Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
The Limits of Freedom
Share:
by levmyshkin | April 17, 2007 at 09:01 am
1021 views | 49 Recommendations | 26 comments
America is sick. From the obesity epidemic to a prevailing animosity towards intellectualism, our culture is hemorrhaging on mindless consumption fueled by blind faith.
When a significant enough portion of the population buys books like, "The Secret," in such quantity that they become breakout bestsellers, there is something deeply troubling, and deeply wrong, with the status quo.
The ills causing this unbalance can be traced back to extremism, and within that theme, the way we approach religion.
In a society where all issues are black or white, where moderation is seen as a sign of weakness, and where the the speed applied to a task is more important than the quality of the product that the task produces are meritorious traits, the system by which we learn and judge merit, by which we evaluate morality, and by which we formulate our ethics must change.
It is time to admit that the institution of religion is not the stalwart measure of these qualities that it has been made out to be, and is, as has been shown time and time again throughout human history, a terrible measuring stick with which to erect a set of social mores.
So it must be said. Religion in our country is a form of socially acceptable mental abuse when it comes to young people.
As it is formally defined in a clinical setting, mental abuse is: Anything that includes humiliation, harassment, and threats of punishment or deprivation.
Based on this definition, exposing children exclusively to any specific religion before they reach the age of maturity qualifies. Not that we should do away with holy places, or limit adults in their ability to worship.
But it should be against the law to force your children to attend a church of any faith and demand they worship, for the same reason certain films are rated in such a way as to prohibit impressionable minds from exposure. For the same reason products such as cigarettes and alcohol are limited to those who are fully aware of the ramifications and consequences.
We must give young people protective rights to refuse attendance until they are able to decide, as adults, what they will indulge in, believe in, and consume by way of things spiritual.
If it is a crime of physical abuse to force feed your child cheeseburgers all day long, why then, is it still not a crime of mental abuse to force feed them ideology?
To indoctrinate them with specious ideas and unproven hypothesis, to condition them to go through the world unquestioning, to not treasure their own life or the Earth or the amazing fact of our existence. To threaten them with a vision of endless suffering. To deprive them of love and affection if they refuse to believe as you do.
And this is the paramount crime causing the myriad social injustices before us today. We are lobotomizing our best and brightest young minds by putting their brains in the vice of faith before they have developed the tools of reason. If we don't radically change our approach to religion, if we don't actively work to dethrone its unassailable position, all other efforts to balance the social scales will ultimately fail, because ignorance begets ignorance.
When we lose our ability to question because faith has been placed above reason, as is happening today, we undermine our ability to evolve. In a world where the mechanism of physical evolution--survival of the fittest--has been circumvented by advances in technology and medicine, our evolution takes place in the realm of ideas and intellect.
And we have taken active steps to stifle that evolution, by attacking the foundation of science with dogma. In limiting our capacity to think, we have amputated our ability to explore the fortress of natural history by making it a crime to cross the threshold.
If we don't change, we will die, not from any malicious external force such as terrorism, but from the internal malignancy of our own stupidity. From our inability to keep pace with the evolution of ideas in the world around us. We will lose our country, and we will fade into history, forgotten.
In the eminent words of Steinbeck:
"This I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual."
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (26)
at 10:33 on April 17th, 2007
levmyshkin, you've convinced me you've done the work - it's authentic. I also think that you've been fair and thorough. I didn't get the sense that you were hiding your biases, or passing off other's work as your own. Or worse -- getting paid by those you cover -- so it's transparent and independent. I also think you deserve praise for being an eyewitness, and for your investigative efforts. Good stuff.
at 11:21 on April 17th, 2007
News Guy: Thanks. Indeed, though I can't claim to not have any influences, this is all independent work, and many of my points spring from personal experience and close observation on the way religion is handled in this country. The American approach to spirituality is a laziez faire, burn and conquer complex rooted firmly in material entitelement i.e. Manifest Destiny.
