Pages

Showing posts with label child indoctrination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child indoctrination. Show all posts

Monday, June 01, 2009

DADDY GAVE ME HELL AND THERE SHOULD BE A LAW AGAINST IT!

source: Dave Haith, HASSNERS Bournemouth Meetups
also posted: http://www.meetup.com/HASSNERS/messages/boards/thread/6998530/#28034718

IF SOMEBODY threatened your children with eternal torture you’d call the police – right?

So why was there no help when it happened to me as a child?

Because those who did the threatening belonged to that all-respected, all-protected, all-hallowed bunch of villains – the Christian Church!

And they’re still doing it…to millions….. every day.

My case was even more shocking because it was my fundamentalist Christian parents who were making the frightening threats, for my father was a Pentecostal minister.

‘For God so loved the world’ he preached to me and the rest of his deluded congregation, ‘that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, SHOULD NOT PERISH but have everlasting life.’

There in that John 3.16. New Testament verse is the scary summary of their twisted belief.

In simple terms it means ‘believe this and you won’t miss out on eternal life’ or put another way ‘reject it and you’ll go to hell’.

And when they talked about hell, they meant fire and brimstone, demons with forked tails and torture for ever.

‘If you walk out of here today without asking Jesus into your heart’ my father and others like him thundered from the church pulpit, ‘you could get knocked down by a bus and go straight to hell.’

No surprise that this kid stuck up his hand for Jesus – I could almost feel the flames licking round my little legs!

It was only when I was older that I realised how stupid I’d been to get tricked by such dangerous spiritual blackmail.

And from then on I was angry and amazed.

Angry; because what they taught – and still teach from gospel pulpits around the world – was a sick threat to coerce innocents into their clutches.

Amazed; because so many apparently sensible people still believe in a God who punishes people who don’t believe.

Simple question: If you told your child something you couldn’t easily prove and he refused to believe it – what would you do? Smile and say: ‘Well one day he might see it my way’? Or maybe you’d chuckle and chortle: ‘That’s my kid, he knows his own mind, bless him’

That’s not the way our ‘loving heavenly father’ sees it, according to these crackpot Christians. Oh sure, they say, God gives you the free will to make up your mind what you believe.

Just one snag. If you don’t swallow his version, he’ll make sure you burn in hell! Some choice!

I’ll tell you straight, I decided at quite an early age that I didn’t want anything to do with any Godfather who tortured his children because they didn’t believe something.

If this was the action of a loving God – I opted for a ‘divorce’ right out of his family.

In later years I came to a deeper understanding of spirituality and moved closer to the concept of a cosmos where all survive death as a scientific inter-dimensional shift and not a reward for belief in some saviour God.

But this religious racism of ‘heaven for the chosen few’, has haunted me right up to and beyond the death of my parents – both wonderful, kind people despite their fascist faith.

I was there at their bedsides as both passed – my father was 100 years old.

But as both left this world, the heaven they longed for was tinged with tears.

They wept because their faith had taught them that they were saying goodbye to me -for ever.

I could never join them in ‘heaven’ you see, because I had committed the supreme sin – I dared to believe something different.

Worse still, in their fading eyes, I was doomed to eternal punishment.

Racial and sexual discrimination is now a criminal offence; there are laws too against intimidation with threats. So why don’t we legislate against these crazed Christians?

Let’s put an end to this religious tyranny of terror repeated on and on down the generations.

It’s time for a change.

Teach your children love – not fear.

Yours, Dave Haith


Creative Commons License
This work by crabsallover is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Johann Hari: Dear God, stop brainwashing children

source: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-dear-god-stop-brainwashing-children-1681008.html via http://richarddawkins.net/article,3825,n,n
HASSNERS.org highlights
HASSNERS.org comments

Worship is forced on 99 per cent of children without even asking what they think

Friday, 8 May 2009

Let us now put our hands together and pray. O God, we gather here today to ask you to free our schoolchildren from being forced to go through this charade every day. As you know, O Lord, because You see all, British law requires every schoolchild to participate in "an act of collective worship" every 24 hours. Irrespective of what the child thinks or believes, they are shepherded into a hall, silenced, and forced to pray – or pretend to.

If they refuse to bow their heads to You, they are punished. This happened to me, because I protested that there is no evidence whatsoever that You exist, and plenty of proof that shows the texts describing You are filled with falsehoods. When I pointed this out, I was told to stop being "blasphemous" and threatened with detention. "Shut up and pray," a teacher told me on one occasion. Are you proud, O Lord?

Forcing children to take part in religious worship every day is a law worthy of a theocracy, not a liberal democracy where 70 per cent of adults never attend a religious ceremony. That's why the Association of Teachers and Lecturers – one of the teachers' unions – has recently moved to ask the Government to stop forcing its members to take part in this practice.

Why does this anachronism persist in this blessedly irreligious country? For all their whining that they are "persecuted", the religious minority in Britain are in fact accorded remarkable privileges. They are given a bench-full of unelected positions in the legislature, protection from criticism in the law, and vast amounts of public money to indoctrinate children into their belief systems in every school in the land.

