in the Church does not depend on God. It depends on us. It is not God's fault if things we have done already do not change. It is our fault!... We cannot blame God for what we do not do to save ourselves." Whether or not God is great is not the issue. Reforming our institutions, including but not limited to our religious ones, is the task before us.
i could go on but i wont just yet

this thread is nothing but a slam against religious people in a forum designed to protect religious people from slams

shame on you Angel

for the plagiarism and for the attack
 
here is a post on Mr Hitchens moral terpitude and honesty

it seems that america was once in his crosshairs and he even blames america for being attacked on 9-11

he is a man who preactices hate and the politics of fear with a talent

.....
Mr. Hitchens's Revisionism of His Own History

By Sean Wilentz

Mr. Wilentz is a professor of history at Princeton University.
In his interview with the right-wing web magazine FrontPageMag.com, re-posted on HNN, Christopher Hitchens claims that his moment of truth about Islamic fascism arrived in 1989, and that by September 11, 2001, he had fully come to "[t]he realization that American power could and should be used for the defense of pluralism." He then says that after seeing the World Trade Center atrocities on television, he was exhilarated: "Here we are then, I was thinking, in a war to the finish between everything I love and everything I hate. Fine. We will win and they will lose."
Mr. Hitchens was thinking nothing of the sort, and he knows it. He was thinking, in standard, knee-jerk anti-American terms, that America was largely to blame for bringing on the attacks. And he said so, in a particularly sickening column for the Guardian published on September 13, 2001:
With cellphones still bleeping piteously from under the rubble, it probably seems indecent to most people to ask if the United States has ever done anything to attract such awful hatred. Indeed, the very thought, for the present, is taboo. Some senators and congressmen have spoken of the loathing felt by certain unnamed and sinister elements for the freedom and prosperity of America, as if it were only natural that such a happy and successful country should inspire envy and jealousy. But that is the limit of permissible thought.
In general, the motive and character of the perpetrators is shrouded by rhetoric about their "cowardice" and their "shadowy" character, almost as if they had not volunteered to immolate themselves in the broadest of broad blue daylight. On the campus where I am writing this, there are a few students and professors willing to venture points about United States foreign policy. But they do so very guardedly, and it would sound like profane apologetics if transmitted live. So the analytical moment, if there is to be one, has been indefinitely postponed.
I am glad to see that Mr. Hitchens has since changed his mind about the dangers posed by Osama Bin Laden and about the imperatives of American power. But he has falsified history. Twenty-four hours after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- barely two years ago -- Hitchens fiddled on about the evil Americans and their taboos and their refusal to reckon with their wickedness. Mr. Hitchens may be a historian, but he is what George W. Bush calls a "revisionist historian" -- and in this case the history is his own. His invocation of George Orwell can at best be judged as cynical.
 
Hitchens seems to be a fully convinced 'believer in non-belief', cast fron the same obviously cracked mould as Dawkins and the rest of those hate-filled fundamentalist atheists.
 
John Heard: God is not responsible for war and suffering

June 07, 2007
WE live in curious, irritating times. We are oppressed by superstition and absurd ideologies. We must understand at the root of much that is wrong with the world is a single, common, insidious factor: religion. At least according to public atheists and anti-theists, a remarkable number of whom have devoted large amounts of air time and ink lately to bashing Christians in particular and religious believers in general.

In television series after book, from Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion to Christopher Hitchens's God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a cacophony of historical, philosophical, political or more obviously silly reasons are advanced for why religion, religious faith or religious adherents are infantile, irrational, dangerous or otherwise contemptible.


The terror wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and the Palestinian territories link up across the world with al-Qa'ida bombings and lend such a view some currency. Other ethnic and religion-related battles of the recent past, particularly in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, contribute to a sense of millenarian madness.
Sometimes it seems like AD1000 all over again.


Militant atheists are right, then, to see religious believers in or behind many of the great struggles of our time. They are wrong, however, to then conclude that humankind must therefore scrap religion.


Examples of bad behaviour perpetrated by religious believers simply don't tell us anything definitive about religions themselves and certainly nothing necessarily negative about the gods they posit.


This shows the central claim of many of the recent crop of atheistic books relies on a belief less tenable than the relatively well-documented resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and a hypothesis that wouldn't get past a first-year science student. For if the atheist authors bothered to investigate anything other than the most apparently bizarre topics of religious interest, they'd discover that only a belief that God directly controls the actions of believers - in other words, the kind of determinism that Christians and others long ago rejected - would make God somehow culpable for the violent actions of his followers.