I think I should make it clear: I don't think all religion is a bad thing. We could learn a thing or two from Eastern disciplines. While I don't necessarily agree with all their conclusions on the state of reality, I respect their approach to the metaphysical, particularly Buddhism, which stresses peace and inner exploration.
This could well be part of a much larger multi-media series, looking into all the different social and political factors that have shaped the current state of religious fundamentalism in the US. From our foreign policy to the concentrated effort by right wing groups to place religious individuals at high places in the government. Roswell is a stalwart bastion of the Christian religion--in many ways a part of the Bible belt in the deep South--and it might be interesting to do some video interviews along with articles.
at 12:08 on April 17th, 2007
"...might be interesting to do some video interviews along with the articles."
Well, if you're gonna sling, you better bring it.
at 13:04 on April 17th, 2007
_______ "in our country is a form of socially acceptable mental abuse when it
comes to young people."
"As
it is formally defined in a clinical setting, mental abuse is:
Anything that includes humiliation, harassment, and threats of
punishment or deprivation."
Let's
play fill in the blank... remembering the definition...
How
about we call them "Institutions of Abuse"...
1.
Home
2.
School
3.
Work
4.
Religion
5.
Medicine
6.
"Government"
7.
Military
I
was reared in a Fundamentalist Religion. In discussions with others
I will often times refer to a large portion of my experience as
"spiritual rape".
So
Please, do not misconstrue my remarks as diminishing the enormous
impact "Religion" has in our society.
I
find it amusing when "the power structure" identifies
itself with judeo-christian ethics. Perhaps they are referring the
the horrors, not the social advances.
One
of my Favorite "Scriptural" concepts involves "Christ,
the Son of God, the Word made Flesh" explaining that "The
Law" was made to serve man. Man was Not made to Serve "The
Law".
So
anytime, anyone wishes to further ostracize an enormous portion of
society, and simultaneously grant further control to the nebulous
"Powers that Be"...
I
Take Great Pause....
Sincerely,
UNHHUH
at 13:26 on April 17th, 2007
Uh Huh,
I think you might have misconstrued the thrust of my argument. It's not to give The Powers That Be more power, it's to give the vulnerable and defenseless the power choose for themselves.
What Christ said in print is all well and good. It's a shame he's not listened to more often by the practitioners of his religion.
at 13:43 on April 17th, 2007
levmyshkin, this is good stuff.
at 13:55 on April 17th, 2007
Mtippett:
Thanks for the kudos. It's appreciated. Nice to know I'm not a lone voice in the wilderness here.
at 15:01 on April 17th, 2007
Seedplanter: I find it entirely despicable of you to use the Virginia Tech school shooting and the one South Korean perpetrator as representative of an entire culture, thereby inferring Asian peoples as a whole are incapable of peaceful resolution to conflict.
The leaps in logic used to go from:
A) Cho Seung-Hui
B) To stating an entire culture's philosophy as invalid
are stunning, to say the least. Harkening back to the article this comment thread is attached to, your poorly thought out blurb validifies all the points I made as to the damaging influence Western religion has on reason. How about this, Seed: Was the killer who bombed Oklahoma City, Tim McVeigh, a Christian? Yes, he was.
With a little thought, which I understand could be difficult, you might reach a startling conclusion: Sociopaths exist in every society, irrespective of religion, belief, philosophy, or family background. Not even the FBI has a standard profile for a school shooter--that's how rare, difficult, and mercurial that mindset is to pinpoint in professional circles.
I find it interesting as well that you hold the Japanese up, and Pearl Harbor specifically, as indicative of Eastern thought as a whole. If you look at any society in history, violence exists. The Chinese have a violent history; the Japanese have a violent history. Even the Tibetans, the poster children of peace, put up resistance, and had an underground insurgent force in their home country long after the Chinese occupation was a done deal, in an attempt to drive them out.