I can understand why the unelected, faltering religious institutions cling to this law so tightly. When it comes to "faith", if you don't get people young, you probably won't ever get them. Very few people are, as adults, persuaded of the idea that (say) a Messiah was born to a virgin and managed to bend the laws of physics, or that we should revere a man who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year-old girl.

You can usually only persuade people of this when they are very young – a time when their critical and rational faculties have not yet been developed – and hope it becomes a rock in their psychological make-up they dare not pull out.

But why do the rest of us allow this fervent 5 per cent of the population to force the rest of our kids to follow their superstitions? Parents can withdraw their children if they choose – but that often means separating the child in an embarrassing way from her friends and exposing them to criticisms from the school, so only 1 per cent do it. Most don't even know it is an option.

More importantly still, why is worship forced on 99 per cent of children without their own consent or even asking what they think? As the author Richard Dawkins has pointed out many times, there are no "Christian children" or "Muslim children". I was classed as "Christian" because my mother is vaguely culturally Christian, although at every opportunity I protested that I didn't believe any of it. Children are not born with these beliefs, as they are born with a particular pigmentation or height or eye colour. Indeed, if you watch children being taught about religion, you will see most of them instinctively laugh and ask perfectly sensible sceptical questions that are swatted away – or punished – by religious instructors.

I am genuinely surprised that no moderate religious people have, to my knowledge, joined the campaign to stop this compelled prayer. What pleasure or pride can you possibly feel in knowing that children are compelled to worship your God? Why are you silent?

The prayer-enforcers offer a few arguments in their defence. At first, they claim it instils "moral values" in children. The scientist Gregory S Paul produced a detailed study in 2005 to find out if rates of murder and rape went up as levels of religion went down. He found the exact opposite. On detailed international comparisons, the more religious a country is, the more likely you are to be stabbed or raped there. There isn't necessarily a causal relationship – but it blasts a bloody hole in this claim.

Of course, if you actually followed the morality explicitly commanded by the Bible, Torah and Koran, you would kill adulterers, gay people, apostates, and disobedient children and be sent to prison. Thankfully, the vast majority of religious believers long since decided to disregard much of "God's word", because it is manifestly appalling, and read it metaphorically. But you have to strip away an awful lot of the texts as metaphor before you get to a few bland lessons about being nice to each other. Can't we get the lessons about niceness from somewhere else, without the bogus metaphysics and endless injunctions to kill our friends?

Once the morality defence dissolves, the religious switch tack, and claim that children indoctrinated into religion perform better academically. As "proof", they point to the fact that faith schools perform somewhat better on league tables. It's true – but look a little deeper.

There have been two detailed studies of this, by the conservative think tank Civitas, and the Welsh Assembly. They found faith schools get better results for one simple reason: they use selection to cream off highly motivated children of the wealthy and weed out difficult, poor or unmotivated students who would require more work. Once you take into account their "better" intakes, faith schools actually underperform academically by 5 per cent (and that's before you factor in all the other problems they cause).

I am absolutely not saying that schools should teach children to be atheists. No. Schools should take no position on religion. They should be neutral, and equip children with the thinking skills – asking for evidence, and knowing how to analyse it rationally – that will enable them to make up their own minds, when they wish, beyond the school gates. How can a religious person object to that, without admitting that open-minded, evidence-seeking adults would see through their claims in a second?

And so, O Lord, I ask you – and the British Government – to set our children free, at last, from being forced to worship You. Amen – and hallelujah.

Comment here at The Independent.

j.hari@independent.co.uk


Saturday, November 29, 2008

Let's stick to the science

In his attack on my research into children and religious ideas, AC Grayling plays the psychologist and spins conspiracy theories

Last week at Cambridge University's Faraday Institute, I summarised some scientific research that leads me and many of my colleagues to argue that from childhood humans have a number of predispositions that incline them to believe in gods generally and perhaps a super-knowing, creator god in particular. Unlike Andrew Brown, AC Grayling has opted to ignore the science and focus on the alleged motivations of the scientist (me) and one of his sources of funding (the John Templeton Foundation). As a philosopher, Grayling should know that attacking an argument not on its merits but by discrediting the arguer commits the ad hominem fallacy which is generally the strategy of school kids and desperate, uninformed people.

More...

Do children believe because they're told to by adults?

The research is funded by the Templeton Foundation, an organisation keen to find, or to insert, religion into science and to promote belief in their compatibility – which, note, comes down to spending money on "showing" in the end that the beliefs of ancient goatherds are as good as modern physics.

Justin Barrett, a Christian and member of the centre's research team (whether it is research or propaganda is the moot question here) says with his colleagues on the centre's website:

Why is belief in supernatural beings so common? Because of the design of human minds. Human minds, under normal developmental conditions, have a strong receptivity to belief in gods, in the afterlife, in moral absolutes, and in other ideas commonly associated with 'religion' … In a real sense, religiousness is the natural state of affairs. Unbelief is relatively unusual and unnatural.

