The Philosophy of Childhood
Too many parents believe they own their children and can do anything they wish with them. Among Christian nationalist zealots this idea is extremely common and they make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims to justify their ownership of their children. The roots of their oftentimes belligerant attitude go all the way back to Greek philosophers. What of the rights of children? The following is published at the end of an encyclopedia entry in the Stanford Enclyclopedia of Philosophy. As the article points out the philosophy of childhood is a new academic field.
Aristotle regarded children as property of the father. On the ground that there can be no injustice “in the unqualified sense” towards what is one’s own, he reasoned that a father cannot be unjust to his own child. Until children reach their majority, according to Aristotle, they, like their father’s chattel, are, as it were, “part of himself,” and, since “no one chooses to hurt himself,” there can be “no injustice towards oneself” and hence no injustice committed by father toward a child. (Nicomachean Ethics 5.6, 1134b8-12) With our present-day awareness of child abuse, we may find these words hard to take seriously. Yet, in certain important respects, we have not moved all that far from the view Aristotle expresses.
Today even pets and farm animals have minimal legal protection against abuse. Children enjoy, at least in principle, much more extensive legal protection; and certainly enlightened people have become much more sensitive to the prevalence of child abuse, which they strongly condemn. Nevertheless, there are many respects in which, legally and morally, children are still treated today as the property of their parents. Thus, for example, a court may award the custody of a child whose mother has died to the child’s biological father, even though the child has never lived with him but has been taken care of by the mother’s life-in partner, whom she loves and regards as her father. In general, the “property” conception of children makes it hard to be sure that children will enjoy the protection against abuse they need, and the love and support they both need and deserve.
John Locke suggested that parents hold their children in custody from God, until their maturity. According to him, all parents are placed by the Law of Nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the Children they had begotten, not as their own Workmanship, but the Workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to who they were to be accountable for them. (Second Treatise of Government, sec. 56)
Locke added that the power “that Parents have over their Children, arises from that Duty which is incumbent on them to take care of their Offspring, during the imperfect state of Childhood.” (ibid., sec. 58)
The idea that one holds one’s children in custody from God might be a very attractive one in a society united by a common theology. But it seems to be of no general use in our own multi-cultural and largely secular society. On the other hand, if, like Plato, we thought of children as the property of the state, then parents could be thought of as having their children in custody for the state. But we are not, most of us, comfortable with that idea either. As it is, we can perhaps do little better than think of the society as having a legal and moral interest in protecting the welfare of its children – an interest that underlies and justifies legal protections against child abuse, as well as welfare measures that do something to promote their health and provide for their education. One might want to add, as I do, that a liberal society also has an interest in validating and protecting certain children’s rights. But how such a claim could be justified goes well beyond the scope of this paper.
Recent contributions to this discussion include Cohen (1980), which takes the position that children should have the same rights as adults even if, lacking the capacities needed to exercise a given right that adults have, they will need to borrow the capacities of others to exercise those rights. In contrast to the Cohen position, Purdy (1992) argues that affording equal rights to children would damage their own interests, as well as those of the society.
A useful introduction to the wide range of philosophical issues that concern children’s rights is to be found in Ladd (1996). See also Gross, 1977, Houlgate, 1980, Wringe, 1981, and Archard, 1993.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/childhood/
Note: This valuable resource could use a small donation to help them out.
HSLDA behind denial of service attacks
- Image by Getty Images via Daylife
The following news is popping up all over the Christian homeschool blog network. These people take pride in their ability to harass whatever government department or individual Farris sees as a target. Here is what one blogger wrote:
Michael Farris, HSLDA Chairman, asked the members to take action by calling the White House and their Congressional leaders, letting them know that they strongly oppose the “anti-family and anti-American treaty”. He also asked that calls be made to Ambassador Susan Rice’s office at the United Nations voicing these concerns.
A few hours after the initial E-lert from HSLDA, another email came through sharing this fantastic news: “The office of UN Ambassador Susan Rice has been inundated with calls! The first phone line we sent out has been completely shut down, and the voice mail system for all of their lines has been crashed.”
Dominionist zealot Farris has used the members of his lobbying group, HSLDA to harass state legislatures around the country and they fear him politically so they cave in when he launches a denial of service attack.