So even the heart of the Orient, where Buddhism evolved, is not immune to violence. It does however have a religion that isn't used to justify violence. The same can't be said for Christianity. The wars fought in the East had very little pretense of divine right, besides--oh, how convenient--the extremely brutal Japanese war in the 1930s, which was seen as a holy and just conflict due to the sanction of the emperor, who was supposedly directly descended of the gods. He was not a Buddhist figurehead.
Using the large canvas of war, which is not exclusive to any society, to invalidate an entire way of thinking is again, ignorant. The fact is, a devout Buddhist will not partake of war, or put up resistance in the face of violence. And here again, the same can't be said of most devout Christians.
The problem is not that we're losing our Christian values. The problem is that we've allowed our Christian values to usurp the most basic building blocks of reason, and ignore justice and humanity in the name of thinly veiled holy wars masquerading under the banner of Democracy, as in Iraq.
I have no religion. I am, as you so eloquently put it, a mere "Monkey Talker." Beautiful turn of phrase. Very mature.
But hey, I have an offer: I'll keep talking to my monkeys, and you talk to your god. I've got a hundred bucks that says my monkey figures out a way to communicate with me first.
at 18:02 on April 17th, 2007
Seeder: You aren't making much sense, so I don't know how to reply. Thanks for your comments.
at 07:07 on April 18th, 2007
Unfortunately animosity is taught by our "intellectuals", The schools and colleges teach kids to hate the religious and hate the gun owners and hate the military and hate nationalism and hate dumb rednecks and hate and hate. It's little wonder that kids can expand the hate to intellectualism.
Kids, they've been deprived of happiness. They count carbon units in fear of killing the world, Soccer is being turned into a breeding ground for the hate and fear that soon the Global Warming Hysteria is to be Global death.
To indoctrinate them with specious ideas and unproven hypothesiss, to condition them to go through the world unquestioning, to not treasure their own life or the Earth or the amazing fact of our existence. To threaten them with a vision of endless suffering. To deprive them of love and affection if they refuse to believe as you do.
Perhaps teaching the Knowledge that their life is without meaning. Perhaps teaching Cradle to grave philosophyy, that the government will meet all your needs. Not allowing for children to be children, instead conditioning them with every disaster that comes down the Scientists pike, isn't the best plan. I know teachers and professors, in my family even, and I know what's being taught to America's children - and its not happiness.
If you were unable to tell, I thought the article blamed Religion for more than it's fair share. I think you need to look further for culpable sources of the decline.
at 09:24 on April 18th, 2007
levmyshkin, I know this is probably a bit "me too", but I just wanted to make sure and let you know my appreciation for your work. Good stuff.
at 09:42 on April 18th, 2007
Levmyshkin,
I appreciate your call for an intellectual and reasoned approach to the dogmatic subtext of western (and particularly american) culture and politics. It is only reason that allows for the space and time for the discourse that is, as you pointed out, so sadly lacking. I would add though that their is a cautious faustian tale in the bargain we have made by relying entriely on reason - and that path has lead us to where we are in the west. Let us not in this objectivity lose the unreasonable part of our imaginations that allow us to see possibiliites of things to be other than they are. This is definitely good stuff and a great discussion.
at 09:44 on April 18th, 2007
How is it that you wish to give the vulnerable and defenseless the
power to choose for themselves?
By taking away rights? Perhaps the Feds should decide; when
and where all children should be educated, what they can be taught, what comprises ignorance...
You say "this is the paramount crime causing the myriad
social injustices before us today. We are lobotomizing our best and
brightest young minds by putting their brains in the vice of faith
before they have developed the tools of reason. If we don't radically
change our approach to religion, if we don't actively work to
dethrone its unassailable position, all other efforts to balance the
social scales will ultimately fail, because ignorance begets
ignorance."
As much as I loathe the judeo/christian religious experience that
I had, I find it hard to differentiate extremism of any type
from the bastardizations of elements of faith that are the focus of
this article.
I refer to the Seven Deadly Institutions of Abuse once again:
1.
Home
2.
School
3.
Work
4.
Religion
5.
Medicine
6.
"Government"
7.