This claim was the subject of Barrett's lecture at Cambridge, in which he exhibited his reasons for thinking that children are innately disposed to believe in intelligent design/creationism and a supreme being. His real reasons for thinking this, of course, are that he is a man of faith funded by a faith-based organisation; but the reasons he professed were that children have an innate tendency when small to interpret what happens in the world to be the outcome of purposive agency.

(source: AC Grayling in The Guardian and reposted in HASSERS)

Out of the mouths of babes

Do children believe because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise.

Why do the majority of people – across cultures and throughout history – believe in gods?

One way to address this question is to look at why it is that children acquire beliefs in gods. If an idea cannot be easily learned by children then it is relatively unlikely to survive into the next generation and will die out. So if we can explain why children are so ready to believe in gods, we will be a big step closer in understanding religious beliefs more generally. It may seem that the answer is simple: indoctrination.

Children believe because their parents or other adults teach them, right? Unfortunately, the story is not that simple.
Fortunately, it is far more interesting.

Children will believe a lot of what their parents teach them, but not everything. Try to convince a child that a tarantula is harmless, that broccoli is a better food for them than crisps, or that Paul McCartney is a better musician than Miley Cyrus and you'll likely get nowhere. Likewise, teachers have difficulty teaching many scientific insights such as evolution by natural selection or that solid objects such as tables are composed almost entirely of space.

Children learn things that their minds are tuned to learn more readily than things that go against that natural tuning.

Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another.

• Children tend to see natural objects as designed or purposeful in ways that go beyond what their parents teach, as Deborah Kelemen has demonstrated. Rivers exist so that we can go fishing on them, and birds are here to look pretty.

• Children doubt that impersonal processes can create order or purpose. Studies with children show that they expect that someone not something is behind natural order. No wonder that Margaret Evans found that children younger than 10 favoured creationist accounts of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts even when their parents and teachers endorsed evolution. Authorities' testimony didn't carry enough weight to over-ride a natural tendency.

• Children know humans are not behind the order so the idea of a creating god (or gods) makes sense to them. Children just need adults to specify which one.

• Experimental evidence, including cross-cultural studies, suggests that three-year-olds attribute super, god-like qualities to lots of different beings. Super-power, super-knowledge and super-perception seem to be default assumptions. Children then have to learn that mother is fallible, and dad is not all powerful, and that people will die. So children may be particularly receptive to the idea of a super creator-god. It fits their predilections.

• Recent research by Paul Bloom, Jesse Bering, and Emma Cohen suggests that children may also be predisposed to believe in a soul that persists beyond death.

That belief comes so naturally to children may sound like an attack on religious belief (belief in gods is just leftover childishness) or a promotion of religious belief (God has implanted a seed for belief in children). What both sides should agree upon is the scientific evidence: certainly cultural inputs help fill in the details but children's minds are not a level playing field. They are tilted in the direction of belief.

Justin L Barrett will discuss his research today at the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion seminar, "Born Believers: the Naturalness of Childhood Theism" at St Edmund's College, University of Cambridge

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

threatening children with brutal torture







Please sign the 10 Downing Street petition

Repeatedly threatening children with brutal torture in the form of eternal damnation is psychological child abuse, and has extremely negative, long-term effects on their mental health. It's bullying, it's disgusting, and we need to put a stop to it.

We would not tolerate it if religion were not involved. Every year millions of children suffer nightmares, depression, chronic fear and the detrimental long term effects of being repeatedly threatened with torture. This is not a trivial issue, and it needs to be addressed. Religions in the UK routinely threaten and bully people of all ages in their attempts to evangelise. Religious schools describe the dreadful physical tortures that will be inflicted on children as young as 5 if they do not do as they are told, and believe what they are told. Street preachers threaten passers by with dreadful fates in the hope that they will be terrified into signing up. An atheist behaving like this would be arrested and fined, yet our society tolerates this behaviour from members of numerous religions as though it were perfectly acceptable.

We are calling on the Government to amend and clarify the law to stop this.

Please sign the petition and pass the word on.

The more we can publicise this issue and the Government's toleration of this abuse, the more likely an open debate is. Write to your MP asking why religious hatred is still being tolerated in a supposedly enlightened society.

More FAQ

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Mindfucking: A Critique of Mental Manipulation by Colin McGinn


Mindfucking
Publisher: Acumen Publishing Ltd (31 Mar 2008)
Synopsis
Being surrounded by bullshit is one thing. Having your mind fucked is quite another.
The former is irritating, but the latter is violating and intrusive (unless you give your consent). If someone manipulates your thoughts and emotions, messing with your head, you naturally feel resentment: he or she has distorted your perceptions, disturbed your feelings, maybe even usurped your self.
Mindfucking is a prevalent aspect of contemporary culture and the agent can range from an individual to a whole state, from personal mind games to wholesale propaganda.
In "Mindfucking", Colin McGinn investigates and clarifies this phenomenon, taking in the ancient Greeks, Shakespeare and modern techniques of thought control. McGinn assembles the conceptual components of this most complex of concepts - trust, deception, emotion, manipulation, false belief, vulnerability - and explores its very nature.
Is philosophy, as a discipline, a type of mindfuck, asks McGinn?
Is romantic love a species of mindfuck? The essence is psychological upheaval or disorientation, often abetted by the weaknesses of the victim. Jealousy, insecurity and prejudice can aid the mindfuck.

