Subscribe to End Hereditary ReligionNews FeedSubscribe to End Hereditary ReligionComments

Home > Archive by category 'Religion'

Sham homeschools are fostering a radical right wing fifth column
December 12th, 2009 by Richard Collins

Until the 1980s homeschooling was a benign activity that affected very few children. After homeschooling became dominated by right wing Christian theocrats, millions of vulnerable children (estimates are suspect because of poor reporting requirements) became virtual prisoners in their own homes, pawns in a scheme to overthrow the United States Government and replace it with a theocracy. The theocrats scheme includes lobbying state legislatures, pressing free exercise of religion cases in the courts and collusion with extreme right wing Republican officials. The result is an almost total lack of oversight by government officials. It will require dedication for the new administration to undo the Bush administration handiwork.

Legitimate homeschools are in league with the sham homeschools because they also want to prohibit any kind of oversight or control. Although the legitimate people have a small public voice, the radical right are loaded with resources and lobbyists.

The Supreme Court gave parents the right to teach children the tenets and the practices of their faith back in 1944. (Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 164 (1944). The Prince decision, together with the Yoder vs Wisconsin decision inspired theocratic zealots to create a rebellious strain of home schooling. Lead by radicals, this movement is creating a virtual fifth column of ignorant children raised to hate democracy and to revile and distrust their government institutions. In this way, the theocrats are systematically grooming innocent children through a staged process involving homeschools, a project called Generation Joshua and the Patrick Henry College. Their aim is to quietly infiltrate, hamper, frustrate and then dismantle the government of the United States and establish a theocracy according to Dominionist theology. The theocrats plan seems to be working because the Bush administration opened the doors of government to Patrick Henry College graduates while the general public has taken little notice. But then, the devious theocrats are anything but honest and above board. They are like cockroaches, termites and other vermin that hide out of sight. They will not advocate a public position because they know they cannot win an honest public debate.

No one contemplated the political power extreme right wing Christians would usurp in the latter decades of the 20st century. Nor, how they would first systematically attack the public school system and then in frustration, how they would begin to withdraw their children from public schools in astonishing numbers. Able to mobilize thousands of parents to swamp legislatures with denial of service calls and emails, they steam rolled their agenda of removing truancy laws across the country. There was little or no opposition from the federal or state governments, who depend upon reliable telephone and Internet connections to operate. Denial of service attacks combined with bare knuckle political threats became weapons of choice and are still used today. HSLDA even brags about their success in hampering the functioning of government.

With sequestered children constantly supervised by zealous despotic parents, the indoctrination of a backward debauched religion can take place 24 hours a day seven days a week. Out of sight, the indoctrination goes unnoticed. The unfortunate children’s parents rigorously shield them from civilian authority, and they are not allowed to associate with anyone that has not been pre-approved. Parents heavily monitor and restrict radio, television, movies, the Internet and live entertainment events. When legal problems threaten, parents use the threadbare guise of sacrosanct religious liberty and call on well heeled advocacy groups like Michael Farris’s Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), Focus on the Family, The Pacific Justice Institute, and The Eagle Forum to name just a few far right heavily funded special interest groups of dubious character.

In these families, there will be no nonsense about Title 9 gender equality, or sex education or tolerance of other’s beliefs; parents are convinced they alone have the truth and all outsiders are Satan’s spawn that are going to hell. There is no effort to teach the children how to reason or make moral judgments based on logic; morality lessons consist of picked over biblical dogma.

This trend has been in place for nearly 20 years and has spawned a vast infrastructure of lobbyists, legal assistance groups, and purveyors of “approved” curriculum materials. Many curriculum materials advertise that they teach subjects in a “godly” way. Believe it or not there are even teaching materials that extend this pedagogy to mathematics!

Dr. Rob Reich (Professor of Political Science and Ethics at Stanford University ) explains what he considers is the major problem in terms of parents deliberately frustrating the development of autonomy in their children:

The problem with homeschooling and parental authority over education arises not out of conflicts over whether children should become independent adults. Few people wish to defend the authority of parents who plainly care too little. The problem arises over parents who, as it were, care too much in seeking to prevent the development of autonomy in their children. I mean to suggest that parents who wish to control the socialization of their children so completely as to instill inerrant beliefs in their own world view or unquestioning obedience to their own or others’ authority are motivated often by a fervent care for, not neglect of their children. Even when defined minimally, some parents may object to the idea that their children should receive an education that promotes their critical thinking and capacities for reflection on their own and other’s ends. Being minimally autonomous, I claimed, was in the interest of the child for personal and civic reasons. The fact that autonomy is necessary for citizenship makes education for autonomy an interest of the state as well. Thus, when parents reject the facilitation of autonomy in their children, they find themselves in conflict with both the interests of the child and of the state.