Military
Sincerely, Unhhuh
at 11:22 on April 18th, 2007
Chaz: I tentatively agree with you. I think extremism on both sides of the coin is the biggest issue. The question must be asked: Why does the United States have such a black and white approach to just about everything it does?
I don't advocate teaching children that 'life has no meaning.' On the contrary. I simply believe they should be given an accurate historical representation of such basic facts as the Earth's age. Wherever they choose to find meaning, be it in spirituality or ambition or working to make the world a better place, should be up to them. They shouldn't be forced to find meaning in any given religion.
Where did I once say the government will take care of all your needs? I didn't. I however take issue with believing some pie in the sky diety will perform such a service as well.
Should we really 'teach,' happiness? That seems somewhat absurd to me. It's not something you can teach, in a holy book or otherwise.
Optic: Likewise, I appreciate that you're open to discourse on the subject. Many people seem to be offended that the subject is even broached, which doesn't make sense to me. Thanks for reading.
Markus: I'll take a 'me too' vote any day ;) Thanks.
Uh Huh: Your argument seems to be stuck on one track, and you're refusing to absorb what I'm saying. So I'm not going to continue arguing the issue. I'll say this in closing: Nowhere did I advocate the taking away of rights. I advocated the granting of rights to those who don't currently have them.
at 14:27 on April 18th, 2007
Where did I once say the government will take care of all your needs? I didn't. I however take issue with believing some pie in the sky deity will perform such a service as well.
At some point every kid discovers Santa was only for little kids, so what?
Teaching doom and gloom, isn't any better, than teaching happiness or self awareness. But the over kill when you take their play time like soccer and manipulate it into an indoctrination session surely sucks. I'd rather my kids be taught how to enjoy the competition of soccer than how to contort it into a lesson on an "unproven hypothesis"(Global warming) So many possibilities, suppose the Bird Flu kills half the population, will global warming continue? Did these scientists add it to their "model"? I read an article and those scientists seem just as sure the pandemic is coming. So the question is which "unproven hypothesis" should be taught?
Are dinosaurs extinct? Do they fly over head? I was taught they went extinct, then the other day I find that they must have survived since Science has linked proteins from dinosaurs to birds, I was taught an "unproven hypothesis" Guess they didn't all die?
Maybe schools need to require only reading writing and arithmetic.
Leave the rest to the parents discretion.
I don't believe you did say that government will take care of you, I'm pretty sure I said, that's the kind of thing being taught to children today. The point being that kids are Not taught to defend themselves(that's the teachers/Governments job). Their taught, the supplies they bring to school are community(government) property. There's more but you get it.
But it should be against the law to force your children to attend ... government schools? Global warming classes? sexual education? I just tossed a few ideas in place of "church" like you had. Your suggesting that the parents have no rights, the government should decide what the child learns? Tel me again why it is that I was going to have children?
Maybe to marrow the government will teach that intellectuals are the cause of our problems? It happened in China, the Cultural Revolution.
We certainly do have both ends of the spectrum, we also have a Constitution to keep the black and white view honest with the individuals rights, we need not do what's best for society, if it's harmful to the individuals rights.
at 17:31 on April 18th, 2007
Chez: No one tells their kids Santa is going to take them to heaven if they're good little boys and girls. Santa isn't an idiomatic lifestyle, requiring daily fealty, praise, worship, and prayer. So, nice try, but not quite.
Sure, soccer practice isn't the right place to teach kids about global warming. Can't say I opened up too many dialog sessions on evolution after a stimulating round of cone drills. Then again, I have been preached at plenty of times on the old field of scrimmage. Let me count the ways: Praise Jesus for this victory. Without God, I wouldn't have won this game. I'd like to thank my family, my Taco Bell soft taco, and God for bringing me to this point. And so on.
I'd rather my kids enjoy a simple game of soccer rather than be preached at--by anyone, from any side of the fence--as well. Alas, the world we live in is chock full of cause heads trying to drum their spurious ideas down your throat, so until you figure out a way to change human nature, that's not going away.