Similarly, only scientific proof that a man's religious affiliation predicts his behaviour, a hypothesis long ago rejected by psychologists, would make religion an obviously poisonous thing.


Rather, those tragedies, these examples of war and violence seem to favour an interpretation more common to the great Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Judaism and Islam): namely that we live in a degraded reality and that man, left to his own devices, is a fairly despicable creature.


In the absence of a divinely endorsed militia, the most obvious explanation for war and chaos is that humans take up arms and nations of humans continually declare war, and for many reasons. Sometimes we use religious claims to justify our actions, but these are most certainly human reasons, human interpretations of religious claims and human actions.


The responsibility for strife rests with humanity. To paraphrase a well-known slogan, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.


Indeed, most religious believers, certainly a Christian looking for empirical support for his interior convictions, could reasonably conclude from the misery of the present context and the long history of human strife that there might just be something to a religion that looks beyond human weakness for inspiration.
Certainly, in many cases the appeal to God as a restorer of divine balance, as the creator of a serene and charitable community, particularly in the Western political and legal systems, is the only thing that moderates nationalism, greed, vengeance, victor's justice and other examples of excess.


Similarly, there have been great crimes committed in the name of religion, but it is wild to claim, as some atheists have, that bad fruit fills the religion basket.
On the contrary, the gifts of Christianity alone to culture, Islam to early medicine, Roman Stoicism to philosophy and Judaism to the legal order are priceless. It is also impossible to think of anti-theist print journalists without the Gutenberg printing press invented by Christians to make mass copies of the Bible. Similarly, various atheists' positions as academics would be inconceivable if the Christian monastic tradition hadn't preserved ancient knowledge during the Dark Ages, then shared it again in newly created universities from the Middle Ages onwards.


Indeed, the only reason religion rejecters can tally the apparently long list of religious errors is because religious believers invented the intellectual disciplines and furnished the academic tools that are used today to attack religion. And it was a Christian, Pope Gregory XIII, who divided time into units - days, months and years - to tell monks and priests when to pray and atheists when to launch their books. Similarly, atheists too often forget that, while they're tallying the lists of death and destruction apparently wrought by believers, they'd better add the most egregious numbers, the most horrendous crimes - the Holocaust, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Stalin's famines, gulags and secret police - to the column reserved for totalitarian regimes of a decidedly anti-religious and often officially atheistic bent.


Competing universalising urges within various religions may throw up extremist Christians, militant Muslims and the kind of fanatical Jews who carried out the assassination of Yitzak Rabin, but none of these criminals, no fanatical movement in the eons of religious history, not even modern Islamofascism or the whole miserable chapter of the Crusades, has wreaked the sort of havoc the Jew and Christian-hating Nazi regime achieved in one brief decade.
On the contrary, time and time again religious faith has applied the brakes to monstrous human excess.


It is also true that no religious nation on earth, not even theocratic Shi'ite Iran, offends against basic human rights on the scale of officially atheist China.
It is a big leap then, a leap of blind faith perhaps, to look to selected examples of violence or chaos linked to religious believers and conclude that God doesn't exist or isn't great, that religion poisons everything or that those who believe in God are somehow deluded.


No, the responsibility for mass suffering, for warfare and violence, the secret to the strife humanity has always endured appears to rest within, God help us, the human heart.


John Heard is a Melbourne writer.
 
this thread is nothing but a slam against religious people in a forum designed to protect religious people from slams

shame on you Angel

for the plagiarism and for the attack

I don't see that the thread attacking atheists by quoting some extremist pro-God blogger without attribution as such was any different.

There really isn't that much to choose between ardent religious folk and ardent atheists. Both lack self-awareness and skepticism about their own subjective beliefs.

Clearly, forcing one view on children to the exclusion of others isn't a good thing. But neither is promoting one view, while also teaching others, necessarily a bad thing either. No need to pretend it's either black and white or more complicated than it need be.
 
Religion is not necessarily a bad thing as there are good moral values throughout many of the religions. The two most important values of Christianity are compassion and humility. Reckon people are not seeing these values portrayed today by Christians but those are Jesus' main themes in his teachings throughout his life. If you haven't guessed it, I was raised Christian (specifically Catholic). I think that instilling these themes into children is not a bad thing at all.