A measure of just how thoroughly the theocrats took control of the US Department of Education can be gained by the comments made by Jack Klenk, Director of the Office of Non Public Education at the U.S. Department of Education at a recent meeting sponsored by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA a vociferous foe of homeschool oversight ) and featuring eight congressional representatives . Here is part of the HSLDA report on their web site:

Mr. Klenk has served in the Department for over 20 years, and he talked about how he has seen homeschooling start and grow through the years. He also acknowledged that the Department of Education has heard the homeschool community’s message that the “federal government must leave homeschoolers alone,” and will honor that message. He closed by sharing his and the current administration’s belief that “homeschooling is good for children, good for families, and good for society.

Have we no right to expect impartial judgments emanating from such a high government official? Mr Klenk has hopefully departed to other pursuits by this time, if he has not been fired.

The corrupt Bush administration and his allied theocrats were determined to surreptitiously undermine and drag down the government of the United States. Accordingly, it should be obvious to Americans that the Obama administration must act decisively to regulate homeschools on an urgent basis.

Professor Rob Reich proposed the following provisional framework some years ago:

A PROVISIONAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR HOME SCHOOLING
Recall that the purpose of these regulations is to help ensure that the state’s interest in providing a civic education for children is met, and to protect the independent interest of the child in developing into a free or autonomous adult. … I propose three minimal regulations. The results of the democratic process might yield additional regulations, which would not necessarily be inconsistent with my views, but these seem to me the bare minimum, as follows:

1. All parents who home school must register with a public official. The state needs to be able to distinguish between truants and home-schooled students, and it needs a record that specific children are being home schooled so that its other regulations can be enforced.

2. Parents must demonstrate to educational officials that their homeschool curriculum meets some minimal standard. The minimal standard will include academic benchmarks as well as an assurance that children are exposed to and engaged with ideas, values, and beliefs that are different from those of the parents. For instance, every home-school curriculum should include information about a variety of religious traditions (I believe this should be the case, as well, for public and private schools.) Parents are free to teach their children that their own religious faith is the truth, but they cannot shield children from the knowledge that other people have different convictions and that these people are, from the standpoint of citizenship, their equals.

3. Parents must permit their children to be tested periodically on some kind of basic skills exam. Should home-schooled children repeatedly fail to make progress on this exam, relative to their public or private school peers, then a case could be made to compel school attendance. Label this educational harm. (The same kind of educational harm surely exists in some public schools, of course. And this is one reason that I believe parents should have the authority to hold the state accountable for public schools by pulling their children from failing schools and enrolling them elsewhere.) In short, these regulations amount to the following:

• The state registers who is being home schooled.
• The state insists upon a curriculum that meets minimal academic standards and that introduces students to value pluralism.
• The state tests students periodically to ensure that minimal academic progress is being made.

Would many home schools be unable to meet these regulations? …. If creating and enforcing regulations would prevent even a few children from suffering educational harm or from receiving an education that stunted or disabled their freedom, the regulations would be worthwhile. Strictly enforced regulations ensure that parents do not wield total and unchecked authority over the education of their children. What is at stake here is not a question of social utility or stability, whether home schooling could threaten democracy. What is at stake is the justice that we owe children, that they receive an education that cultivates their future citizenship, their individual freedom, and that teaches them at least basic academic skills, skills that are necessary for ably exercising both their citizenship and their freedom.”

I wish I could be as sanguine as Rob Reich, because our democracy could clearly be at risk if millions of compromised children continue to go through this warped religious soaked system. In addition, why settle for minimum standards?

http://www.alternet.org/belief/142384/an_army_of_home-schooled_?comments=view&cID=1315745&pID=1315701#c1315745

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1020/cover.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7630851222567912489#docid=5881186192356745364
God’s Next Army
Documentary about Patrick Henry College for homeschooled evangelical children.

http://www.truthout.org/article/christian-reconstructionists-trying-take-dominion-america

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={1F86E588-AA4A-43A1-998D-D9BF4FBE4D09} Michael Farris brags about denial of service attack.

About Michael Farris and sham home schools:
http://a2zhomeschool.com/homes

Purge of Professors at Patrick Henry
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/26/83129/0021

http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/dominionism.htm

Reports on the web include:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm#_edn14

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/clarkson_dominionism.html

http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/5/155457/0298

http://a2zhomeschool.com/homeschool/2009/06/16/reconstruction-theology-and-home-education/

Books

American Fascists, The Christian Right and The War on America, by Chris Hedges

Kingdom Coming, The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg

American Theocracy, The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury by Kevin Philips

http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=2047

Write These Laws on Your Children: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling
Author: Robert Kunzman
Product Code: 3291 ISBN: 978-080703291-6
Copyright Date Ed: 08/01/2009

A compelling look at conservative Christian homeschooling families—and the worldview that could radically alter American political and intellectual life.