Delusion is the general result, sometimes insanity.

How mindfucked are you?
It's hard to say from the inside, but being aware of the phenomenon offers at least some protection.


Sunday, January 20, 2008

Forcing faith on children is abuse


The playwright makes a provocative case for parents not to impose their religion on their young.

reposted from: http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m12&SecId=12&AId=57237&ATypeId=1
Chris Street comments are in bright green;
highlights in yellow blockquotes.
Forcing faith on children is abuse
04/01/2008
By Julie Pascal


Why does my heart sink when I see a toddler with a dummy in her mouth dressed in the hijab? Or a small boy in peot and the hat of an 18th-century nobleman?
The Jesuits are famed for declaring that all they need is the first seven years of a child’s life to make him a Catholic for life.
Perhaps organised religion should carry a health warning and only be made available at 18 with the right to vote. Isn’t it child abuse to imprint religion and identity on an infant?


In our Western democracies, we say we believe in the freedom of the individual to make their own life choices but we allow parents to enforce their own dogma on their offspring.
Why not teach children about all religions, as well as secularism and humanism, and let them decide how they wish to identify when they become adults?


The 1989 Unicef convention on the Rights of The Child expressed the importance of “respect for the views of the child”, but
which son or daughter is ever consulted about which religion they wish to follow?
You get what your parents give you. Few of us are offered an enlightened education revealing the alternatives of healthy scepticism, secularism and atheism.
As a result of this, many British-born children live in isolated ghettoes and lead parallel lives which rarely overlap.

What rights does a Jewish or Muslim son have over circumcision? Why not offer it as an adult choice?

Similarly, if a child wishes to identify as Jew, bar and batmitzvah ceremonies can be initiation rights celebrated in young adulthood.

I am not negating religious study, rather suggesting how home and school could be really educational by revealing how religion has been used as a legal system codified to control human behaviour: diet, sexuality, marriage and divorce. Some people may choose to believe in a deity, in saviours and prophets, just as others choose to believe that the Earth is flat. But when children are shown the wider picture of all the major religions and not just the monotheistic, patriarchal ones, they have an increased chance of understanding the history of humanity, its cultures and complex systems of worship. By increasing debate and critical analysis, both at home and at school, there will be no domination of one religion over another.

The root of the problem is the total muddle of our British constitution. We are not citizens but subjects. The Queen is Defender of the Faith and her son wishes to become “Defender of the Faiths”.
Church and state are inextricably linked and, the way the law stands, to take organised religion out of schools is to take the Queen out of England.


France has partially got it right by banning religious symbols in schools. Certainly there was protest by many Muslim parents insisting that their daughters should wear the veil, but civil war did not break out and reluctant agreement was ultimately reached by all communities.
If French Muslims, Christians, Jews and Sikhs can accept a law which keeps veils, crosses, yarmulkas and turbans out of the classroom, why can’t we do the same?

Of course, France had a revolution which separated Church and state. We could have a quieter one to resolve the problem. This is not to say that religion is not taught at all in France. There are private Catholic, Jewish and Muslim schools, but at least the taxpayer is not paying for religious doctrine promulgated in state schools.

There is a fear here of state interference in religious matters. Multiculturalism, notions of “race” (a dangerous 19th-century concept still used in government tick boxes) and ethnicity are all jumbled up in a desire to offend nobody. And, because of this, even creationism has slipped into science lessons in some schools. The government needs to be braver around religious education.

Not that we should ignore the study of religious texts. Certainly it is important to read the Bible and the Koran to understand and discuss their influences on cultures, literature and world history. But we should access them as informed adults, not as impressionable children with no critical analysis.
We cannot take them literally and consider ourselves enlightened human beings. And I am not convinced that most British schools are examining these as poems and legal systems rooted in a history quite different from our own.

All children undergo a collective act of worship as determined by the 1996 Education Act. The non-elected Muslim Council of Britain says in its school guidance information pack: “It is not permissible for Muslims to actively participate in non-Islamic acts of worship.”

The same is true for Orthodox Jews. Separate prayers are the suggested way round, but this means that children are made aware of religious difference at the age of five.
How cruel to start endorsing difference and religious barriers so young and so well below the age of reason. If parents really care for their children, then allowing them to make an informed choice is the most valuable gift they can give.


Julia Pascal is a playwright

Monday, December 24, 2007

Something to believe in

Adam Rutherford

When the faith v atheism argument is an 'issue' in Ambridge, you know the debate has, quite literally, reached Middle England


reposted from: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/adam_rutherford/2007/12/something_to_believe_in.html
Chris Street comments are in bright green;
highlights in yellow blockquotes
Adam Rutherford

December 19, 2007 11:45 AM

On The Archers, poor Shula is rather worried because Alistair's curmudgeonly dad, Jim, is trying to indoctrinate his grandson Daniel into the atheistic dark arts. She anxiously consults Alan, Ambridge's kindly liberal vicar, who thinks it's all rather amusing, and nothing to fret about.