I believe in free speech and I believe in citizens talking to their government representatives, but this is just a bully acting out his power trip. There was absolutely nothing urgent about the activities Susan Rice was engaged in that a polite letter could not have communicated.
If you read the Christian home school blogs the level of bigotry and ignorance you encounter is breathtaking. Farris claims to have 80,000 members. I doubt if one percent of them could hold an intelligent phone conversation with Susan Rice if their life depended on it. But Demagogue Farris speaks to his lemmings in highly loaded emotional language and has all of them foaming at the mouth over the UN CRC ratification. Moreover, they are not calling to actually conduct business. The tactic is nothing more than intimidation.
Perhaps it is time to modify our phone system so that abuse like this cannot be aided by autodialers. Set some limits on the number of times a phone can be autodialed and spread the time out to several hours for each attempt.
Related articles by Zemanta
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Update) (dequalss.com)
Children’s Bill of Religious Rights.004
Preamble:
The right to commit to a faith practice or be free of religion is an extremely personal one with consequences that usually shape a persons entire life. Usurping this right is unethical no matter how well intentioned the motive. In a free society children should actually not require a bill of religious rights, but unfortunately many children around the world are burdened by oppressive religious hegemony. Until societies come to respect their children as persons with rights and not objects to be molded by religion, free people must work towards gaining all children their religious rights. If freedom means anything, it means the right to chose.
- Children have an ethical right to decide questions involving religious practice for themselves and until they are old enough to exercise this right no one can presume to impose a religious faith on them for the purpose of biasing or thwarting that right.
- Therefore, parents will not consign children to a specific religious faith, but instead will insure their children receive a well rounded education about all faiths including a parent’s own personal choice. Parents may explain why they were motivated to follow a certain faith and openly practice their faith.
- Children require education to help them lead constructive lives, make appropriate decisions and get along in society. Such education must be neutral and not associated with the practice of any religious faith. They must never be admonished that there are supernatural rewards and punishments for the way they lead their lives.
- The initiative to receive religious instruction and participate in religious activities must come from the child, sans coercion of any kind.
- Therefore, it follows that before embarking on religious activities children must demonstrate that they have reached the level of maturity that they are thinking like an adult, meaning as one important measure they can realize that life is full of options and each option they might choose can have positive effects and negative drawbacks. They are to use facts and reason to weigh the positives and negatives in making all of their life choices. Children begin to think like adults around 12 to 14 years of age, but there can be wide variation between individuals.
- Children can change their mind at anytime and opt out or modify a course of action if circumstances warrant a change. Only the unwise continue to carry out a plan that is not working just for the sake of constancy. There is no disgrace in changing one’s mind when new facts and understandings so warrant such a change.
- Other family members and friends must respect a child’s decision and not interfere.
Please add your comments and suggestions to the Forum topic instead of commenting below.
http://www.endhereditaryreligion.com/forum/topic.php?id=28
Richard says: Eliminating forced faith will strengthen families
- Image by thelastminute via Flickr
Forum participant says:
“It is impossible to live with people, be raised by people, love people, and not be influenced by them.”
+++++++
I agree with that and I don’t think I have said anything to the contrary. Influencing is one thing, a raw exercise in parental power is something else. If the reforms I am groping towards come about, I assert it can only help strengthen familial bonds. I say this because the parent child relationship will be built on a stronger foundation when it does not start off on an unethical basis. Parents who understand their children as persons and not modeling clay will treat them much differently. Children will have less reason to view their parents as despots.
A gay child should be totally comfortable announcing how they feel to their parents. A child who does not believe in god, should likewise have the confidence to say this to their devout parents and others. Or tell them they have a mysterious outbreak on their genitals that is painful or tell them that they think their girlfriend is pregnant. You get the idea. Openness. Honesty. Bonds of confidence are built on a basis of equality and mutual respect, not inequality.
I think this change can only come about once superstition and magical thinking are disposed of finally as inappropriate guides to living our lives and we begin to see children in a new light. They are individuals we share genes with, and possibly even personality traits. The important fact is that children have their own thoughts, ambitions, and desires that must be honored. Like the book I referenced earlier says: “Whose Childhood is This?