Reports on the web include:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm#_edn14

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/clarkson_dominionism.html

http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/5/155457/0298

http://a2zhomeschool.com/homeschool/2009/06/16/reconstruction-theology-and-home-education/

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Hereditary Religion: Cultural Genetics
November 19th, 2009 by Richard Collins

The End of Hereditary Religion is pleased to publish this article written by David McAfee, a student at the University of California, Santa Barbara. This is part one of a multi-part treatment on the subject of Hereditary Religion. We look forward to more articles by this talented young writer.
Richard

My interest in the field of Cultural Genetics began two years ago during an interview with a university student for a local magazine. His name was Mike and he was a second-year Theater Major at the University of California, Santa Barbara. I had the chance to speak candidly with Mike and asked him a series of questions regarding his religious preferences and freedoms, his answer to one question in particular would surprise me more than the rest. I asked Mike a very simple question, “Do you consider yourself a religious person?” A 2001 American Religious Identification Survey indicates that 81% of Americans DO associate themselves with a specific religion, so a “Yes” would not have been cause for alarm. Instead, Mike paused for a moment and answered “I’m half Catholic and half Agnostic.” Before I responded, my mind was filled with ideas of what he could have meant, some blend of Catholic intrigue mixed with skepticism perhaps? Upon elaboration I discovered that Mike’s mother was a practicing Catholic and his father was not associated with an organized religion.

When I describe the “genetics” of religion, I am referring to a phenomenon that I came across during the course of my research and, to me, implies the thought of religion as something similar to heritage; it is passed on from generation to generation via the parents. For example, people who have extremely limited knowledge of the Bible or its implications may still choose to classify themselves as Christians on the basis that their parents do so. This phenomenon of our nation’s children inheriting religion is often overlooked because the perpetrator guilty of indoctrination is not a dictator or cult leader, but their own parents. In the course of my research and daily life, it became increasingly apparent that many Americans consider themselves “religious” with extremely limited knowledge of the beliefs and practices of the particular religion simply because of their parents, peers, and popular culture.

When a child is growing up, there is a crucial period in which they begin to ask questions about life and wonder about the origin of existence. In a religious family, these questions are typically answered by creationist ideas in the home, church, or Sunday School. Once these beliefs are instilled in the child, it becomes a part of his or her identity. So much so that, in many cases, the child will grow up and forever identify themselves with that specific religion without question or skepticism. This is not to say that all religious parents pass on their faith to their offspring, but it seems as if it is just as likely as inheriting hair or eye color. For an idea as important as religion, it is a shame that Americans simply take what they are taught from family at face value as opposed to studying, questioning, and learning about multiple religious traditions in order to make an informed decision.

It seems to me that more and more people are treating their religious affiliation as if it were an inherited trait as opposed to an individual right and a decision not to be taken lightly. The momentous event of choosing a religion, or lack of religion, should not be a mindless reflex but a carefully scrutinized moment in life… and the key to this moment is information.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


You do not have to take your children to church
November 19th, 2009 by Richard Collins

{{en|Inside Hillsong Church, :en:Sydney ==Copy...
Image via Wikipedia

There is a presumption that children must be taken to church. This presumption is based on centuries old tradition and the full backing of religious institutions that rely on new converts to keep their faith alive down through the ages.

Morally this is reprehensible because it treats vulnerable children as instruments. Treating others as objects or as instruments to satisfy a desire has been recognized by moral philosophers as repugnant since the days of Kant. Why are children any different? What makes it morally OK to treat children as instruments in a scheme to promote a certain brand of faith?

Secondly, the notion that a child who does not like the faith you chose for them will suddenly recover at age 18 from 15 years of being subjected to a deliberate mind control program is simply risible. There is no reset switch you can press to set a child’s brain back to it’s pristine state at age three. In fact, brain scientists have shown that the brain is actually changed physically by early learning (age 3 to 7). Those changes to the brain are extremely difficult to overcome. Logically, childhood is actually the longest stage in our lives because we retain the memories of childhood for a lifetime.

Do people break the locks on their religious cage? Yes, but usually at great emotional cost. Sometimes people suffer anxiety and depression for years as they break away and recover from religion. Family relations can be stretched to the breaking point.

Personal narratives tell the story of “making up their own minds”. Poignant accounts can be found all over the web at recovery sites established by people seeking mutual aid and comfort. Every faith and sect is represented. The biggest sites look to be for Catholics, Mormons, and Pentecostals.

Is this news to people reading this article and will it shape your thinking about hereditary religion?

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


A Strange Form of Indoctrination
October 31st, 2009 by James Tracy

The Western religions by no means have a monopoly on childhood indoctrination. This is perhaps one of the more bizarre examples of that:

Boston boy enthroned as Buddhist sect head in Darjeeling

The journey from Jigme Wangchuk to His Holiness Galwa Lorepa; the journey from Boston, USA to Drukpa Sangag Choeling Monastery in Dali, near Darjeeling town in North Bengal was definitely a trying and testing time for both 11-year-old Jigme, his parents and his sister.