Retune the dial to Radio 2 and Richard Dawkins and Russell Brand discuss the nature of god, extraterrestrial life and spirituality. Brand's own haphazard beliefs comprise a mishmash of 12-step evangelising with a pinch of floaty eastern mysticism thrown in. No-nonsense Dawkins is unfazed by his vagueness and they get on famously. Brand offers to give the professor a hug. Afterwards, Brand's lackey unfairly compares Dawkins to Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss.

University Challenge, Monday night on BBC2. Jeremy Paxman asks Sheffield bonus questions to which the answers were: Sam Harris, AC Grayling and Christopher Hitchens. They get two out of three - they rather flatteringly offer Voltaire instead of Harris.

And so, at the end of 2007, atheism is mainstream. It's now so much part of the national conversation that it features as a storyline on The Archers.
Albeit a minor plot - Shula's unlikely acquisition of four (four!) turkeys forms the bulk of the current story. Alan, the vicar, is keen to engage with Jim's unwavering atheism and denial of a historical Jesus.

Now that everyone is talking about atheism, the real challenge is not Jim's mischievous plans for educating his grandson. I'm not interested in one-upmanship and hurling insults back and forth about sky pixies and Stalin (you know who you are, Cif regulars). It should be the responsibility of the faithless to make atheism an attractive option, compelling enough as a worldview that the undecided should choose to live life free of superstition.

The real challenge for 2008 is that of secularism. The secular achievement of 2007 has to be the government finally getting their act together and banishing the nonsense of intelligent design from UK science classrooms.
The US did the same in 2005, but don't think that this Christian fundamentalist smokescreen has gone away as a result of this legislative neutering. In Texas last month, statewide curriculum supervisor Chris Comer resigned, after forwarding an email about an upcoming talk from a scholar who traced the history of the ID movement and its creationist roots. And on Sunday the Observer reported the setting up of a UK creationist theme park somewhere in the Midlands. I love this line from Peter Jones, a trustee of the proposed park: "Today, all [youngsters] do is binge drink. We will be able to offer them an alternative."

Eh? What, exactly? An animatronic behemoth? Live action recreations of The Passion, that most gruesome of biblical yarns? Pass the alcopops, please. It's dead easy to ridicule such idiotic sentiments and daft ventures, but lord knows what to actually do in the face of such stupidity. Please, please go to the Natural History Museum instead, where you can find real truth and beauty.

UK schools are obliged to enact a daily act of worship; guidelines suggest a 50/50 split between Christianity and other religions. Schoolteacher friends tell me that in their school - in my home borough of Hackney - this is performed as a non-denominational token gesture to accede to the guidelines, and they only really do it properly when Ofsted inspectors are around. What a farce! State enforced non-specific gesture worship.
Which faiths are being appeased here? I don't know if this sentiment is felt in other schools, but surely this is a worthy starting place for revisiting and correcting the reasons for this waste of time.

It's great that we are all talking about atheism now. Thank you, Richard Dawkins, for getting that conversation into the mainstream. May it continue (or start, depending on your viewpoint) to be calm, constructive and reasoned.

And may it, crucially, engage with those of a faithful disposition, especially those who favour separation of church and state and view religion as a personal matter.
Mark 22:21 has Jesus saying "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".

I do hope Shula and Jim work out their differences in an amicable way too, despite his being quite a git. So in this festive season of pagan solstice rituals and a dash of "happy birthday dear Jesus", this atheist wishes goodwill to all people (apart from the poster who prayed for me to burn and/or rot in hell: thanks buddy, very Christian, but I'm not sure which is worse).

In 2008, let's take a leaf out of the vicar of Ambridge's book of modern Christianity and focus on a better, proper dialogue between atheists and the faithful to combat the problems of fundamentalism and the undue influence of religion over public life.


Thursday, December 20, 2007

Nick Clegg, leader Liberal Democrats says: 'I don't believe in God'

reposted from: http://www.suffolkhumanists.org.uk/node/580#comment_form
Chris Street comments are in bright green;
highlights in yellow blockquotes.
|

Nick CleggNick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats’ new leader, has defied political convention with a frank admission that he is an atheist.

During a round of media broadcasts on the morning after his election to the post, he was asked by one interviewer: “Do you believe in God?”

“No,” Mr Clegg answered simply, during an appearance on BBC Radio 5 Live.

Nick Clegg says: 'I don't believe in God' -Times Online.

However Mrs Clegg is a Catholic and their children are being brought up as Catholics. Will they reject religion more easily when they grow up, because their father has, or will the Catholicism be permanent?

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Is Religion Dangerous?


reposted from: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-religion-dangerous.html
Chris Street comments are in bright green;
highlights in yellow blockquotes.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007


Is Religion Dangerous?