The adults I most admired and listened to as a child were the ones that admired and listened to me. Moreover, they demonstrated in word and deed the qualities that any good friend has. They were a patient sounding board that always stood ready to help me achieve a goal or explore alternatives with me. Nothing I said or did could shock them or make them reject me. There were no blasphemous questions my little mind could dream up that my mouth could not utter. There was nothing heretical I could possibly say that might offend the gods. That is freedom. Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
No relationship that starts out based on an unethical exercise in parental power is ever going to be as good as a relationship that starts out on a basis of fairness and honesty.
Richard says: Biblical justifications will not fly
- Cover of What Happens When We Die
A forum member asks:
What happens if the child dies before knowing God?
++++++++++
This justification for forcing religion on children is commonly offered as a knock down — end of discussion, type reply when we assert that only adults should make decisions about whether to adhere to a faith. Forcing faith on small intellectually vulnerable children is unethical because it destroys any chance they have of making an unbiased choice when they mature. The weakness in parents argument is that it is dead easy to find historical examples of faith practices that had to give way. Slavery, miscegenation, and the assignment of women to second class status are just three of many examples the faithful justified with their bible. Not to mention that we are a secular country, so religious justifications should hold absolutely no weight. Here is how I responded. Can you strengthen this approach?
__________________________________________________________________
I don’t know what happens and neither do you. You obviously have been taught to fear there might be dire consequences. However, you have absolutely no basis for being fearful other than faith in ancient texts, dictatorial clergy and group pressure to believe what is in those texts. No person on our planet *knows* what happens when we die. Yet billions of people are walking around confidently telling us that they know such things. There is absolutely no obvious way of *knowing* the answer to this question — if there was, we would not still be asking it. Once we derive a satisfactory answer to a question we drop it in the “solved” box and move on. Obviously, the question is still very much alive so *no one* has an answer.
I can offer my conjecture, and the difference is I am willing to call it conjecture. Nothing happens. Medical science knows exactly what happens to our bodies. If given time, our brain systematically shuts down our individual organs, and finally that includes the one we think with. You lose awareness and never awaken. The grand adventure of life on earth is over for us. These profound thoughts are offered by Richard Dawkins:
“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.”
The difference between you and I is that I don’t make crucial life decisions based on what cannot possibly be known. I reserve a special wariness towards people or institutions that have agendas and that implore me to believe what they claim is the truth. Psychological control mechanisms such as fear, guilt and wishful thinking are easily detected. I refuse to live my life driven by the fears, guilt and hopes of others. While we are at it, you don’t *know* god. I am always suspicious of this claim. Tell us please exactly what you mean by this.
Might this be the same indecisive god that centuries ago informed his Catholic followers that unbaptized babies don’t go to heaven? Then finally changed his mind and recently said: “hold up on this, I have new instructions”. Who can count the number of parents in years past who wailed and wept for their unfortunate sinful infants.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/20/limbo-in-limbo.html
What Happens When We Die
http://www.amazon.com/What-Happens-When-Die-Groundbreaking/dp/1401907105/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
24 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars A Great Book , April 6, 2006
By Jennifer Riley “jennifer” (Boston, USA) – See all my reviews
I would thoroughly recommend this book to anyone who has ever thought about the ultimate question of what happens when we die… Especially those who want answers based upon the objectivity of science.
Ever since he was a medical student, Parnia MD, PhD was fascinated by what it is that makes us all unique as individuals, in other words what is the relation between the mind and the brain? Later he was touched by the experience of seeing his patients’ die and was left with the question of what happens to the human mind and consciousness at the end of life? Disappointed that science had not seriously tried to study this question, he developed a scientific model i.e. cardiac arrest and started research into this field. This was almost 10 years ago…
- Image by HA! Designs – artbyheather via Flickr
Forum member writes:
Richard, you would like us to believe that some of the “infanticide, murder, rape, slavery, sexual abuse and abandonment” of children that has occurred throughout history is the result of Christianity.