However, for the Drukpa Kagyu Sect of Tantrayana Buddhism (Lamaism), it was a time for boundless exhilaration as they had found one of the Gyalwa Namsum (Three Victorious Ones) after a long gap of more than 700 years.

Born in Boston, USA, Jigme Wangchuk was identified as the first reincarnation of HH Galwa Lorepa of the Drukpa Kagyu sect, a reincarnation after more than 700 years. With Jigme Wangchuk coming to Darjeeling even his parents have sold their family business in the USA and come to Darjeeling to stay here and serve him. His sister also will be studying in Darjeeling henceforth.

Talking to HT, he stated it is a big transition. “I do miss being a joyful school boy. I miss my home, my grandparents, aunts and uncles. However, being a Rinpoche is such a great honour and I feel blessed with my past responsibilities.

“My parents keep visiting me here in the monsatery and they told me that they have moved here to serve me and take care of me. As for my friends, I will contact them through emails,” he added.

HH Galwa Lorepa has withdrawn himself (own will) from Grade 5 of St. Peter School in Boston. Henceforth he will be continuing his monastic studies in the Druk Sangag Choeling Monastery in Darjeeling.

However, the transition from a USA schoolboy to one of the heads of a Buddhist sect has not been an easy one for the family. Dechen, mother of Jigme talking to HT stated, “He used to always talk of his past life but we did not take it seriously, dubbing it as a young mind fantasies. Two years back we were visiting South India on a holiday. One afternoon at the Kagyu Nalanda Monsatery in Mysore, Jigme suddenly stopped playing and started narrating his past life as if in a trance.”

…

Perhaps the parents should have trusted their first instinct about this young boy’s childhood fantasies – now he really believes that he is a reincarnation of some 700 year old religious guru.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Global progress towards banning all corporal punishment of children
October 23rd, 2009 by Richard Collins

A Scary Vintage Postcard
Image by HA! Designs – Artbyheather via Flickr

http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/global.html

From End Corporal Punishment official web site. In the following text the hypertext links, italicized, are deactivated. Please visit the web site.

Legal reforms to prohibit all corporal punishment of children – in the family home as well as in schools and other institutions and penal systems – are spreading fast.

In many states the law provides defences for parents, other carers and teachers who use corporal punishment to discipline children: provisions which allow “reasonable chastisement” or “lawful correction”. In addition there may be education laws providing for corporal punishment in schools and laws allowing corporal punishment in penal institutions and as a sentence of the courts.

Law reform to end corporal punishment involves removing any provisions authorising corporal punishment and removing any special defences that may exist, so that the criminal law on assault applies equally to any assault of a child, whether or not it is described as discipline. It is a fundamental principle of human rights – upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 7 and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 26 – that all are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination.

In some states the law is silent on corporal punishment of children, but nevertheless it is socially and legally accepted and therefore explicit prohibition is required.

Click (active link at the web site) for the latest summary information on progress towards universal prohibition, and selected facts and figures on states pursuing reform and states so far resisting.

Click (active link at the web site) for information of legislation in states which have achieved full prohibition.

Worldwide, corporal punishment in schools has been prohibited in at least 108 states. But at least 78 states have not prohibited corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions for children in conflict with the law, and 43 have not prohibited it as a judicial sentence of the courts for young people convicted of an offence.

Our online global table shows data for all states and dependent territories on the extent of prohibition in three categories: Home; School; Penal system. Listed alphabetically, select from below :

TABLE A-D | TABLE E-H | TABLE I-L | TABLE M-P | TABLE Q-T | TABLE U-Z (active links at the web site)

Also available from the table are individual reports for each state, with details of laws relating to corporal punishment in the home, schools, penal system and alternative care settings, as well as summaries of prevalence research and extracts from recommendations made by human rights treaty bodies. Click here for individual state reports.

Our global and regional tables, available as PDF files (updated August 2009), summarise the extent of prohibition in the home, schools, as a sentence for crime, as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions, and in alternative care settings. Download from here:

[Please visit the web site for latest data]

This analysis has been compiled from information from governmental and non-governmental sources, including reports on implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every effort is made to maintain its accuracy. Please send us updating information and details of sources for missing information: info@endcorporalpunishment.org.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Abuses Against Children Persist Despite Rights Convention
October 9th, 2009 by Richard Collins

Mia Farrow
Image by talkradionews via Flickr


http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-08-voa53.cfm

VOANews.com

By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
08 October 2009

Child rights advocates have kicked off more than a month of global activities leading up to the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention, which was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on November 20, 1989, is the most widely ratified international human rights treaty. Every country in the world, except the United States and Somalia, has ratified it.

Before the Convention on the Rights of the Child came into force in 1989, most of the world thought children should be seen and not heard. Now, 20 years later, some of their voices are being heard, but their rights continue to be violated.