I was at a conference yesterday with theologian Professor Keith Ward. He gave a talk based on his book Is Religion Dangerous? and then he and I had a debate. Here's one of the points I made.

Keith (whom I like v. much, by the way) takes the view that religion is not to blame for much (indeed, in the book he even says that it is not a cause of evil, and that it is not intolerant [the intolerant merely use it] - however, his actual view is bit more nuanced than that).

Many, including Keith, recommend religion for social engineering purposes. They claim that (i) it helps build a sense of community, (ii) it makes people happier and healthier, and (iii) it makes them better behaved.

Suppose it does. Even if it were useful in these ways, it seems to me there are nevertheless special dangers attaching to the use of religion as a tool.

Religion is immensely powerful and can behave in unpredictable ways. Take the young earth creationists back in the 60's. A tiny band of crackpots. Who would have predicted that this weird little belief system would, within the space of a half century or so, infect the minds of 100 million Americans, including smart, college educated people?
Had you made that prediction back then, people would have laughed. "That could never happen here!" they'd say. Yet it happened.

We have here an illustration of the gobsmacking power of religion to get even very smart people to believe palpably stupid things. We also have an illustration of its unpredictability.

Religion, it seems to me, is a bit like nuclear power. Immensely powerful and (arguably) useful. And, perhaps most of the time, it runs quite happily, doing not much harm.

But unless it is extremely carefully controlled and monitored, it can very quickly run out of control. Indeed, just as with nuclear power, you can predict the unpredicted. Somewhere along the line, something probably will go wrong, and when it does, you have an extremely toxic situation on your hands. A religious Chernobyl.


Is nuclear power safe, or dangerous? Perhaps it can be used safely, but that's not to deny that it is potentially hugely dangerous. The same, I'd suggest, is true of religion.

Keith Ward agreed with me, by the way.

Let's also not forget that only five of my lifetimes ago the Catholic Church was still garroting Europeans who failed to believe what the Pope told them. Yes, I know your local vicar seems like a nice chap, but we'd be wise to remember that our freedom from religious oppression and violence is a very recent development.
Currently, the UK Government is fostering, and in many cases, sponsoring a great many little religious nuclear power stations up and down the country. What has now become very apparent to me is how very little monitoring there is of what goes on in them. Basically, in the independent sector, they're self-monitored.

When I spoke about the potential dangers of faith schools on Radio 4's Today programme, a member of one of the Standing Advisory Comms. on Religious Education (SACRE) contacted me to say, "Thank goodness you're bringing this up." He regularly goes into schools and is horrified by what he sees. And he's a Christian.

If you're not worried about what's going on in some religious schools, you should be. Here's a brief excerpt from a Radio 4 interview with Ibrahim Lawson, head of an Islamic school:

IL: [t]he essential purpose of the Islamia school as with all Islamic schools is to inculcate profound religious belief in the children.
ER: You use the word "inculcate": does that mean you are in the business of indoctrination?
IL: I would say so, yes; I mean we are quite unashamed about that really…
ER: Does that mean that Islam is a given and is never challenged?
IL: That’s right…

Quoted in the BHA pamphlet "The Case for Secularism", pub. November 2007.

One of the key safeguards religious schools need to have in place is a critical culture. My own view is schools like Ibrahim Lawson's should no longer be tolerated, let alone be state funded.

Seems to me the UK Government is currently promoting the building of religious nuclear power stations up and down the country - many of them dodgy.

I'd be particularly interested to hear from teachers and others working in this field who have knowledge of the current system - perhaps they can reassure me? Or confirm my suspicions? Remember, I'm not saying all faith schools are dodgy.

For more of my views on faith schools, see my The War For Children's Minds.






Ron Murphy said...
It's pretty well establish that any faith: - has its own set of rules - these rules are not open to interpretation, except by a self serving elite. - these two conditions cause the faith to evolve over time to include all sorts of rules, and appropriate punishments for breaking them. - criticism is not tolerated (to varying degrees) - reason is not applicable Compare this with nuclear power. When a government is hell bent on promoting nuclear power, at the expense of issues such as cost and safety, then all the above might apply to nuclear power too, up to a point.
The limit of the comparison is that the last two conditions are not supposed to apply. It might appear, through political coercion, that criticism and reason are not tolerated, but in the long term they are applicable - the use of nuclear power isn't a faith position.
Though the misuse of nuclear power could be ultimately destructive, it's misuse is most likely to occur in the hands of extreme faith based ideologies - and I include the totalitarian atheistic as well as the theistic faiths. You can argue the toss about what type of democracy is best, but at least you are allowed to argue. Can you do that in a theocracy? If two theocracies clash on fundamentalist issues, and given they both believe in martyrdom, do you suppose a nuclear holocaust would be avoidable? So religion is more dangerous than nuclear power.

A new film, The Golden Compass, has been accused of promoting atheism to children.

reposted from: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/james_ball/2007/11/golden_delusions.html
Chris Street comments are in bright green;
highlights in yellow blockquotes.
James Ball

Golden delusions

A new film, The Golden Compass, has been accused of promoting atheism to children. But what's wrong with that?

