- Image via Wikipedia
For centuries parents have been persuaded to consign their children to their personal faith because they believed the marketing pitch that raising their children in their faith was necessary. Leaving aside the purported benefits of moral training, the goal was to provide a guaranteed shot at heaven. Prior to Ignatius Loyola there didn’t seem to be any concentrated effort to groom children. Perhaps they were just assumed to follow their parents into heaven because in the middle ages children were actually considered to be part of their parents. Supposedly the path to hell was likewise the kids destiny depending on where the parents wound up. That would be interesting to research. Questions like this are what makes dogma so absurd and full of contradictions and inconsistencies.
Opinion makers working for marketers serving religious institutions, long ago learned that families with children make the best financial supporters. They are more apt to be faithful in their attendance and generous with their wallets. After all, what parent is going to be a cheapskate when the goal is eternal salvation of their children? They must think of it as an investment.
If this sounds cynical, it is because it is cynical, but the cynicism is on the part of the institutions who manipulate parents. Promises of eternal life are without any kind of substantiation. No one knows what happens when you die and anyone who says they know is either deluded or a liar. Don’t let them near your money.
Mormons carry this family togetherness thing to ridiculous lengths going so far as posthumous baptism. They hold “sealing” ceremonies for dead family members they have never met or known. Such family members are simply an entry in a genealogy record and many had extremely brief lives in the old days. Nonetheless, they get a shot at heaven they might otherwise not have had.
When challenged over the act of grooming their children, the Christians seem to believe they have an ironclad argument. To wit: I am simply insuring my child is eligible for salvation and we intend to keep the family intact after death. If the children were not raised in the faith of their parents who knows how they might end up in heaven or if they would even be saved. Suppose the child wants to be a Buddhist? How do you explain that to the grandparents?
On the surface all this concern with salvation sounds noble enough, but on closer inspection, the argument fails because the parents are using religious dogma about salvation to support a temporal scheme that has temporal ramifications. In our law you cannot justify harmful personal actions based on theology, no matter the motive. If you stop and think about this the reason why becomes abundantly clear. The most serious temporal ramification can be a lifetime of mental stress and anxiety that is directly the result of the fear mongering and guilt heaped on children. Christine O’Donnell and her amusing, but sad concepts about masturbation is a bizarre manifestation of sexual ignorance combined with guilt resulting from her Christian upbringing.
Suppose parents have a child that is gravely ill with an incurable illness. They are heartbroken that the child is going to die so they decide to put them out of their misery and hide the body. The fact they attempt to cover up the crime is an admission they know what they did was a crime. Yet when the crime is discovered and they are hauled into court they defend themselves claiming they wanted to send the child to a better place, heaven. Many of their co-religionists might agree they acted humanely and in the child’s best interests. Does the court agree?
No, most assuredly not. The parents may get a lenient sentence, but they will do some time. Their defense fails because religious dogma has no place in a court of law. Likewise, consigning non consenting immature children to a program of religious child grooming that has risks to their mental health should fail for the same reason a mercy killing fails. Temporal acts have temporal consequences and that is all the law is permitted to evaluate.
An adult can examine all the prospects and responsibilities of becoming this or that religious follower. If fully informed and of sound mind they are free to embark on a supernatural quest for eternal life if that is their desire. Because, when you boil it all down, the advantages of fellowship and the opportunity to do charitable works are worthy, albeit side benefits of being a Christian. The ultimate goal is to cheat death. Lacking the salvation feature it is hard to see Christianity surviving in the modern age.
Related articles
- Indoctrinating Children In a Religious Faith is Abusive (atheistrev.com)
- The Case for Salvation (new.exchristian.net)
| Posted on Saturday, January 1st, 2011 at 11:26 pm in Childhood Indoctrination, Children's rights. | |
Share/Save
|
|
Comments (7)