“I believe every child has the right to feel safe, protected from armed conflict, abuse, child labor, trafficking, exploitation. It is really very simple. No child should have to suffer at the hands of others. Not one,” says UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, Hollywood actress, Mia Farrow, who has been fighting for the rights of children for years.

Senator Barbara Boxer and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving to accomplish US Senate ratification of the UN CRC. Political analysts say there are votes in the Senate to accomplish ratification, but it may be a tough battle given the unmitigated opposition by fringe partisans who seemingly speak for the Republican party these days. The preposterous lies and distortions they are spreading about the convention are beyond the pale.

Ratification is merely the first step. The difficult challenge will come when state and federal laws will have to be adapted to the requirements of the convention. One obstacle is the prohibition of executing minors which is legal in Texas. Corporal punishment is still legal in 20 states even though there is consensus by child development experts that this reprehensible practice is counter productive. Over 60 nations have made it a crime to strike a child. We must govern ourselves by reason not dogma.

The UN CRC is not just about child soldiers in Africa or elsewhere, or the trafficking of children for illicit purposes. Approximately 9,000,000 American children suffered abuse or neglect in a recent year where data is available.

The Republican religious fringe must not be permitted to seize control of our national debate like they did with health care reform. Shout them down and shut them up, they have no legitimate standing.

For example:

“Folks, this is scary stuff! Big Brother (Governments) want to take over our rights as parents and have children tell us what to do! The devil loves to twist around the natural order that Almighty God has made, we are in dark times!”
– Deacon John

Quoted from the web site: http://deaconforlife.blogspot.com/2009/06/childs-rights-forces-mobilize.html

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Freedom of conscience is the root of all our freedoms
October 4th, 2009 by Richard Collins

Freedom of conscience is the root of all our freedoms because no one can be a self directing individual free of parents, governments or religious institutions without this bedrock principle. The men most responsible for the bill of rights, Jefferson and Madison, had a clear notion that freedom of conscience was the principle they were protecting in the first amendment. Madison wrote: that religion “must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate”.

Accordingly, secular parents do not steer their children towards atheism, if they are wise. Instead the idea must be to explain the religious “menu” so that when they mature, children can place an order intelligently. This is the essence of the Humanist ethos. People of limited imagination believe that everyone shares their way of looking at the world and cannot put themselves in a humanist’s shoes. Theists think they are commanded by their holy books to dominate and control their children. I suppose they just cannot fathom the notion that children are persons in their own right with their own life to direct as they see fit. Or, that the prevailing ethos among atheists and Humanists is to NOT dominate their children but to help them learn how to make decisions for themselves based on rational thinking and self reflection.

Children did not ask to be born and they are under no obligation to fulfill some master plan of their parents and especially some master plan of a religious institution. Teaching a child to think for themselves is the best insurance a child could have against being duped into a cult or other controlling group of people. To succeed, the insidious indoctrination process must diminish the ability to reason. Instead of how to think for themselves, children are taught dogmatism and to distrust their own ability to think.

There are clearly different outcomes for children raised to enjoy intellectual autonomy (personal independence) and those burdened with intellectual heteronomy (the condition of being under the domination of an outside authority, either human or divine). In many churches, homes, and faith schools, children are taught intellectual heteronomy. I quote from Donald Capps’ book, “The Children’s Song, The Religious Abuse of Children”:

“What is at stake here is the freedom of children to think for themselves and to feel secure in the knowledge that adults will not hold their expressions of intellectual autonomy against them. Especially where biblical literalism is taught and practiced, and where punitive attitudes towards sinners are voiced and countenanced, children are unlikely to experience such freedom to think and reason for themselves. Rather, they are likely to feel that it is wrong for them to think for themselves and that, if they do, they are likely to incur the disapproval, if not the wrath, of precisely those adults who have power over them. Fearing the negative consequences of their exercise of intellectual autonomy, they are likely to overreact, to place even greater strictures on their own freedom of thought than these adults may have required of them.” (p. 59)

Parents who promote intellectual heteronomy likely grew up in such a stifling environment themselves and simply cannot imagine any other way of thinking or being. This is a key argument for ending childhood indoctrination. The chain must be severed once and for all. Every parent who contemplates imposing their religion on their children should study Donald Capps’ book before they do that.

Both Madison and Jefferson were strongly against any establishment of a state religion, although the practice was widespread in the original colonies. Today the most dangerous threat to our free and open society is coming from theocrats that sincerely want to sweep away the constitution and institute biblical laws. Seriously, and they managed to get G. W. Bush elected twice. Ok, I am drifting off topic.

Today, the institutions and parents do every thing they can to thwart the ability of children to grow up with a mind that is untainted by a particular flavor of faith. Parents are swayed by clerics, family members and co-religionists. However, freedom of conscience is an inalienable right which “people cannot possibly relinquish to civil government”. — Madison (or if you follow the logic to parents or priests).