November 27, 2007 3:00 PM | Printable version

The Golden Compass, the film of the first book in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, is released next week. The books recreate Milton's Paradise Lost with God as the great adversary: they accuse the (fictionalised) church of numerous crimes against humanity in the name of control.

These religious themes have been excised from the film as far as possible but religious groups in the US are still not happy. Bill Donahue, CEO of the Catholic League, has accused

the Golden Compass of being part of a "deceitful stealth campaign" to "sell the virtues of atheism". The Catholic League is urging Christians to boycott the movie.

Much as I would love to disagree, Donahue is right, though more as a result of simple marketing rather than some atheist conspiracy. The film has been toned down in order to reach a wider audience and so make more money. It will almost certainly encourage some parents to buy the books for their children.

With any luck, their kids will read them - and start asking some awkward questions.

The extent to which these books are genuinely anti-religious is debateable: God may be portrayed as a senile despot, but he is at least real. A truly atheist series would set about disproving him - but that would be far less entertaining. If we're counting the Golden Compass as anti-religious, fair enough: provided we remember it is offset by The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Lord of the Rings, and, well, the entire machinery of Christianity.

Children of religious parents are often indoctrinated into faith from birth. They are baptised - and baptism is irreversible - before they can give their consent, told Bible stories from earliest childhood as if they are unquestionable truth, and taken to church each week. Why should atheism wait until kids grow up before mounting a fightback?

Atheists and those of a religious bent can live and socialise together quite happily - we're lucky enough to live in a liberal and tolerant society. This does not mean we should pretend there are no ideological differences between us. Christianity and atheism cannot both be right. If the former is correct, atheists are doomed to hell; if the atheists are on the money, Christians are allowing an aeons-old lie to restrict their freedoms and choices in their one shot at life. The stakes are high.

Christians have a biblical duty to evangelise and spread the faith. This was once backed up with harsh punishment for heathens and apostates, but thankfully those days are over. Spreading the good word remains a worthy way for the faithful to spend their time, though.
If Christianity is allowed to convert the heathens, I think it only fair that the heathens are given a chance to fight their corner.

This need not be a bad thing for the Church. Having seen, chatted to, and even socialised with several evangelists, I believe faith is stronger for being challenged. If believers don't hear contradictory views, they have little reason to truly consider what they hold dear. This mature faith is all the better for this challenge: socialised Christianity often falters under a life crisis - the death of a relative, say, or the breakup of a marriage.

Christian groups need to decide what they really care about. Does a religion's worth come from "bums on seats" - the size of a congregation - or from the number of people who accept it "in their hearts"? Whether you're a believer or not, any religion that says the former is worth no-one's time.

So, why not stop protesting against anti-religious material? Instead of campaigning against a children's adventure film that has actively attempted to mollify Christian groups, let families go and see it: if the film echoes any of the book's promise, it should be an epic adventure. If that leads some children to read opinions which differ to your own, why worry?

There's no need to stop there. Christianity has almost everything going its way - culture and art for the last two millennia have been subject to its influence. It is in the home, it permeates society, and it recruits young. You can try to keep the flock faithful by silencing critics - or, failing that, petitioning the faithful to boycott their works. Alternatively, you can hone your own arguments, rally your evangelists, and spread the good word: and let your rivals do the same.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Stepen Law - talks about "The War for Children's Minds"


reposted from: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/09/interview-sbs-sydney.html

Stephen Law talks to an Australian journalist about his book "The War for Children's Minds"

http://www20.sbs.com.au/podcasting/media/audio/worldview_2007-09-17_1773.mp3

Law argues for a 'liberal' rather than an "authoritarian" approach to religious education.

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Religion and Child Abuse


reposted from RichardDawkins.net
Chris Street highlights in large bold and largest

by Innaiah Narisetti, Council for Secular Humanism

Thanks to ranjani for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=narisetti_27_4

Innaiah Narisetti is the chair of the Center for Inquiry/India. This article is excerpted from a paper that he will present at the Center for Inquiry's congress in China this coming October.

Over the years, the abuse of children has received substantial attention worldwide. The United Nations, through its member organizations such as UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), has focused on this issue, recognizing the worst forms of such abuse. These include child labor, in which an estimated 250 million children are engaged in some form due to the practice of slavery, bondage linked to family debts, or serfdom; as well as the forced recruitment and involvement of children in armed conflicts, child pornography and prostitution, and the production and trafficking of illicit drugs.

The International Labor Organization, the United Nations Children's Fund, and UNESCO hold regular discussions at various levels and organize international conventions. The UN has adopted a world declaration for the protection of children, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

The human rights of children and the standards to which all governments must aspire in realizing these rights for all children are most concisely and fully articulated in one international human-rights treaty: the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention is the most universally accepted human-rights instrument in history. It has been ratified by every country in the world except two: the United States and Somalia. It places children at center stage in the quest for the universal application of human rights. By ratifying this instrument, national governments have committed themselves to protecting and ensuring children's rights and have agreed to hold themselves accountable for this commitment before the international community.