Now, where I really take issue with your argument is when you begin comparing the unproven hypothesis of god, who has absolutely no evidence corroborating his existence, to the well documented theory of evolution. Moreso, you seem to imply that the empiric process is a bad thing. That, since new scientific evidence is constantly coming to light, we should bury our heads in the sand and ignore the facts.
The fact is: Dinosaurs are still extinct. Some DNA present in birds might have come from the Tyrannosaurus Rex, but that doesn't mean T. Rex is going to spring out of a hole in the ground and begin ravaging citizens. Birds are still birds. A distinct evolutionary species. And if anything, it strengthens the point for my argument that proteins from dinosaurs HAVE been found in birds. Why are their protiens from dinosaurs in birds, if not because evolution?
Schools need to be ardently defended from the ever present zombies banging at the gates trying to institutionalize a single, solitary religion on a planet with hundreds of different outlooks on spirituality. Schools isn't a place to learn about things that have no basis in reality.
You seem to think teaching evolution is the same as teaching the bible, and there you're sadly mistaken. The codex of natural history, the incontrovertible fact that this place has been around for billions of years, the fossil record, can't be ignored by counting up the ages of everyone in the bible, chalking existence of fossils up to a trickster god who put things like dinosaur bones in the earth to test people's faith, and pretending the world is 12,000 years old.
In school, by teaching evolution and science, we're teaching children THE LIMITS OF WHAT WE KNOW AT THE TIME. Science builds on itself. Religion does not. It stays, for the most part, the same. This is why it took 500 years for the Catholic Church to pardon Galileo, after he said the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Things that have been proven to the best of our ability through the empiric process, that lovely rational machine that has allowed such things as that McDonalds Cheesburger you enjoy so much, or that internal combustion engine you drive without a thought, to exist.
Sorry, but god didn't have too much to do with the invention of the wheel.
Sure, the bird flu could wipe us all out. Is that a good reason to go on polluting the hell out of the planet and ignoring the clear and present danger of global warming? Are you kidding me? It's that kind of screw it all, who cares attitude that's the problem.
I didn't say parents have no rights, or should have no rights. I said children should have the right to choose not to be indoctrinated and brainwashed against their will. Big difference. Just like you don't teach a two-year-old advanced calculus because he can't understand it, and later in life, provide him the ability to elect out of math courses after a certain level of competency if it's not his thing, you shouldn't be taught religion before reason, and should have the rights, even as a child, to elect out of some dogmatic religion at any point.
"Their taught, the supplies they bring to school are community(government) property. There's more but you get it."
I'm not sure I do get it, please explain. I'd go so far as to say children aren't taught to defend themselves from religion.
I don't think the government is always right. I'm not great defender of government in all things. But you can get involved in a government. You can change things. We have a democratic institution, and any time you don't like it, you're free to get involved and bring about change in the way it operates.
No such freedom is offered in religion. The way you live, and the way it operates, are indelibly set down in a book that tells you exactly how to think, what to do, and how to interpret certain situations. That doesn't change. It doesn't matter how long you're the practitioner of a religion like Christianity, if you rewrite the bible, you're going to a place, according to that book, that isn't very comfortable. And therein is a huge, dramatic difference between the two that is impossible to ignore.
What's best for society is keeping a clear delineation between pipe dreams of a man in the clouds, and the here and now reality of our situation. Addressing problems that are happening now. Things that need to be done today, not in eternity on streets of gold. Traditionally, when faith prevails over reason, learning and the advancement of culture and progress screeches to a halt. Look no further than the Medieval times if you don't believe me.
Thanks for your comments, but really, apply some rational deconstructive thought to what you're saying. It doesn't make any sense.
at 19:43 on April 18th, 2007
No one tells their kids Santa is going to take them to heaven
Been a while since you were Seven huh. I remember it a little different, but then we were somewhat poor and in a big family.