Yet parents and clerics step all over this right for the simple reason that they are in a position to do so and they claim children are too young to exercise such a right. Well they are too young, but who says children need to choose at the ripe old age of three, or four?

Why on earth is religion different? Because it is religion, that’s why and a majority of religious people and the clerics want it that way because they know it will get harder to impress their wild improbable dogma on an adult mind. For all the noble justifications offered, there is little doubt that the institutions are in this indoctrination game to save their institutions. Which makes children simply instruments of their plan. In any other sphere of human activity, using others as instruments is an abhorrent practice. Not where religion is concerned.

The incredible fact is we reserve a special measure of loathing and disgust for people who mistreat small helpless animals or helpless people. Why? Precisely because they are vulnerable and helpless.

The Genius of America: How the Constitution Saved Our Country–and Why It Can Again

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


An Ethical Dilemma: Childhood Conversion in Christian Fundamentalism
October 3rd, 2009 by Richard Collins

Title page to Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning...
Image via Wikipedia

University of Sydney
Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies
Masters Dissertation

This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Master of Peace and Conflict Studies by Melissa Ruth Juliet Bennett.
24-June-2009

An Ethical Dilemma: Childhood Conversion in Christian Fundamentalism
http://www.julietbennett.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Ethical-Dilemma-of-Childhood-Conversion-in-Christian-Fundamentalism1.pdf

I strongly recommend reading Ms. Bennett’s dissertation, but in the interests of brevity will simply reproduce her conclusion here.

Conclusion

The child is the forgotten citizen, and yet, if statesmen and educationists once came to realise the terrific force that is in childhood for good or for evil, I feel they would give it priority above everything else. All problems of humanity depend on man himself; if man is disregarded in his construction, the problems will never be solved. –235 Montessori, The Forgotten Citizen

In addressing the scenario posed in Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations of a war between cultures, the accepted practice of enculturation must be considered. Recognising that some enculturation is a necessary basis for education it is critical that it is combined with cultivating the student’s ability to question traditions and to challenge the status quo should it be required. A fundamentalist paradigm transmits beliefs without engaging in critical thinking, with priority placed on conforming to a state of mind that combines belief in a single absolute truth with a complete trust placed on an authoritative book or person. In the case of Christian fundamentalism, this paradigm translates to the conviction that there is one True God, the Bible contains His authoritative word, and of a single exclusive path to salvation found only by conforming one’s mind to the narrative the church prescribes. As a consequence any person who does not conform to this narrative is seen as having “rejected God”, choosing instead to live life by their own rules and worship “fake” gods. These are their beliefs and consequently they bring their children up to believe the same thing; creating a perpetuating cycle of violence.

Many fundamentalists are not aware that their unchanging truth is in fact a new interpretation of a truth shaped by theological debates and politics over the last two millennia. Most are unaware that their interpretation of the Bible has been distorted by the modern paradigm from which they see it. They do not realise that by adopting a simplistic literal interpretation, without regard for Jewish midrashim and the role of mythos, prevents fundamentalists from understanding the “more-than-literal” meaning that the authors embedded in their writings. When children are brought up with in a fused premodern-modern paradigm based on a single unchangeable truth, they struggle to interact with the postmodern world and its many truths and constant change.

Insecurities grow as the now adolescent or adult fundamentalist feels that the basis from which they understand reality is under threat. If there is no absolute truth then how is one to distinguish what is good from what is evil? How can one evaluate all the conflicting truths that surround them? These fears lead to an even more distorted version of their religion, one caught up in identity and ideology.

Note: Juliet Bennett is seeking advice concerning publishing her dissertation. You can forward information to me.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Blasphemy day — a new tradition
September 30th, 2009 by Richard Collins

The following is a gift from my facebook friend, Torbjorn Nordhagen

A Life of Blasphemy or, My Thoughts on International Blasphemy Day
Share
Yesterday at 8:58pm

Tomorrow, September 30, 2009, is International Blasphemy Day. The date was chosen to mark the four-year anniversary of the Muslim “Danish cartoon riots.” Rather than merely fire off another one of my pithy facebook status updates (although I reserve the right to do this as well), I thought I’d write down a few of my thoughts on the event itself and my own feelings on it.

From the official site: “International Blasphemy Day is not just a day. It is a movement to dismantle the wall which exists between religion and criticism.”

http://www.blasphemyday.com/

My guess is that almost anyone reading this note knows something of my background: raised Evangelical Christian, went through a protracted and very painful period of deconversion from late 2003 to mid-2005. I’ve long maintained the line touted by such “new atheist” luminaries as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens that religion should be subject to criticism. In all honesty, I’ve wrestled with formulating my own position on this: how to be candid and honest about one’s opinions while still maintaining cordial and amicable relations with friends and family members who are of faith. And yes, at times I was rather leery of the “new atheist” movement.

