Dawkins Part 9: Childhood abuse and brainwashing

September 27, 2007 Leave a comment

I do agree that religious types have abused their children in the name of religion. This still continues to happen. In fact, we need look no further than a current story in the US media pertaining to polygamy and child marriages: Man Charged in Rape of Teenager in Fundamentalist Sect.

Mormonism encourages polygamy and marriage to minors. Mormons have claimed that this is part of their religious beliefs and that they are entitled to live their lives in this way. To some extent, that argument should be allowed to stand. But, that right should not extend to harming other people in the process. And, in my personal opinion, I think it’s great that the US attorney’s office has finally found a way to deal with some of these crimes that are being committed in the name of religion.

Protection for the weak and vulnerable among us is something that I hold in high regard. In some cases, this competes against some other rights that I hold quite high, including freedom of religion and freedom of speech. There are numerous ideas that I do not want to introduce my children to, but I don’t think it is right that those ideas and opinions be abolished. If we allow that, then what’s next? Burning books and censoring our news sources? Censorship is occuring in the world, notably in China. The state control of media and information can lead to population control, which can then be abused for the sake of state motivations. Without checks and balances like freedom of speech and freedom of information, there is no way to ensure that abuses are not taking place.

Which brings me back to religion… Some religious people try to limit the amount of information available to believers. I remember when I first started taking an interest in my own Christian faith. I asked my pastor for a good resource that would explain the various types of religions to me and that would provide a good explanation for what made my faith something that I should believe. Unfortunately, I didn’t receive the response I had hoped for. I was told that there is no need to look at other faiths. I should just focus on the my own faith by reading the bible and some “my-faith-specific” reading to solidify my beliefs. It was disappointing, to say the least. And, when I mentioned that I was going to go to University to study philosophy and religious studies as a potential precursor to ministry, I was again disuaded. I was told that questioning my faith in this way wouldn’t strengthen it, but instead, would only weaken my faith and my ability to believe.

Good advice or bad? What do you think? I didn’t buy it… I’ve always been one to question things. I think questioning things is healthy. Unfortunately, any opinion is open to question. Any time someone puts a stake in the ground, someone else will come along and challenge it. I think debate is good. It is healthy. It leads to more understanding. It leads to increased awareness and if the argument is a good one, it will stand up to scrutiny. And, bad arguments will be exposed for what they are: bad arguments.

So… I didn’t particularly like the advice to keep my head in the sand and sit still. If my faith was worth following, it should stand up to scrutiny. So, I did the opposite of what I was advised to do. I went out and compared and questioned my faith. I believed then, and I still believe now. And my faith is stronger now because of this journey. To be fair, I must say that not everybody learns or believes or requires this level of commitment. And that is fine. But I do think that there is danger in not being able to explain what we believe and why. “Just because…” is not sufficient. There’s gotta be something more.

And that’s where I think that many abuses stem from… isolation and lack of information. If people are kept in the dark and are unable to ask the tough questions, then how can this work out for the best?

As with other abuses that we’ve already discussed in this series, I do think that the church has contributed to numerous abuses within society in the past. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that these abuses are identified, corrected and that proper controls are put in place so that they cannot happen again. But, no system is foolproof… didn’t World War Two prompt the expression, “Never again” in response to the holocaust? Well… what do we make of the recent ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia or Darfur? I say this only to say that even the most visible of abuses cannot always be prevented. They should be prevented, but they aren’t. But at the very least, they should be recorded and their perpetrators brought to justice.

So… what can we do? Well… we should start with open minds. We should be allowed to question. If our beliefs are worth believing, then we should be able to explain them and defend them. As I’ve demonstrated over the course of this series, Dawkins hasn’t provided anything that should disuade our beliefs in religion. He’s highlighted some of the abuses that can occur as a result of belief, but that doesn’t discount the belief itself. All it does is highlight the crimes that have been committed by misrepresenting the belief.