Sure, soccer practice isn't the right place to teach kids about global warming
I don't remember any rousing hallelujahs before a game, though it makes a nice TV thing.
the world we live in is chock full of cause heads trying to drum their spurious ideas down your throat
I became the kids coach and they never had someone shoving crap down their throat, they had fun playing. But you want to shove your stuff down their throat in spite of what their parents want. Do kids belong to Hillary's Village?
issue with your argument is when you begin comparing the unproven hypothesis
I compared two Unproven HYPOTHESIS. Do you believe in a Government sponsored religion? You consider your religion and the (big bang God) to be the only God? Why that sounds down right pious. If you stop the diversity, which is the one thing that makes EVOLUTION SUCCESSFUL aren't you committing the greatest Sin of all. You'll be killing the very thing you worship.
Why are their proteins from dinosaurs in birds, if not because evolution?
The fact is I was taught that all dinosaurs perished, only now I find they sent some relatives to live with us. I'm not contesting evolution it may well be the holy grail. Forcing the teaching of half the truth, is as bad as forcing God on someone isn't it? Teach it as a theory, since that's what it is, teach Global Warming as a theory, teach God as a theory.
You seem to think teaching evolution is the same as teaching the bible
Your evolution puzzle is missing a few pieces also, Which ever is true is fine by me, I'm not debating the origin just the teaching and the idea that kids should be left to the "intellectuals" to educate. If you settle on one path, look at all the other possibilities you miss.
In school, by teaching evolution and science, we're teaching children THE LIMITS OF WHAT WE KNOW AT THE TIME. Science builds on itself. Religion does not. It stays, for the most part, the same. This is why it took 500 years for the Catholic Church to pardon Galileo, after he said the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Your right
Things that have been proven to the best of our ability through the empiric process, that lovely rational machine that has allowed such things as that McDonalds Cheesburger you enjoy so much, or that internal combustion engine you drive without a thought, to exist.
Sorry, I understand empirical evidence and reproducing results, and science is great, but it's not always "I'm a scientist and I say" it needs, to be proven. Besides I Won't eat a Mc Gagger burger(no proving what's in one), and I rebuilt the engine in my internal combustion vehicle, I know it doesn't have gremlins in it, even when it has problems. Didn't mean to burst your bubble here, but I'm actually mechanically inclined and like science, I took CHEM and COMP SCI.
Sorry, but god didn't have too much to do with the invention of the wheel.
I wasn't there so I'll have to deffer, to someone who was.
Sure, the bird flu could wipe us all out. Is that a good reason to go on polluting the hell out of the planet
You still didn't get it, If bird flue hits we don't need to fix anything, it won't be broke anymore(fewer cars). If Bird Flu doesn't hit then the scientist are full of sh*t on both counts(BirdFlu&GlobalWarming) and we never needed to fix it in the first place. Your slow for an evolutionary(Darwinist), does it take a million years for you to get a joke too?
I didn't say parents have no rights, or should have no rights. I said children should have the right to choose not to be indoctrinated and brainwashed against their will. Big difference.
I never like to ask or tell personal things to make the point but.... have you raised kids(make it rhetorical). Kids are a blank slate they don't know what they want to be taught, till you teach them, what they want to be taught.
Better arguments in some cases than in the original story, thanks for the thoughts, If you want everything numbered and filed, it's hard to make sense of disorganization. Life's not neat and tidy, and we got off the reservation a little, but we're still not finding common ground. I don't know how to explain it more simply than, if I can't teach my kids what I want, why have kids? It's about freedom.
at 13:18 on April 18th, 2007
levmyshkin, way to get people talking. Good stuff.
at 13:19 on April 18th, 2007
levmyshkin, this is fantastic. I love your argument here; it's so well put. Thank you for this.
at 13:47 on April 18th, 2007
I wholeheartedly agree with levmyshkins' sentiment...
However...
Am I alone in finding enormous contradictions between his solution,
and the conclusion of his original post quoting from Steinbeck,
For in "protecting the children" doesn't he equally freedom from the primary caregivers of the children, as well as interfering in the natural primordial relationship of parents and children?
