 |
|
Group(s): Confronting Religious HegemonyAdd to My Group
|
February 3, 2008 at 07:43:29
WARNING! Religion may cause... by Kelly O'Connor Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
Kelly O'Connor Jan 30, 2008 ...hypocrisy; cognitive dissonance; higher rates of STD infection, teen pregnancy, abortion, and poverty; mass societal dysfunction; early mortality; homicide; and, in rare cases, delusions and psychosis. Is Living Under the Influence (of religion) less dangerous than Driving Under the Influence? In the news this week, we have the case of Eunice Spry, a British woman who systematically tortured her adopted and foster children because of her religious convictions. She did pleasant things like forcing the children to eat their own vomit for being greedy, and making a child with nighttime enuresis (bed-wetting) at the age of 4 wear a sign reminding everybody that she was an evil attention-seeker. It doesn't stop there, either. She also prevented a teenaged girl who was injured in a car accident and temporarily confined to a wheelchair from walking in order to collect more compensation money, despite the fact that the prognosis was she would regain ability to walk within 6 months. After moving out, they children submitted to medical examinations which showed evidence of internal scarring due to Eunice's punishment of choice-forcing the children to vomit and then eat it. 
If you aren't sick by now, you should be. Obviously, this woman's problems extended beyond her religious beliefs, but her absolutely inhumane treatment of those children was done under the guise of punishing them for what would seem to be the seven deadly sins. All she would need to do is chop somebody's pregnant wife's head off and send it to them and we could make a movie. Oh, wait, somebody already did. In my opinion, crimes like these should be a more serious offense than murder. Going Andrea Yates on them would have been merciful. I almost wish that a hell existed so she could go there.
Don't go away yet, there's more. A Washington, D.C. woman, Banita Jacks, sat in her home for over two weeks with the decomposing bodies of her 4 daughters who were apparently "possessed." Now tell me: Where would she get this idea of demon possession if it hadn't been planted in her mind by religion? I realize that before mental illnesses were understood, demon possession was a common diagnosis, but we're living in the 21st century here, people. That concept would not have survived the Enlightenment if it wasn't for the eternally ubiquitous presence of that festering boil we refer to as religion.
I know the next argument that you're going to make, too. "Well, she was insane, so she would have done something horrible anyway." How do you know that? How do you know that she would have had any concept of a "demon" if it wasn't placed there? The bible clearly states that this is a war not of flesh and bones, but of spirits and the forces of good and evil. One is to arm themselves for battle and prepare to deflect the attacks of satan and his minions. People still believe in this stuff! Does anybody get this? The Pope is calling for mass exorcisms, and some evangelical christians believe that sicknesses are caused by satan and that you can "cast them out in Jesus' name." It is a travesty that the more obsequious among us have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Anybody who cannot see the correlation here is either blind or indifferent and will allow these things to continue to happen. All because we can't talk about religion like that-it's just not nice.
Obviously, the vast majority of religious people do not commit these kinds of crimes, but there is an overwhelming amount of violence perpetrated upon people that is religiously motivated. I've already pointed out the child abuse that occurs in the name of religion, and some christian parenting sites teach you how to "switch" your children with PVC tubing from the age of 9 months. Incidentally, a devotee of theirs was charged with first-degree murder when she wrapped her 4 year old son tightly in blankets because he kept getting out of bed and he suffocated to death.All because god is a god of order, not chaos, and you must maintain order in your home. Talk about fragile egos on these people who won't be manipulated by the cries of a hungry newborn baby.
I said this in my first post on this topic, and obviously I need to repeat myself for the either dense or dishonest critics, but even if religion only exploits existing mental illnesses, should we not give people one less reason to kill or harm others? Imagine a scenario in which small groups of racist people are still terrorizing anybody with darker skin than them, but since the vast majority of white people don't act that way, we just shouldn't address it.