Today, however, I am a proud “new” atheist. Having come to my views through no small struggle I hold that freethought and religious skepticism is precious. It is a blood-bought treasure of Western civilization. Consider this: at the time of the American Revolution, Maryland had an anti-blasphemy statute. If you spoke blasphemy against the Holy Trinity three times (the magic number, three) and were of sound mind, the sentence was death without benefit of clergy. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

The bloody history of the suppression of religious dissent is well-known and needs little elaborating, but here we go anyway:

The Medieval Inquisition was instituted in the early 13th century (if memory serves) by Pope Innocent III for the purpose of persecuting “heretics.” The focus was southern Europe, where trade across the Mediterranean had engendered the rise of the Cathari in southern France (also known as the Albigensians). The heinous Albigensian Crusade down the Rhone and into northern Italy was the result.

The European Witch Craze began in the late 15th century and raged throughout the sixteenth, mostly in northern Europe–especially the “Holy” Roman Empire (modern-day Germany) and Scotland. Around the same time that the Spanish Inquisition revived the bloodshed and madness in Spain (and then Portugal, and it spread from both places–even to Goa and Malabar with the Portuguese). The Salem Witch Trials of 1692 came at the very tail end of the appalling affront to human dignity. The vast majority of the victims of the Witch Craze were women. The Inquisition in Spain targeted Jews and conversos, derisively known as “Marranos” (pigs)–Jews who had converted to Catholicism to escape persecution. Spain’s remnant Muslim population was also not exempt. The Portuguese targeted Jews in Portugal and “heretic” Christians of the Syrian Church in India.

These are only two particularly notorious historic examples. Today, Ireland has a blasphemy law, as does Afghanistan–proof positive that the medieval streak runs deep in both Catholicism and Islam alike.

Source: http://www.blasphemyday.com/

But hang on, friends, because we haven’t even got to the meat of the argument yet. And for that, we must consider the source: the sacra, the canonical texts of the religions themselves. For purposes of brevity and salience I will confine my remarks to Christianity, as I am less familiar with Islam’s sacra for obvious reasons (never having been a Muslim).

You see, the barbaric and medieval notion currently enshrined in the jurisprudence of the Republic of Ireland has its source solidly in the Bible itself. I am referring, of course, to the Unpardonable Sin. In the words attributed to Christ:

28 “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29 but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”— 30 because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”
~Mark 3:28-30, NKJV.

Luke concurs:

10 “And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.
~Luke 12:10, NKJV.

Source: www.biblegateway.com

But what does it MEAN to blaspheme the Holy Spirit? The pastoral opinion regnant in most circles (to my knowledge) is that “blaspheming the Holy Spirit” is the rejection of the Gospel–the perpetual, ongoing, ultimate rejection of the work and mission of the Holy Spirit.

Whether you accept this definition or take the passages in question at slightly more face value and maintain that this means a verbal denunciation of the Holy Spirit, the mentality that this doctrine engenders and its ramifications are very clear and, for me as a skeptic, extremely noxious. Whatever interpretation you adopt, you are still left with an explicit doctrine of the sacred that precludes criticism–or at the very least, criticism beyond a certain point. In other words, these passages are the heart and soul of the anti-dissent doctrine in Christianity.

However I would submit to you, dear readers, that even discarding these passages–supposing for a moment that they were never written, or were found to be apocryphal in some way–that the problem remains. And the problem goes deeper than Christianity, to encompass certainly all of the three major monotheistic religions. The reason is simple: in Christopher Hitchens’s words, all of these religions enshrine a doctrine of god as Celestial Dictator, a kind of Divine Big Brother who monitors your every thought, word and deed–and finds you wanting. He can and does convict you of “thought-crime”–at least in Christianity. In Judaism and in Islam he demands a series of ritual observances and practices–certainly far more than in most Christian denominations.

Hitchens goes so far as to liken at least the Christian god to North Korea’s Kim Il-Sung, the “Great Leader,” and his son Kim Jong-il, the “Dear Leader”: both of which have been deified through Kim Il-Sung’s elaborate personality cult. North Korea, like the Abrahamic religions, extensively monitors the actions and deeds (they’re not quite up to the level of sophisticated thought-surveillance, to be fair, but watch out) of its citizens. Dissenters are silenced. There are slave-labor camps for not only dissenters but FAMILIES of dissenters and escapees. Indeed, the parallels are positively chilling.

And what is the ultimate fate of dissenters and blasphemers? While in North Korea the government has absolute power over its citizenry only in life, the god of the Bible and the Qu’ran has no such limitations. The Qu’ran speaks of the “fire whose fuel is men and stones.” I’m rather more familiar with the Bible’s stance:

[Christ speaking]:

28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

~Matthew 10:28, NKJV.

[In the words of John of Patmos]:

15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

~Revelation 20:15, NKJV.

8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[a] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

~Revelation 21:8, NKJV.