My parents made go to Church up until confirmation and then they decided if I wanted to go to Church anymore or not. Obviously homosexuality and Catholicism do not go together but I still believe in God and Jesus' teachings.

Religion only becomes bad when it's used as a weapon of destruction rather then a weapon of peace.
 
angel, I gave you a New Yorker review, not because I haven't read the book, but because I felt you needed a source other than myself on that issue -

JackFTwist - As you’ve read the book it’s not really necessary to quote from a review. Book reviews necessarily tend not to give a reasoned critique of points raised.

But can (as in this case) highlight some discordant notes (like mentioning that a person is a mammal) .

But - even if some advocates of an idea can be just as flawed as the rst of us - it does not mean that indoctrinating childern with any ideas (religious or otherwise) is a good thing.
 
The idea is that we are taught one thing as children, then, as adults, we learn (or unlearn) what we will.

The statement is from a rabbi, so he uses the term God (one God). You can substitute gods, or she for he, or etc. .

Txgoodoldboy

The evidence is that the vast majority of people stick with beliefs for the rest of their lives if they have been heavily indoctrinated with these as a child.

Some improbable beliefs (such as Santa Clause) – passed on in a less dogmatic way are discarded by people as adults.

So the “unlearning” process the Rabi talks about is not very reliable
 
this thread is ridiculous and unoriginal

the original idea comes from a man, christoper hitchens, who is known for his rather eccentric views ....its a a joke that it has gone on for this long...

here are some mainstream responses to mr hitchens book god is not great...

and note that I am not plegiarizing other peoples ideas as if they are my own

and another response to his vitriol and angst....
i could go on but i wont just yet

this thread is nothing but a slam against religious people in a forum designed to protect religious people from slams

shame on you Angel

for the plagiarism and for the attack


Actually the original quote for this question/thread is taken from professor Richard Dawkins and is fully acknowledged – so could not be reasonably described as plagerism.

Hitchins only came into the discussion in points raised later. I have not read his book mentioned – so can neither defend nor attack him (though he does seem to have made some statements even I think are rather odd).

The “no flame” rule relates to personal abuse – not to protecting particular ideas from criticism.

The issue of “forcing” ideas on children is quite distinct from informing them about religious ideas. It is also clearly different to any consideration of whether these ideas are “true” or not.

So I think your “shame on you” remark is not justified – however I would say that it is not very respectful to post a whole load of unrelated quotes and comments to a thread where these have no direct relevance to the question being discussed.
 
rellevance goes to what the root of the discussion is based on and that persons motives

source validity and perpective is a vital part of any discussion

go back and reread those... especially the last one

it is direct as to how it relates to the general theme of the thread and the validity of the basic arguements
 
Spensed2, what elements of those belief systems are subjective?

Those elements that can't be verified as being objective. I subcribe to the notion that there is a there out there beyond the individual. If the bus is going to hit you, your belief that it does or doesn't exist is irrelevant. To use the old cliche, if God exists, he doesn't need your vote and your belief or disbelief in him is irrelevant. Obviously, there are crossovers in that the perceiver is part of what he perceives, so that, to use another old example, if I die honestly but wrongly believing I'm the last man on earth, I'm wrong, but my subjective belief is, as far as I'm concerned, my objective reality. In any event, it's the crossover point that's relevant, not the particular example.

Science reveals objective truth through the scientific method, but it has its limitations. Not everything is known. Not all dimensions are known. Plus science has been wrong in the past.

Religion like poetry can reveals objective truths about human nature, maybe the nature of existence within its own metaphysical terms. That doesn't prove that God exists, but the resulting insights and beliefs are highly motivating to people and religious belief has its own reality in motivating people or enabling them, anecdotally at least, to survive longer in adverse circumstances.

I personally think that, in the ultimate scheme of things, when all that remains is a black hole or whatever, both science and religion will end up as inadequate to the task of explaining the nature of existence. But, in the meantime, I don't see the need to close the door on belief or disbelief.

I think kids should be brought up to understand that whether they believe in God or not is irrelevant to whether God exists or not. But I don't see why that shouldn't be done within the framework of one religion or of atheism provided there's also some understanding conveyed of what other folk believe in or not. They can then make up their own minds, or not.
 
Back
Top