And, we should also ensure that sufficient controls are in place to avoid the obvious abuses that can occur. We can easily ensure that physical and sexual abuse are guarded against. Censorship… well, that’s a matter of opinion. The argument over what to believe and why is a tough one. It’s quite subjective in nature. Just look at the current “should creationism be taught in schools” argument. I think that kids should be taught about the debate, if only so that they understand that there are different worldviews. And, part of that education process can be to help kids assess what they believe and why. But I don’t think the people that are most invested in the debate want that… they don’t want the kids to think for themselves. They are too busy fighting about what they want their kids to believe. And that’s the real shame of that situation.

As for my two cents on what worldview a child should be given… well… it’s not my place to push my worldview on anyone else, but I have written a series that has taken on a life of its own since I published it. This article started as a philosophy assignment during my undergrad. I wrote it quite sincerely, but from the perspective of a philosophy student. I don’t intend for this to become public policy in any way, shape or form. My only request is that it make you think about what you believe and why. This series has earned me more scorn and vilified hatred from anonymous readers than I thought possible… So much for freedom of expression, eh? hahaha. Anywho… Give it a read and let me know your thoughts:

Should atheists have children?

But back to today’s discussion…

Dawkins and others within this genre offer the following argument: Religion has led to the abuse of people throughout history. Because of this, religion should be abolished. Well… our global economy is currently supporting the slavery of children in the manufacture of the products that keep our global economy humming along. Should we abandon our current economic system in favour of more local production so that we can do away with these abuses? But that would be crazy talk… the global economy has opened doors and created opportunities for untold numbers of people that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. That’s the typical response that we hear.

The obvious point here is that we should try and correct the wrongs and to continue to support the rights. So, onward and upward. Let’s keep an open mind. Let’s open up the dialogue. It’s already happening in a lot of places. Educational institutions are rife with debate over the pros and cons of reliigon. I think it’s great. I think that the critical reflection that we’re currently experiencing will strengthen the church in extremely positive ways.

So… I guess I should be thanking Dawkins, Harris, Onfrey, Hitchens and the gang. So thanks guys. Thanks again for the great press you’re giving to religion. And thanks for your criticism. I view you guys as external auditors. You’re doing a great job of keeping religious folks honest. And, you’re also helping to weed out the bad apples. Soon enough we’ll be in tip top shape. Couldn’t have done it without you.

Much appreciated,

Todd

Next up: “Dawkins Part 10: On Evolution and concluding thoughts“.

Filed under Thought Tagged with , , , ,

Dawkins Part 6: The Problem With Fundamentalism

September 21, 2007 5 Comments

We’re all fundamentalists in some way. I find it quite contradictory that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the like criticize others for being fundamentalists when they themselves are so adament about their atheistic worldviews.

Dawkins spends a fair amount of time criticizing the extremist views of some religious people. He talks about Christians that kill abortion doctors. He talks about Muslims that kill people that have converted from Islam to Christianity (or other religions). And we’re all aware of the many “fundamentalist preachers” in the US and throughout the world that discriminate against homosexuality, women and other differences that they claim somehow make people unequal.

This is one area where I’ve gotta agree with Dawkins. I agree that fundamentalist views are problematic. They divide us. They split us into factions. These divisions work against all of us. There is no community spirit in division. That being said, we’re not all going to agree on everything. Human nature doesn’t make this possible. We all ahve different opinions. We all like different things. We don’t all like the same movies, the same food, the same music or the same books.

So, why does that mean that we all have to like the same worldview?

It doesn’t.

But, does that mean that we should impose our opinions on other people? I’d argue no, but then I’m bound to be called a fundamentalist by someone that disagrees with me. And there’s the rub… we’re all fundamentalists in some way, shape or form. Does this make us wrong? No. What is right and wrong when you’re debating ideas that have competing evidence? There’s a whole lot of grey in those discussions.