While it is unfortunate that a powerful country such as the United States has yet to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN's efforts are salutary and place much-needed emphasis on improving the lives of children globally.

THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION

However, despite all the effort and rhetoric about protecting children and their rights, there is a severe shortcoming in the global campaign to protect children: the influence of religion and its continuing contribution to many forms of child abuse all around the world.

Such abuse begins with the involuntary involvement of children in religious practices from the time they are born. All religions, through ritual, preaching, and religious texts, seek to bring children into day-to-day religious practice. This gives holy books and scriptures, as well as those who teach them, an early grip on the developing minds of young people, leaving an indelible impression on them. In many cases, most notably in the Catholic Church, this forced and prolonged exposure of children to religious institutions has also been a key factor in the physical, mental, and sexual abuse of children by religious leaders.

This early grip is so strong that very few people, once grown, ever get an opportunity to change their minds, despite being exposed to science and rational thinking, or even other religious systems. Religious beliefs thrive by imposing themselves upon impressionable minds and gaining their blind adherence to certain dogmatic practices. In some ways, this lays the groundwork for sustained psychological abuse of young children by allowing adults the use of religion as a pretext for various other forms of abuse such as forcing them to fight in wars in the name of religion and ethnicity. During 2004, about 300,000 children served as soldiers in national armies, worldwide.

When it comes to the forced inculcation of religion and the resulting abuses of children in the name of religion, the UN, all of its affiliated organizations, and almost all national governments remain steadfastly silent.

THE UN'S RELUCTANCE

In one form or another, all religions violate the rights of children. Yet a body like the UN, which allows the Vatican to be represented among its member countries, is unaware of—or more likely—unable and unwilling to stand up to the Vatican regarding the religious abuse of children. There is significant pressure from the Vatican to pull back on or dilute any resolutions that point to religion as a cause of abuse or strife. Add to this the unwillingness of the UN to confront its member countries, especially those in the Muslim world, which can also exert a lot of pressure when it comes to issues related to the abuse of children by their religious schools (madrassas) where, for example, very young children are forced to memorize six thousand verses of the Qur'an, a process that involves both mental and physical abuse.

As a result, the UN and its affiliated agencies tend to focus on addressing just the symptoms rather than the root causes of some of the most insidious forms of child abuse. For example, while everyone speaks out against genital mutilation, UNICEF is unwilling to acknowledge and condemn it as a religious practice. Instead, it talks about educating communities and spends millions of dollars on medical kits to treat those children who have already been mutilated. By not forcefully pointing the finger at the real culprits—religious practices—the UN is not only missing a good opportunity to fix the problem at its source but also putting too small a bandage on a very deep wound.

GENDER DISCRIMINATION

Another area in which religions contribute to child abuse is through explicit and implicit gender discrimination that leads to unequal rights and opportunities between boys and girls and contributes to further abuses. While economic factors are also to blame, the roots of this inequity lie in religious and social mores. How can the UN hope to tackle the problem of child labor or a lack of educational opportunity among the children in 130 developing countries who are not in primary school, the majority of them being girls? In the Islamic world, some female students are allowed to attend certain madrassas. However, they are forced to learn in classrooms, or even buildings, separate from their male peers.

There is a global unwillingness to acknowledge that all religions use their educational institutions and programs, be they Sunday schools, madrassas, or Jewish or Hindu temples to indoctrinate children. Sometimes, this is in the guise of conveying good moral values, but, while it may be much more rigid and overt in, say, a madrassa, it is no less influential on young minds in a Christian Sunday school.

Ultimately, all such programs try to instill a belief in the superiority of one religion and inculcate an unquestioning faith in that system.

THE DEBATE MUST BEGIN!

Just as we all stand up against child marriage, because marriage is an institution meant for adults, and just as we do not let children participate in certain civic duties, such as voting, until they reach a certain age, the time has come to debate the participation of children in religious institutions. While some might see it as a matter better left to parents, the negative influence of religion and its subsequent contribution to child abuse from religious beliefs and practices requires us to ask whether organized religion is an institution that needs limits set on how early it should have access to children.

There is no doubt that this will be a controversial position. However, there is nothing to prevent the UN from organizing a world convention on the issue of the religious abuse of children, a forum where the pros and cons of childhood exposure to religion and its influence on children can be openly debated. The world body cannot remain silent on this vital issue just because it is a sensitive and difficult subject, even given its member nations and their religious interests. A convention like this would also be an opportunity for those who might want to argue for the benefits of the influence of religion on children, so the UN should not shy away from debate of the issue.

If such a convention clearly shows that religion contributes to child abuse globally, the UN must then take a clear stand on the issue of the forced involvement of children in religious practices; it must speak up for the rights of children and not the automatic right of parents and societies to pass on religious beliefs, and it must reexamine whether an organization like the Vatican should belong to the UN.

Until this happens, millions of children worldwide will continue to be abused in the name of religion, and the efforts made by the UN will continue to address the symptoms but not the disease.