In all honesty, the reason that most religious people do not act like the Phelps family is because they are nominal (insert religion here) only. A study done by the Barna Group, a christian research firm, showed that many young Americans see christians as hypocritical, and that they really are hypocrites. They surveyed 1003 adults on 20 "lifestyle elements," including things such as altruism, sexual behavior, and substance abuse. The results: on 15 of the 20 behaviors, evangelical christians were indistinguishable from us heathens, and the areas in which they do differ (porn consumption, cursing in public, playing the lottery, and music piracy), the difference is minor (One-third of heathens vs. one-quarter of christians) except for the music piracy, in which there is a 7% difference. That is not likely because of the commandment to not steal, but rather that resisting the urge to download music is much easier than resisting the urge to have sex. If that's not causing cognitive dissonance, I don't know what will.
On a larger scale, we have three studies on the impact of religion on society, and neither of them is going to vindicate religion. The first was published in the Journal of Religion and Society and authored by Gregory Paul, a social scientist. He concluded that:
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
"The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so."
"The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.
"The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted." (TimesOnline.co.uk)
The next was a Pew global survey that graphed the correlation between religiosity and wealth. Although the U.S. was an outlier, there was still an inverse statistical correlation between rates of religious belief and wealth. Attached to that article was a site you can use to determine rates of religiosity in different areas of the US and the corresponding population data. (It is slightly dated with 2000 as the year the data was collected.) There is a similar correlation in the US among different areas as there is among countries worldwide. Below are the two graphs plotting the data.
1 | 2
www.rationalresponders.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 16 comments |
|
What else is new?
Since the beginning of time, religion has been an evil force in the world. I am a spiritual person and I believe there is a higher force. Life is great and mysterious and we will never understand it. But evil people have always manipulated religion to satisfy greed and power lust. The warning is a little late. I agree with you but how do we change the world? History teaches us that all forms of religion existed long before our tiime and still nothing changes. My religion can lick your religion. Religion is supposed to make our lives better, to make us better. It aint working! Sooooo, what do we do? Anybody have any ideas? by Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 327 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 9:53:16 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Here's one, and it's a great idea
This message suggests exactly how we can significantly change and improve our world, and it explains why we must. And the best thing about it is that the messenger does not seek personal power from behind a podium or pulpit. He understands why Lao Tsu wrote in The Book of Tao (Dao): "When the best leader's work is accomplished, the people say, 'We did it ourselves!'" That's because the ideal is to provide the people with an innovative way to unite, determine their own collective destiny, collaborate, and cooperatively accomplish common goals using the common wealth for the common good. That same idea was expressed in the Judaic "Old Testament" scriptures in the Bible, which advise us to: "Be wise and consider the ways of the ants, which having no guide, overseer or ruler, provide food in the summer and gather in the harvest." Similarly, the Old Testament also says, "If you want a king, you reject God," for "God is not a man nor a son of man," and "besides God there is no Savior." It's true -- absolutely, positively true, as you will see. http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com by Sarah Morgan (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 178 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 2:00:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Its a small idea only but
most of the harm that religions do seems to arise out of the power that followers give over to others when they have faith. That is when they stop thinking for themselves. Emphasize and encourage the religious people in your world to be people of conscience rather than people of faith. People of conscience question and take responsibility and engage with the issues. People of conscience can and do change their views when they take on new evidence because they are willing to look at it and challenge their "faith". I don't like religion but taken one at a time people who are religious aren't very different to people who are not. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 5:31:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not true.
I don't like religion but taken one at a time people who are religious aren't very different to people who are not. Not true. They are vastly different. I would be happy to have that debate. For starters, people who eschew religion are infinitely more in touch with reality than those who blindly believe in pious dogma and pray to imaginary, man-made mythological beings who spuriously reside in the ether above. by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 7:17:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: What to do...
Sooooo, what do we do? Anybody have any ideas? Exactly what Kelly and the Rational Response Squad are doing, shedding light on the atrocities committed in the name of superstition and ancient folklore. Sunlight is always the best sanitizer. -Frank J. Ranelli, Senior Editor by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 7:05:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Religion may cause......