For a lot of years, I loved to live in the black and white of right and wrong. I didn’t function well with shades of grey. Structure and rules provide comfort and stability. But I eventually realized that each of us look at things through different sets of eyes. I see things as a middle aged white male living in a middle class neighbourhood after growing up in a blue collar family. There are plenty of other perspectives though. Factors that influence our perspectives include gender, cultural background, colour, age, education level, geographical location, etc. All of these things will impact our views, our values, our opinions and our prejudices (whether real or perceived).

Trying to view things as others see them is a worthwhile exercise, as it allows us to understand each other better. Give it a try. Juggle some of the factors that I mentioned above. Imagine how you’d perceive the following sitatuations:

  • Money if you are rich versus poor
  • Food if you are hungry versus well fed
  • Sex if you are loved versus abused
  • etc. – the list could go on and on

So my question here is: What makes religion any different? Why can’t we all have differing worldviews? What’s wrong with understanding and connecting with God in different ways?

The problem here, as Dawkins has so articulately put it, is that some people don’t allow for freedom of religion or of expression. Some people believe that it is their duty to convince others of their perspective, even to the point of persecuting them if they don’t agree. Thus, we are faced with the problems of extreme responses that I mentioned above.

My religion tells me:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20)

But surely, Jesus, saying these words, didn’t mean to forcefully convert people, did he? That would be contradictory to his earlier teachings on peace. Remember, Jesus also said:

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Matthew 22:37-39)

These two quotes are two of the “biggies” in Christianity. The first quote, Matt 28:19-20, is known as The Great Commission. The second, Matt 22:37-39, is known as The Greatest Commandment. Thus, these are primary verses for Christians to understand.

Some have had a difficult time interpreting these two and allowing them to coexist together. To some, the order to “go and make disciples” has been understood as an active, forceful directive in which coersion is to be applied to convert people. One of the greatest recorded abuses of this is by the Spanish and others that arrived in the New World only to massacre hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Native Americans. These massacres were at least partially justified through the directive to “convert or die”. Yet, this directly contradicts Jesus’ pacifist message of love, as highlighted in The Greatest Commandment.

This type of tension is present in numerous different worldviews. Religion isn’t the only place that this is present, but it is worrisome when it leads to extremism.

The media has reported numerous examples of religious extremism coming from the Muslim faith lately. As I look at the facts in the situations of suicide bombers and freedom fighters, I do understand some of the motivations behind their actions. Persecution and lack of options is high on the list of reasons for what pushes people to go to such extremes. But, when these people claim to be doing the work of the Lord by carrying out such acts, that doesn’t really jive with what others within their own faith believe. Further investigation tends to suggest that these extremists follow an extreme interpretation of their texts, in much the same way that Christian extremists distort and disregard the message that is provided in the New Testament of Christianity. Thus, there is some concern with the validity of their claims.

And really… do we really think that killing someone will make our point of view any more right? I argue no. If anything, it will distract anyone from listening to the original argument and will instead focus them on the violent action. If I need violence to defend my opinion, then I’d best re-examine my argument because it can’t be that strong of an argument if I can’t defend it by other means.

The key here is tolerance and confidence that we are following the right path for the right reason. No matter what factors play into our individual worldviews, I do believe (here goes the fundamentalist in me again!) that we are each, individually responsible for having a rational and well thought out worldview. Otherwise, why do we believe what we believe?

So yeah… I’m onside with Dawkins here. I agree that extremist views do exist and that violent coercion to convince others is the wrong way to go. If your argument isn’t convincing enough, then perhaps you need to reconsider your argument. And, if your argument doesn’t make sense, then why do you believe what you believe? And further, if you hold a religious worldview that involves Jesus or the Quran, which both preach love and peace, then why would you follow a violent path to represent that faith? Doesn’t it make you a hypocrite?

That’s my challenge for you today… take some time to examine what you really believe.

Next up: More moral discussion in “The Slippery Slope of Abortion“.