+++++++
I thought I drew the distinction that the historic practice of Christianity using the bible as guidance certainly did not work powerfully against these practices, and still doesn’t, so far as we can observe. The academic study of child welfare in history by Nick Frost contains a limited number of pages and even so you will find many references to church authorities (Cardinals and other church authorities offering advice for the most part). Most of the advice was counterproductive to the welfare interests of children and self serving on the part of religion. A search for the bible or “cardinal” will turn up many references.
As much as anything children in history lived a nightmare existence, if they even survived, because of superstition and ignorance. Much of the superstition was the result of organized religion just as it is today. Search the anthology for references to possession, devils, demons, and the like. The one remedy humans hit upon that destroys superstition is the scientific method and right now, today, the superstitious are fighting reason with a passion. Did you read any of the document?
With reference to the biblical quote: Suffer the children to come…. one section of the Frost anthology (p. 36) specifically mentions this, but has a different interpretation. It is usually represented as a way to present Jesus as a champion of children and is meant to enhance his standing. The alternate interpretation is that this is Jesus laying on his hands to perform an exorcism because children were all thought to be naturally wicked. Exorcism was a common Near Eastern practice according to the reference.
In modern times the dogma of original sin is going strong and has a vocal and wealthy supporter in James Dobson. He is probably responsible for more child abuse cases in the United States than any other single person. Just a wild guess reading what he writes and based on the fact that he earns tens of millions of dollars each year on his book sales. Devoted followers believe his evil theories and defend him against all comers. He was a confidant of George W. Bush. Dobson is not alone and the prospect of the U S Senate ratifying the UN Convention on the rights of the Child has the right livid at the thought of state laws finally putting an end to their child battering.
On the subject of defining a Christian I believe your definition is commonly expressed but very broad. I have a lot of problems with the way the various sects go about *being* Christian and the disparity really is another argument for atheism. Surely, an all powerful supernatural being could have inspired holy texts clear enough that everyone would sign up to the same creed. But that didn’t happen, obviously. It might help if more Christians spoke to their fellow Christians about their behavior. For example:
On March 27, 2009, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor of Britain told the BBC that atheists are not “fully human.” This created an uproar in Britain. Then, on May 21, 2009, at the induction of his successor, he called atheism “the greatest of evils.” He continued by blaming all wars on atheists. Murphy-O’Connor is the leading Roman Catholic official in Great Britain. This is really nothing new. In one of his radio addresses aimed at children Pope John Paul told them he was saddened that some people rejected Jesus. Sorry, but we have a perfect right to our non-belief and it does not make us inferior in any way.
Here is the Cardinal speaking:
“If you leave out God, then you’re not fully human because you’re not fully human if you leave out God”. -Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Conner
Nothing like tautologies to prove how well you understand logical thinking.
A Christian? Where were all the Christians that could have jumped up and protested? I don’t find the Pope leading that pack. Did anyone on this list send a comment to the BBC, Guardian, or The Independent? Silence equals consent.
Richard says: The connection between religion and child abuse
- Image by Getty Images via Daylife
You actually believe that don’t you? Wow, now it seems as though the whole history of the human race is a sad tale of permanently damaged children. I don’t know how you sleep at night.
+++++++++
Actually, I don’t sleep so well at night and I obviously have not researched the entire history of the human race but you have brought up an important point. What historians tell us about the lives of children past takes a strong stomach to digest. It is a tale of almost casual acceptance of infanticide, murder, rape, slavery, sexual abuse and abandonment. Was this a result of religion? Certainly as far as Christianity goes some of it definitely was and remains so today. The proximate cause: the insidious dogma of original sin and the idea that babies are corrupt the moment they leave their mothers womb. Christian apologists skip over the toxic portions of their bible and vigorously try to downplay them, but original sin is a defining feature of most Christian sects.
Why not redact the bible to get rid of this doctrine? Simply because you cannot eliminate this doctrine and still wind up with Christianity, for many sects. You have to have the fall to make any sense of Jesus, not to mention to explain a womans pain in childbirth. As far as the rest of the toxic verses in the bible, it seems the least Christians could do is add marginalia to call attention to the inappropriateness of these verses. For example, the advice to batter and stone children. That would be a good start. I’ll believe Christians are responsible moral people when they stop shuffling their feet and do something about one of the most horrific books in our libraries. I leave you to ponder: redact or add marginalia?
