Should religion be banned from all public places?

No

1 of 37

by Rhonda Coyle

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

~ Voltaire~

Hardly a day passes by in which you do not see something in the news; derogatorily I will add, where religion is being attacked, mocked, and/or blamed for some tragedy. The exposure of the horrific molestations done by the Roman Catholic Priests became a field day of newsworthy print for opportunistic media hound dogs.

There is also the recent exposure of unspeakable abuse by Roman Catholic priests and nuns in Ireland running orphanages. Then there are these so called "Holy Wars" in the Middle East done in the name of "Allah". We could make a seemingly exhaustive list of where "religion" is the central blame for much of the world's woes of today.

The latest attack on religion is the idea that religion itself is "Child Abuse". Charles Dawkins; a well known "God/ religion" hater and author of the book "The God Delusion" wrote an article titled "Religion's Real Child Abuse" on May 15th 2006. *In this article he attacks the Roman Catholic religion for these travesties but he makes an interesting comment I would like to present as evidence in my argument here.

Being whose "religion" are we talking about, the religious dogma of believers or the religious dogma of non-believers? Oh, non-believers are not religious you say....hmm! Let us see! In this article Dawkins states:

"Happily I was spared the misfortune of a Roman Catholic upbringing (Anglicanism is a significantly less noxious strain of the virus). Being fondled by the Latin master in the Squash Court was a disagreeable sensation for a nine-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion, but it was certainly not in the same league as being led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to everlasting fire. As soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by the shared experience of the same sad pedophile. I do not believe that I, or they, suffered lasting, or even temporary damage from this disagreeable physical abuse of power. Given the Latin Master's eventual suicide, maybe the damage was all on his side."

I want you to see clearly here the arrogance of ignorance. In the first line he states he was not brought up in the Roman Catholic Church but; he was brought in the Anglican, and as he calls it a lesser strain of virus. But; he goes on to say, that he too was molested to a far less degree than the damage some of the Catholic priests; by this "Latin master", as he calls it.

When he told his friends about what happened he learned they too were also victims. He further states that even these molestations are far less damaging than the preaching of "everlasting fire."

The points I wish to show with this article is of course the ignorance of his hypocrisy, the ignorance of his prejudice, and the ignorance of his own disease spreading "Hellfire and Brimstone" like preaching! In so doing, I wish to expose through his words; the nature of the forms of disease spreading ignorance, through the use of media propaganda, which is THE "dis-ease!"

The manipulation of words; it is his attempt to downplay one act by exposing another, is a tactic known as "media sensationalism". "Media sensationalism" is defined as: *"to report heavily on stories with shock value or attention-grabbing names or events, rather than reporting on more pressing issues to the general public."

In his article he points out, that the "Latin Master" committed suicide and that maybe the damage was all on his side. He is suggesting here that the suicide was out of "guilt". Is not the very idea of "guilt" the foundation of "Hellfire and Brimstone" preaching? Yet if he is suggesting that this could have been cause for the suicide, he is indeed admitting "guilt" is an existent thing!

The problem with guilt is that it never recognizes it in itself. Who "sees" themselves as guilty? From our own biased perspectives, we are always the saints and the other guy is always the sinner.

Then he states this minor offense as a "disagreeable physical abuse of power". Are not his words his use of "media sensationalism" in an attempt to "infect" the reader with his prejudices, also a form of "disagreeable physical abuse of power"? "Oh", you say to yourself, "this hardly compares to the travesties of the molestations or the impact religion has placed on the world." Well let us take a look at what else Dawkins goes on to say, which will definitely expose the use of "media sensationalism" influence:

"I would make two points about it. First, just because some pedophile assaults are violent and painful, it doesn't mean that all are. A child too young to notice what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile will have no difficulty at all in noticing the pain inflicted by a violent one. Phrases like 'predatory monster' are not discriminating enough, and are framed in the light of adult hang-ups. Second (and this is the point with which I began) the mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is."

He is seriously and distinctly downplaying child molestations, as to even suggest that there are actually "gentle pedophiles" that cause only minor infractions as a "child is too young to notice". Also he is subtly suggesting that these "predatory monsters" are blowing out of proportion these "gentle pedophile" acts by blaming it on "adult hang-ups."