Thank you for reporting on child abuse. I prefer to call it child cruelty -. When you consider how much support the public contributes to animal cruelty, it is possible that we have overused the term child abuse and the public has become settled in a comfort zone and is somewhat desensitized when it comes to our children. You are the voice for these small children. Please continue to write about this epidemic. I am a retired crime analyst with over 20 years in law enforcement. I have documented hundreds of cases of child abuse where children have been injured and often killed. Considering the statistics, not much has changed over the years and if more people knew what really happened to abused children they would quit making excuses for people who hurt or kill children. All these helpless children can do is lie there and take it – think about that folks. Child abuse is a crime and should be treated as the horrific crime it really is. Awareness is not enough anymore. Three million abused children each year constitutes an epidemic in my book. It is time to address the issue in cold hard facts. Punishing the abuser should be our number one focus. It is naïve to believe that all abusers will change after a few sessions of counseling and anger management. Our society is paying dearly. Our children are paying dearly as well. We can no longer afford to tolerate child cruelty. We will pay one way or another. Just look at the facts: According to the U.S. National Statistics: DIRECT COSTS OF CHILD ABUSE: Hospitalization $6,205,395,000 Chronic Health Problems $2,987,957,400 Mental Health Care System $ 425,110,400 Child Welfare System $14,400,000,000 Law Enforcement $ 24,709,000 Judicial System $ 341,174,702 Total Direct Costs $24,384,347,302 INDIRECT COSTS OF CHILD ABUSE: Special Education $ 223,607,830 Mental Health & Health Care $4,627,636,025 Juvenile Delinquency $8,805,291,372 Lost Productivity to Society $ 656,000,000 Adult Criminality $55,380,000,000 Total Indirect Costs $69,692,535,227 TOTAL: $94,076,882,529 When you become aware of child cruelty, whether it be from reading about it in a newspaper or personally involved, it then becomes your responsibility and obligation to get involved to ensure that the child does not fall through the cracks. You can and should become part of the movement to stop child cruelty and protect our most vulnerable citizens. Those who abuse children must be held accountable and responsible for their actions. Justice must be served. If children could vote, politicians would listen. Please be the voice for our children. by contacting your local child abuse organization in your area. Ask them how you can help. They will be glad you did. Contact your local and state representatives and demand protection for our children. Your vote is very important to your legislators. Thank you. www.janealvarez.com www.walloftears.org by Jane LeMond-Alvarez (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 5:16:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Nothing but irrational polemics on either side.
More pseudo-rational bunk from the anti-religious crowd on the far left, to match the anti-rational bunk from the pseudo-religious crowd on the far right. Let's just focus on one of the many errors: "A study done by the Barna Group, a christian research firm, showed that many young Americans see christians as hypocritical, and that they really are hypocrites." The problem with this is that the definition of the word "hypocrite" is someone who pretends to be something. It is, in fact, derived the Greek word for "actor." You can't hold members of a group responsible for the behavior of people who are only pretending to be members. (Unless you are more interested in factional bigotry than logic and honesty.) It's bad enough when polemicists use the illogical (or, perhaps, simply dishonest) tactic of generalizing the behavior of a subset to condemn the entire set, but to claim A is bad because B does bad things while pretending to be A? That's beyond irrational and well off into the Twilight Zone of counterfactual spin. Why don't we just blame Native Americans for the Boston Tea Party, or indict movie stars for the crimes of their on-screen characters, or hold people responsible for debts incurred by identity thieves? Sure, there's a significant amount of nominal religion that's insincere (I would contend the vast majority of it) and religion is one of the most convenient excuses for cruel or just plain crazy behavior, simply because it consists of commonly-held notions. Freedom and democracy are also commonly-held notions, yet when Neoconservatives excuse their insane behavior by citing freedom and democracy, rational people do not therefore conclude that freedom and democracy make people do insane things. Likewise, rational people do not condemn religion for the crimes of those who are merely exploiting religion to justify their idiocy and bigotry. It is perfectly natural that both the anti-religious and the fundamentalist love to assert the same lie: that fundamentalist lunacy is "real religion" while the religion of sensible, progressive people is conveniently edited out of the picture or dismissed as anomalous. The reason they share this conceit is that both of these extremes are mere political postures based more on cultural loyalties and sentiment than evidence and reason. by John Leith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 6:34:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I beg to differ.