Today progressive forces are working around the world to put an end to child battering. Who opposes this? In the main, Christians. And please don’t shuck this off on “bad” Christians. The reason parents (and teachers in 20 states) batter their children so freely is contained in the bible which is the common source of guidance for all believers in Christianity. Given holy direction means some parents batter their children with absolutely no sense of guilt, indeed some are proud to announce they are following their Lord. Ruthless twisted people like James Dobson must share the blame.
If religion is to be regarded as such a positive force in human lives, and if our holy books offer the best moral guidance humanity can conceive of, and if these holy books have been around for centuries, why was wanton cruelty extensively visited on children in the past? Historically, religion was far more prevalent as a means of social control than it is now. I mean, if you were so incautious as to say you did not believe, the establishment would cook your a**. Priests carefully attended to those who did not show up on Sundays (maybe they still do). Given these facts, why didn’t the holy books exert the beneficial power modern adherents extravagantly claim for them now? Indeed, examine the world around us today and you will see children pressed into military service, abandoned on the streets, sold into slavery, sexually abused, and murdered with impunity. In the midst of golden temples to religion stocked to the rafters with holy books.
Nick Frost, a professor at Leeds University has chronicled the history of child welfare in his seminal anthology, Child Welfare, Historical Perspectives, portions of which are available on line through Google Books (according to Amazon books, this tome is cited by over 100 other works):
http://www.amazon.com/Child-Welfare-Nick-Frost/dp/book-citations/0415250889
I would guess that most modern people are shocked reading this book and find the facts documented by Nick Frost hard to believe. I have no problem believing what his anthology relates and there is ample evidence the scholarship is well substantiated.
Just last month the Ryan Commission in Ireland released their report. Anyone with a heart is horrified by the details provided in this report. How such despicable treatment of vulnerable children could exist for decades in Catholic institutions should make us all stop and demand some answers. The horrors meted out by Irish Catholic institutions bears witness to what happens when a system has power over people and that system is not answerable to those people. Moreover, when that powerful system refuses to hear the cries of children. Bad Christians? No, I say bad systems. There is undeniable evidence the children tried to escape and tried to get help. Their cries were ignored. Why? Will some practicing Christian please tell me why the cries of the children were ignored? What systemic problem in religion allowed this to happen in modern times.
Here is a taped session of a victim responding to the the Ryan Commission:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4
(Read the comments viewers left, this video segment is powerful and some say it may even result in all the Catholic orders in Ireland having their bank accounts frozen.)
Will Kott did the transcript and has this to say:
“A question is asked about the Ryan Commission report on child abuse within institutions run by the religious orders in Ireland. After the panel had spoken the questioner responded and his response…well see for yourself.
Just a note, but my apologies for the ragged nature of the end of the piece. Editing wasn’t very good with the late hour. You can read a transcript here.”
http://willknott.ie/2009/05/26/michael-obrien-transcript/
I love Canadian kids!
- Image via Wikipedia
Opposition to controversial bill voiced on Facebook
By Don Braid, Calgary HeraldJune 2, 2009Comments (4)
http://www.chtv.com/ch/chcanews/story.html?id=1654207
A Facebook group called Students Against Bill 44 had just over 100 members last week.
By Monday evening, as final debate on the human rights amendments was about to start, more than 2,000 people had joined.
Right below that group, Facebook listed another called Students FOR Bill 44.
It had fewer than 35 members.
That’s the way this debate has gone for the government; straight downhill.
It began with a casual political horsetrade within the Tory caucus. Moderate MLAs got two little ponies–enshrinement of gay rights, and retention of strictures against hate speech.
In return, the conservative side of the caucus was handed a runaway horse called parental rights.
Similar to existing provisions in the School Act, it allows parents to withdraw children from classes about religion, human sexuality, and sexual orientation.
At first the Tories brushed off discontent from teachers, gays and opposition politicians. The fuss was a useful counter to charges that the party has moved too far left.
But the initial unease quickly became a genuine uproar.
Surprising coalitions formed. There was rare ugreement among teachers, parents’ councils, the opposition, school boards and human rights groups.