Filed under Thought Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

A Tragic Picture of Death

June 19, 2007 1 Comment

AP Photo / Karim KadimI stumbled across a heartrending picture of an 18 month old Iraqi boy who had been killed after being fired upon by US forces during a street battle in Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood in June 2004. This picture, attached to an article in TruthDig, really hit home for me, as I have a young boy myself. It really put into perspective for me how I would feel if one of my loved ones was hurt or killed in such a manner. I debated on including the picture with this article, but finally decided to include it as it is a powerful testament to what happens in war. The picture is not nice, but it provides a jolt to those that feel disconnected from a conflict occurring far from home.

While I would like to think that I would have the moral strength to turn the other cheek and to try for a peaceful resolution with those that I felt were responsible, I know that my initial response would be one of anger and seeking revenge. It’s tough not to feel that way with something as permanent as death, especially of the young and innocent among us.

That being said, anger and revenge just continue to feed the violence and hatred that have spiraled out of control during the US-led “war on terror”. What needs to change in order to turn things around? It’s difficult to say, but the current climate of violence must end sooner rather than later.

I’m sure I’ll be hearing from the hawks out there that say, “Well, what about our dead?” and you’re right. All sides have suffered in recent years through numerous tragic events that have been inflicted from all sides. Nobody is innocent in the current world makeup. Freedom fighters, terrorists, secret agencies, spies, guerillas, armed insurgents and legitimately identified armies all have been vying for top spot in political games of domination ever since the dawn of recorded history. What differentiates the good from the bad, the right from the wrong or the morally acceptable from unacceptable?

All sides could easily justify their actions for their contributions to the current climate of violence in the world. Just War is just that… it’s justified. The question becomes: Justified by whom? The picture that I referred to above brought it to me in stark clarity: I could understand why any parent would feel the need for revenge against the US forces for what they saw was the reckless death of their young child. It doesn’t matter if the gunfight was only a small event in a much larger war on terror. The fact remained that it was a US bullet that killed their child. Numerous other examples of this abound.

And to be fair, the US has plenty to be angry about. 9/11 is only one example of terrorism at its worst. There are numerous examples of the US being targets in other countries from embassy bombings to targeting killings of US citizens overseas. None of this should justify the killing of innocents though. Unfortunately, war is a blunt instrument that doesn’t always hit with precision clarity. And that is a shame indeed.

For war is supposed to be the last resort in a politically charged game of cat and mouse. But in this case, in the Middle East, there are too many unanswered questions pertaining to the justification and causes of this conflict with no positive end in sight. In fact, there are few tangible facts to substantiate all of this loss of life. Looking back, the history books have been clouded with bad judgment, poor intelligence and hidden agendas. Conspiracy theorists are able to thrive in this market as there is no final answer or explanation for the cause of this war.

The greater problem is the implications. For the parents that have lost loved ones, there is no easy way to put aside that hatred. There is no easy way to overlook the recent past and to move towards reconciliation. There is no easy way to recover what has been lost. That’s the problem with war: the finality of its actions. Not only does it leave terrible scars in its wake, but it also leaves no easy method of recovery.

For war to be effective, there must be a way of measuring its results. In this, the US has failed miserably. There is no method of measuring success at this point. The US has provided few timelines and poor indicators of accomplishment. It would appear that the US is playing a game of whack-a-mole with no end-target with which to measure their progress.

If only the responsible world governments would approach this in a more systematic way. There are numerous causes at play here, many of which are just as vicious and harmful as the “war on terror”, only they are more subtle. Economic sanctions in particular cripple nations and lead to massive suffering among the general population. While this and other methods are important tools in controlling despotic regimes, they do little to help public opinion in these regions in the long term.

What are the solutions then? The October 2006 issue of Harpers contained an excellent article entitled “The Way Out of War” by George S. (George Stanley) McGovern and William Roe Polk that provided a detailed plan for leaving Iraq, along with some associated financial costs and benefits. It was an interesting read, as it provided some of the much needed answers to “what else can we do but fight?” The article defends strong investment in internal infrastructure as the US-led forces are phased out. The money currently spent on military intervention in Iraq would easily build a substantial infrastructure for further stability as the US pulls out. There are numerous other strategies suggested in the article, many of which mirror suggestions offered by Human Rights Watch and others.