In your supposed first "error", you are making the etymological fallacy, which is loosely defined as assuming that the definition of the root is the same as the definition is today. True, there is generally a very high correlation, but that doesn't take into consideration connotations and other linguistic changes. A hypocrite, as defined today, is somebody who pretends to believe/be one thing, but then acts contrary to that. That definition fits the majority of christians perfectly (Ted Haggard, anybody?). Also, you may have missed (I could imply here that you yourself are being dishonest, but I won't) the points where I clearly state that not all religious people have these kinds of issues, that there are varying degrees of religiosity and dogmatism, etc. I am not condemning the "entire set" of people--rather, I am condemning the belief system which continues to cause harm to many people aruond the world. A prescription drug doesn't have to kill every person who takes it for it to be pulled from the shelves. It may actually have a very slight risk of serious side effects and still be recalled. It is past time to recall religion. by Kelly O'Connor (9 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 8:40:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: An uncomfortable notion
Kelly, by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 11:31:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I totally agree
It is the moderates who provide the "cover", so to speak, for the extremists. The whole "they're not all like that" excuse is what gets religion off the hook and keeps it taboo to criticize it. That's why people like Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, (me?) are so important and why it is necessary to speak out about these issues. Even if people don't want to hear it. I love this quote from Dr. Albert Ellis - "By not caring too much about what people think, I'm able to think for myself and propagate ideas which are very often unpopular. " by Kelly O'Connor (9 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Feb 4, 2008 at 12:30:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Movement Realism
Yes Kelly, you are in my view to be included among those that wish to dispel the myths, lies, and duplicity of religion. The Four Horsemen, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are certainly the vanguards of ‘movement realism’, but a bonafided subset of critical and independent-minded people – such as yourself – have emerged to confront once-sacred canon as dubious and not beyond reproach. Religion is, in all its forms, intellectual slavery. When one frees their mind of baseless guilt, gullibility and gods, they – as did I five years ago – find a renewed vigor and clarity that unshackles the psyche to pursue truth over piety. Theocracy is, after all, the ultimate methodology by which to rule a nation. Rationality and intellectualism are always persecuted while faith and ignorance meld into blind nationalism. This produces a mass delusion of fallaciously grand arrogance that erroneously justifies insidious acts of human brutality and conquest. I have been working on an essay, perhaps a thesis, entitled, “The Misguided Principles of Faith” that argues faith ‘does requires proof in order for it to achieve validity and legitimacy.’ It would be an honor to have you as a contributor or a co-author. - Frank J. Ranelli, Senior Editor by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Monday, Feb 4, 2008 at 1:04:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Everybody thinks they are right
The truth, however, is that only one person can show the way out of the mess, and put an end to the conflict and division. Unfortunately, so far he has been rejected by his generation. But the time will come when his message will be recognized for what it is, and it will change the world. http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com by Sarah Morgan (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 178 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 5, 2008 at 1:05:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Huh?
I sincerely hope that the "one person" that you're talking about isn't Jesus. If so, please try to make comments that contain substance instead of pure prosetylization. After reading a bit on your site, I must say that this is intellectually devoid and factually meaningless nonsense. by Kelly O'Connor (9 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 5, 2008 at 4:40:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Re: Huh?
He's not Jesus, but he does serve the Spirit of truth that Jesus and many other prophets said would come. As for your dismissal of his work as "intellectually void," I wouldn't be so quick to judge if I were you. If you really read all of it, you would not and could not say that. In fact, you would probably be very glad you read it. Most people really don't read it. They peruse it until they find something they don't like or disagree with, and they dismiss it. Like you. by Sarah Morgan (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 178 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 6, 2008 at 1:26:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: But you're right. Religion does cause ...
bigotry, hypocrisy, pride, militancy, violence, death and destruction. At least organized religion as we now know it does, in certain cases. Right now, true religion is not noticed, because its practioners are humble, peaceful, faithful, and "meek," if you will. That's what the author of this web site is trying to promote, while at the same time exposing and rebuking religious bigots and hypocrites. THAT's why I'm trying to spread the word. http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com by Sarah Morgan (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 178 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 6, 2008 at 5:40:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: In fact, the title of his first book is
Real Prophecy Unveiled: Why the Christ Will Not Come Again, and Why the Religious Right Is Wrong, published in 2002. by Sarah Morgan (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 178 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 6, 2008 at 5:44:07 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