Even people who at first didn’t think the impacts would be serious (including me) had to rethink the issue. Dissent as fierce at this, from people so knowledgeable, is seldom entirely wrong-headed or political.
The opponents made some excellent points about the bill opening the school system to endless complaints and legal challenges.
As if to prove the point, right-wing advocates suggested they would do exactly that.
One said the bill didn’t go nearly far enough because parents, not legislators, should decide what classes their kids should attend in the public schools.
Bill 44 probably still has the support of most voters who back the Tories. As one strategist said, how many conservative-leaning parents are going to argue against parents’ rights?
But the Tories missed a few ominous twists, including the feelings of students themselves.
As the Facebook site shows, they don’t necessarily want their parents telling them what they may learn and not learn.
In fact, they turn out to be far more interested in students’ rights than parents’ rights.
OneUof A student wrote: “This is ridiculous. What about letting children grow up into being their own people? . . . Down with this bill.”
Another said, “This is absolutely stupid. Just because you may not agree with something being taught, who are you to stop your child from forming their own opinion of it?”
Related articles by Zemanta
- Bill 44 passes in Alberta legislature (calgaryherald.com)
Why do outsiders think they have a right to impose their non-beliefs on believing parents?
- Image by clemente via Flickr
This question comes up frequently on a forum I initiated with the following question:
Why do parents believe they have the right to force religion on their children?
I guess my standard answer has not sufficed, so I’ll try harder. First my standard answer:
Beliefs are not easily imposed on adults.
I’ll elaborate. A belief is a concept or idea that is held without evidence, without facts. Hense, religious people make a virtue of beliefs. A belief is synonymous with an opinion. As long as adults are just exchanging opinions, not much is going to change. Opinions have no force, no weight, they lack the ability to sway people’s minds. If a person thinks their belief will not withstand challenge, isn’t that an important clue that the belief actually needs to be challenged? Where is it written in the constitution that citizens cannot challenge each other. I’ve never seen this anywhere and in fact the foundation of our democracy was healthy debate. Our founders engaged in the most raucous rambunctious debate you can imagine.
I think the point you may be reaching for is why should atheists challenge parents over the way they raise their children. My rejoinder is why shouldn’t we if we think it is wrong? If your family lives on an isolated island and you are the only family, then what you do to your children only effects you and the children. You don’t live on an isolated island, do you? We may regret what is happening to such an isolated family’s children, but it doesn’t really effect us.
Whatever gives you the idea that others in your community are “outsiders”, as you put it. This “us – them” attitude is fostered by religious groups as a way to solidify support and loyalty. But, it divides us and sets one group against another. Yet another valid reason to challenge believers, so far as I can see.
We humans are social animals and we all depend upon each other unless we are hermits. Don’t we look askance at hermits? Are they not considered anti-social, strange, even threatening?
When I encounter parents here who are really defensive, and many take this to the point of belligerence, it tells me I am listening to someone who is not so confident in what they are doing or they would not overreact. People who are secure in their convictions do not react defensively when challenged because they have carefully thought about their world view and can usually present it calmly and clearly.
People know I am an atheist, I make no secret of this. However, the fact that I am an atheist is immaterial to the question. There are theists who understand and appreciate the ethical question involved. Accordingly, they also oppose indoctrination of vulnerable children. Which, opposition I think, is actually your concern. Am I understanding you? Likewise, many theists support the separation of church and state. It is really not a question of believer versus non-believer.
If parents are raising their children in their faith so that the faith can continue, then they are using their children as instruments and we in the West decided long ago that it is unethical for a person to use another person to satisfy their own desires. It would be like raising a child specifically to be a field hand on your farm or to be a soldier to protect your country’s borders. Hitler was reviled for developing an extensive government program that subsidized German women to be baby factories so he could have soldiers for his army.
A final thought. Can you appreciate the fact that everyone can be thought of as an “outsider” to someone else. We have to get past this kind of divisive thinking if we are going to build healthy happy communities.
Related articles by Zemanta
- An insightful personal narrative of an apostate (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Liars for Jesus (endhereditaryreligion.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=09b4fb7d-80fa-4a1d-a682-abff1501456b)