Am I alone in believing that along with Religion, other Institutional Culprits bear Equal responsibility?
I agree that it is a good topic for discussion, I just don't find the argument THAT well thought out... no offense intended.
I don't claim to be a genius either...
UNHHUH
at 13:51 on April 18th, 2007
Jordan: Thanks. Getting people to talk is easy: A ball-peen hammer, a couple rolls of duct tape, an empty warehouse, and a cordless drill or two. You're in business. They'll sing like canaries. Getting people to talk intelligently...now. That's an entirely different issue. :)
Kaitlin: Thanks to you as well. I'm glad you appreciate the stance.
at 13:56 on April 18th, 2007
I enjoy it when people pick up their shitsticks and stir...
at 14:11 on April 18th, 2007
Uh huh: If you don't think the argument is cogent, post a well-thought rebuttal piece. I'm open to other viewpoints. If you think tampering with the rights of primary caregivers is a mistake, go into detail. Bring up some salient points in a seprate post, by all means. My argument centers on the idea that, at root, primary caregivers DON'T have unlimited rights. You can't physically abuse your child with free reign. And I don't think anyone would argue parents should be given free reign to physically abuse their children.
I also made a fairly clear case that in certain circumstances, forcing religion on your children is a form of mental abuse. So by the same logic, it shouldn't be allowed. However, if you don't think that's a decent viewpoint, like I said, write a piece rebutting my argument, and link to mine. Steer clear of quoting large swaths from my piece if you can, and instead, posit a thorough thesis of your own that countermands mine by its own merit. I'd be very interested to see what you come up with, and it could well turn into a series between the two of us.
I don't think religion alone bears the blame. However, I tried to stay on topic with my piece. It was about religion, not other institutional culprits. I'd be up to treating the various institutions in a series of successive articles as well, but each one will likely stay focused on any given insitution at a time.
at 17:08 on April 18th, 2007
No arguments with you over the definition of mental, spiritual or physical abuse...
I didn't particuarly enjoy the spiritual rape that i endured...
Hope to read more from you...
Oh yeah...
The moniker is u-n-h-h-u-h... not u-h-h-u-h
at 05:48 on April 20th, 2007
The paradox of your hypothesis
levmyshkin,
If you stop the diversity, which is the one thing that makes
EVOLUTION SUCCESSFUL, aren't you committing the greatest Sin of all?
You'll be killing the very thing you worship.
at 09:06 on April 20th, 2007
Again, Chaz, I don't advocate the limiting of diversity. I advocate the encouragement of everyone to believe what they will.
In regards to your previous comment: You can't teach your children to eat humans, or to go out and commit acts of wanton murder. Technically, you can, yes, but if your kid then goes out and commits such acts, you're the responsible party.
So I find it ridiculous that you say, "What point having kids if you can't teach them whatever you want?"
By giving children rights of refusal, we encourage diversity. As it stands right now, religion in the US doesn't encourage questioning. It ardently strives to maintain the status quo with little thought to what the status quo IS. In asking questions and exploring ideas, we achieve the greatest diversity possible. Be it in religion, or in government.
I see you're dead set to disagree with me, no matter how well or thoroughly I state my thesis. Obviously, what I said is getting to you. I worship nothing but, as Steinbeck said, the free inquiring mind. By drumming religion into your kid's head before he's old enough to think, you've done more harm to the cause of diversity than I will ever do by encouraging people to question--not just religion--but all facets of life in general.
Free thought and the ability to get past the bullshit, to form your own opinions on a rational basis, is the best gift any parent can give their child. By telling them what to think from a young age, and telling them they'll go to hell if they question what you've taught--or, horror of horrors, quit believing what you believe--you redact that gift by holding a billy club of guilt and fear over their head.
Wouldn't it be much more satisfying to see your child find a fulfilling, spiritual discipline on their own? One that doesn't cause them angst and grief and unhappiness. Be it Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam. Christians are all very outspoken about free will, but when it comes down to it, have the worst track record in regards to its implementation.
Thanks for your comments. Good luck.