Dawkins Choice: Abuse and Religion

You tell us. It is your recognition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A load of crap. Islam is completely intolerant of ALL other religions including it's own different sects as well as being the number one human rights abuser.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What, exactly, are you after?

That's not necessarily fair. You might, in your zeal, attack all Muslims as completely intolerant, but even the phenomenon you would exploit in order to support such a smear is dependent on history itself.

Something I post from time to time.

See also: #1595224/75.

Now, in that context Muhammad might have something to say about atheism, but there is a fair question of whether the notion of atheism would have made sense to him at all. The intolerance you refer to is a product of history, the fruit of socioeconomic and political challenges. Blaming Islam itself for common human processes—the distortion of philosophy and principles, the retreat to bigotry and violence—isn't about propriety and freedom, but rather your own retreat to bigotry and zeal. We might as well blame Jesus Christ for Torquemada or Creflo Dollar, and ignore the context in which such prigs come about.

If the atheist alleges enlightenment and a better way, then the atheist—just like the theist who would assert the same of their beliefs—really ought to demonstrate the fruits of that enlightenment. I confess, were I more religious and less sympathetic to the victims of redemptive monotheistic psychological blackmail, your attitudes would only affirm the righteousness of my beliefs. Such as it is, you run the risk of embarrassing your fellows and sympathizers.

Some believers might be afraid of Dawkins because they fear he is effective. But myopic, bigoted bluster and fury such as your blanket denunciation of something you clearly haven't given any better attention than your hatred is not effective; theists won't fear your efficacy, but rather your barbarism and the specter of threat that looms about you.
____________________

Notes:

Armstrong, Karen. Islam: A Short History. New York: Modern Library, 2000.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's hilarious. Where did I say anything about Muslims?

 

Don't hurt yourself

(A mighty swing and a miss. You'd think he had is eye on the right-field bleachers instead of the ball.)

Wow. Um ... let me think about it. You managed to miss the point so definitively, I confess I'm mildly flabbergasted.

 

Having fun?

I get the point. Again, where in that statement did I say anything about Muslims?

 

(chortle!)

(Swing and a miss, strike two. My goodness, he al-most hurt himself on that one.)

Okay, okay. Hint time, maybe?

Note the words "might" and "would".

 

I don't follow the doctrines of Dawkins, so you may not be addressing me or care what I think, but are there not any cases already of overzealous child welfare workers taking children from parents for all sorts of perceived abuses, some which may be trivial or completely political or moral in nature? You can say you're rescuing the child from "dangerous" relgious indoctrination, but at the same time, ironically, you're also imposing your own morality. My life of non-religion is better than your life of relgion.

This is a tricky subject. Relgious upbringings can be hazardous to a person psychologically, and sometimes this becomes dangerous to other people as well, given the circumstances.
I would think that most dangerous theological teachings and mindsets come from cultish groups, or isolated sects.
Unless these people are sequestered away and severely brainwashed into the type of controlling xenophobia that we sometimes see from cults, there probably isn't a huge threat to anyone.

People raised in strict religious homes still come into contact with the outside world. They leave the home, go to college, get jobs, interact with people, and this obviously causes the person to be exposed to different belief systems. So it's not like they don't get to a point where they can't choose for themselves. Some people will have a harder time deviating from the old way of thinking, whether out of fear, prudence, or just plain confusion.

The old saying "It takes a village to raise a child" is pretty wise and accurate, but it should ultimately be the PARENT who chooses the village, and not the other way around.
As much as I really dislike some people or their ideas or religious beliefs, I respect freedom of thought, religion and speech too much to allow a Nanny State to handpick the worthy guardians of children.

 

I realise now this thread is long and old and probably cold, but I can't help mentioning one abuse of children and adults as well that would fit into this, and it's the amount of families broken up because of drug convictions.

Don't get me wrong, drug use CAN be abuse and damaging to families and children, but sometimes arrests and sentences are well out of proportion to the crimes committed.
Case in point: a man (note: I saw this years ago on Public TV, probably Frontline, so my recall may be a little fuzzy) was growing marijuana for his own personal use (maybe he was also selling some to friends?) in a sub basement. I think he had some medical reasons for using it as well.
Anyhow, somehow he got caught. Committing murder? No, just growing pot. His wife got several years in prison for aiding and abetting this "monster", he himself I believe got literally decades, and the child went into foster care. He was deemed such a threat to his own child and society, that this monstrous pot grower got thrown in the slammer for a real long time. I sleep safer, mind you.

If that isn't an ideological abuse of children, then I guess I haven't seen one yet.

 

Are you trying to link drug offenses to an ideology?

 

It was getting slightly off-track, but I brought it up as a good example of the arbitrary and questionable reasons that are sometimes used to seize children from homes.

Marijuana use and/or growing marijuana is grounds for having you thrown in jail and your child into foster care (see example I gave in previous post), while having alcohol in the house is not, despite the latter's far more devastating track record. I would say that is an ideology, wouldn't you? A very strange and hypocritical one at that. Because someone uses a substance we don't approve of, they aren't fit to be parenting. There may be no conceivable or perceivable abuse in the home, other than the use of the substance which has been deemed immoral.

Sometimes abuse is in only in the eye of the beholder, and the individual is subject to whim of what the majority sees as offensive. Sodomy laws are also a good example of a subjective morality become law. One may consider it an abuse of children to have two parents or guardians who are of the same gender.

That's what I was getting at with the drug "offenses" comparison.
Previous post:

None of this is helped by the 1 strike you're out attitude that sometimes prevails with drug enforcement. People who could best be served in rehabilitation and counseling (if it is needed) are instead thrown into prison, and families broken up. Mandatory minimum sentencing has something to do with this.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/mandatorymin/

I don't equate every drug with dangerous or abusive behavior.

 

I think it's come to something when religion is forced down kids throats in schools, which has been my experience. As most people will tell you any faith they had was probably killed in junior school when, like I was, forced to sing hymns and pray or be detained at playtime. Some people complain about what schools don't teach. I'm quite happy for them not to teach anything but academic subjects. Parents, however, shouldn't be told what they can or can't teach their children, that smacks slightly of a fascist government telling the people how to live.

 

Where the HECK did you go to school?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

'As most people would tell you'???

Unless they went to a specifically religious school, I've never heard of people being forced to pray.