The bottom line here is that there are numerous peaceful approaches that will help build bridges between differing cultures. The current method of blunt force trauma inflicted through war is doing little to build relationships. The current US-led actions in the Middle East is further fracturing relationships, and this is likely to impact an entire generation of people, thus delaying peace for the foreseeable future. I know that I, for one, would have a very difficult time extending an olive branch if I were in the shoes of a parent who has lost a loved one in the current fighting. It is the right thing to do, but when the impersonal nature of war becomes personal, it makes it much more difficult to be emotionally fit to resist revenge.

The way ahead must be one of peace and reconciliation. War has no place in settling disputes, regardless of the perceived benefits. Machismo and stubbornness will only continue to lead us down the path that the current US administration has been leading us down. Make a difference: Research the contributing factors into this conflict, identify workarounds or fixes to those problems that don’t rely on force, and help put them into action.

Todd Dow

Supporting links:
Truthdig article: A Culture of Atrocity
Wall Street Journal: Iraqi Death Toll Exceeds 600,000, Study Estimates
The Lancet: Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq
Human Rights Watch

Filed under Thought Tagged with , , ,

Religious tolerance?

May 22, 2007 1 Comment

Note: disturbing content ahead.

I stumbled across an article today entitled “Church under fire for video parody“. According to the article, Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church has been vigorously campaigning against homosexuality and that a recently released video, “God Hates the World“, which is a parody of the 80′s tune “We Are the World”, is the latest salvo in that ongoing campaign.

According to the article, “The church [Westboro Baptist Church] contends that soldiers’ deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are God’s punishment for a tolerance of homosexuality in the United States.”

The video shows what appears to be a group of church members singing the song “God Hates the World”, along with various video snippets taken from protests and other, assorted activities pertinent to the words of the song. The video furthers the church’s argument that God hates the world due to homosexual behaviour.

The church group is currently being accused by Warner/Chappel Music Inc. of Los Angeles, who feel that the video infringes on its copyright to “We Are the World.” In their defense, the church claims that the song and video are protected under their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religious expression. I do believe that freedom of speech and religious expression are important and therefore, I can’t argue that these people be forcefully silenced. However, I am disappointed at the controversial and confrontational method that this church has taken. And, I am disappointed that this group is associated with me through the masthead of Christianity. But, we’re all together through the masthead of “humanity” so I guess we have to take the good with the bad.

The Bible does speak out against certain activities. The Old Testament is full of rules and guidelines that must be adhered to or else. I’m concerned that this church group has missed the message of Jesus though in their zeal to reform society into their ideal of cultural identity. Jesus brought a message of peace, love and non-judgment. To Christ, God loves everyone no matter what. And it was through Jesus’ atonement on the cross that we are allowed to walk in peace, knowing that our destiny is fulfilled. This message is quite different from the fire and brimstone message being presented by the folks in Topeka. I wonder if Westboro Baptist Church subscribes to the Old Testament law of stoning people for transgressions? That would make for an interesting Sunday morning service!

Fear-mongering is nothing new in religion. History is full of religious fundamentalists that attempted reform through fear. Unfortunately, fear only works for so long… reason must weigh in in order to protect the rights of everyone involved. Otherwise, we’d be left with a bunch of fundamentalist groups, all claiming righteous fury. Ultimately, we’d be left with one righteous fundamentalist group, the winner of one heck of a fundamentalist war. hmmm… sounds kinda like current global tensions, doesn’t it?

Who wins in a fundamentalist war game? Does might equal right? If so, why have an opinion at all? If truth is what we’re after, will war and intolerance solve anything? I think not.

Todd Dow

Filed under Thought Tagged with ,

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.