Source: www.biblegateway.com

There you have it: by failing to accept the gift of salvation offered by the meek-and-mild savior, those of us who do not believe merit eternal perdition. So much for a loving god. The first conclusion that I draw from this is that it is religious morality that is fundamentally immoral, not atheistic morality. Secondly, dear readers, I propose that under this system those of us who do not believe are ALREADY COMMITTING BLASPHEMY. There is NOTHING that we can say, do, write or depict tomorrow or any other day which can further compound the blasphemy of our very lives of unbelief under such a system.

I am all for an International Blasphemy Day. But we must use it as a reminder of the true scope and scale of blasphemy. We must remember that blasphemy does not solely consist of pithy and humorous slogans and witticisms, of provocative pictures and images. There is no need to state “I deny the Holy Spirit” when our very LIVES are lived in denial of the EXISTENCE of the same!

So tomorrow, if you wake up in a time and place in history where you have the freedom to criticize the prevalent religion in your society if you so choose–be very thankful and be very humble. I don’t care if you’re a theist, atheist or whatever–free speech is precious. Dissent is precious.

And happy International Blasphemy Day, to believers and unbelievers alike! Remember, even if you ARE a believer, you’re not exempt–there will always be other believers of other sects and religions who find you a heretic or unbeliever in your own right.

Cheers, all, ~Tor

Note: The illustration is a portion of manuscript, which is identified by Wiki as Armenian and contains the passage from Mark concerning blasphemy.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Religion and The age of Consent
September 24th, 2009 by Richard Collins

The Age of Consent album cover
Image via Wikipedia

The following article comes from a secular writer in the UK

In The Times on 18th Jan 2008 the Rev Peter Mullen claimed that not teaching children the Catholic Faith was a form of child abuse. I am finding it hard to find sufficient words to show the contempt that I have for this man and this idea.

Instead I post an article that I actually wrote before the deluded Rev Mullen published his and I ask: If children are not mature enough to drive a car before they are 17 years old, then why does the church claim they are mature enough to select a religion before that? After all, driving a car is no where near as important as God…

Religion and the Age of Consent.

The age at which we can legally do all manner of exciting sounding things is a constant annoyance when we are too young; a source of great bragging when you are just over that age and your friends are not; a much too low a limit as soon as you become a parent!

At 16 a person can get married with their parents’ permission. A person can have sex and actually create a baby without parental permission. (I consider that parental guidance might be a little more useful in the decision to make a baby)

At 17 years old we allow a child to drive. In the UK we have no restrictions on what type of car, or what power that car has and in reality the only constraints are that the average 17 year old cannot afford to insure a powerful car: buying a half rusty 1970 super car is actually cheap however. But nevertheless we parents still allow our hugely inexperienced offspring to borrow our cars and hope they are responsible enough to drive safely.

At 18 we allow the ingestion of potentially fatal poisons for pleasure: tobacco and alcohol. We also allow this newly qualified adult to fight and die in the armed forces. Most importantly, from a democratic point of view at 18 years of age the right to Vote and decide the fate of your neighbours is activated. This is often considered the most important of the age related limits as a vote directly impacts everyone in the country.

The experience of society has set these age limits based on when society considers the average youngster has reached a sufficient level of responsibility to be trusted with the choices that are now permitted.

The most important thing about these limits is that no parent has the right to over-rule the law. The protection of the child and as a direct consequence of that, the protection of others is the first priority.

Where am I going with this?

Leaders of the various religions tell us everyday that the most important thing in a life (any human life) is their relationship with God. Those religions are of course in opposition to each other, but in modern times their doctrine has been subdued, to an extent, to prevent a repeat of the crusades. However they all believe they are right at the expense of all the others.

The legal ages of consent, or to put it another way, the age at which we expect a certain level of responsibility, as detailed above are ‘earthly,’ or for the purposes of this article, non-spiritual.

The church (I use that as a generic term for all religions) would probably support an increase in the age of consent for sexual relations. It is also likely that they would support a significant increase in the age of consent for homosexual relations and state that a 16 year old is not sufficiently responsible to make such a decision. More to the point many religions would still support a ban, effectively claiming that no person is able to make such a decision for themselves: the proper standard of heterosexual behaviour having been set by God.

So if a person under 18 years old cannot be trusted to vote responsibly, and a person under 16 cannot be trusted to make responsible decisions about sex, and by the very teachings of religion these are trivial when compared to the relationship with God, why on earth do we allow children to make a decision about their eternal soul?

When a person selects a God, or a Religion, or even a sect of a religion are they not simply voting?

Following the reasoning above the age of consent to select a religion should be about 36 if the relationship with God is twice as important as being able to vote! Or is it 3 times more important? Or is it infinitely more important? Of course religion must claim that to be true otherwise at some point a theist would have to admit that the ability to vote legally in an earthly election would be more important than God, when obviously nothing is more important than God.

Continue this article at the following Livejournal page:

http://reasonaboveall.livejournal.com/#reasonaboveall777

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Older Posts »