I would like to just note here by the use of the terminology "adult hang-ups", he is implying a form of "sensationalism" without actually saying this. But his second point shows precisely his motive for his article, which he himself clearly points out in parentheses: "(and this is the point with which I began)."

He is trying to emphasize that the preaching of "Hellfire and Brimstone" incurs far more damage "mentally" than being molested. Just to give you an idea, in case you are not familiar, "Hellfire and Brimstone" uses guilt to instill fear that one might obey God and thus go to heaven rather than burn in hell for eternity.

Humans are empiricists in that, physical experience justifies our beliefs. For example, when a mother tells a child "Don't touch the stove, it is hot" usually the child reaches out and touches the stove anyways, because the child does not understand what is hot until the child gets burned. So let me ask you, "is the child more fearful of the stove's hotness before or after being burned?"

The answer is as obvious as the nose on your face. Clearly the child showed absolutely no fear when the child reached out and touched the stove! The fear the child now has of the stove is directly related to the child's experience of the stove's hotness and not the words of the mothers preaching. This lesson could literally be stated as a form of "hellfire"!

So his claim that "Hellfire and Brimstone" is an "unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain" may be true. But at the same time, his claim that the direct experience of a child who has been molested, however trivial he wishes to make it, in order to substantiate his claim that "Hellfire and Brimstone" as a "noxious virus", is indeed evidentially unsubstantiated with the small stove example I pointed above.

His deceptive terminology is even further unsubstantiated using this as his evidence: "If sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse". How absurd is this? He uses if/could as evidence to substantiate over actual physical abuse!

This is what is known as "hearsay" evidence in a court of law. It would not be allowed to be entered as evidence! Insanity is ignorance and only the believer believes he is justified, and unfortunately he himself is the last to know!

But he doesn't stop there, let's look at more:

"If you can sue for the long-term mental damage caused by physical child abuse, why should you not sue for the long-term mental damage caused by mental child abuse? Only a minority of priests abuse the bodies of the children in their care. But how many priests abuse their minds? Why aren't Catholics and ex-Catholics lining up to sue the church into the ground, for a lifetime of psychological damage?... I am not advocating this course of action. Much as I would like to see the Roman Catholic Church ruined, I hate opportunistically retrospective litigation even more... By all means, let's kick a nasty institution when it is down, but there are better ways than litigation."

"Oh the hypocrisy screaming from these words!"... Here lies deceit all covered up and neatly packaged as he suggests subtle temptations of dangling forbidden fruit and denial! Listen to these words; "he does not advocate litigation"...then why is dropping the suggestion out there? You know what a response to this would be, "Oh, I cannot take responsibility for the actions of others if they took what I wrote wrong and filed a law suit."

Well isn't that exactly what he is advocating for the Roman Catholic Church? He wants them to pay for their words. Not only does he want them to pay but is he not doing it with a vengeance? He states here clearly "I would like to see the Roman Catholic Church ruined and by all means, let's kick a nasty institution when it is down." Are those not vengeful words spoken in hatred, I will add!

After subtly suggesting "sue" and covering his words with "I don't advocate" he then claims he hates "opportunistically retrospective litigation even more"... this is clear cut contradiction and is he not being an opportunist himself? Is he not taking advantage of an already exacerbated "media sensationalized" situation to promote his own propaganda?

And what is up with the obsession of "mental" abuse. It is a well known psychological issue of one who attacks another being an attempt to build one's own self up. Usually, the premise of the attack, here being "mental" abuse, is the weapon the attacker uses to attack because one is struggling with that exact issue. This psychological dilemma is due to low self-esteem and could be referenced to the "Bully syndrome."

We have all witnessed a "bully" or two in our day, especially in grade school. Pointing the finger at others is only a form of denial of one's own feelings of guilt. Besides being overly immature, it is also incredibly incoherent! Come on people, let us open our eyes for once and start standing up against the brainwashing!

Now I am not advocating "Hellfire and Brimstone" preaching. Neither am I saying that this is not an infectious mental dilemma. What I am saying is that "media sensationalism" is a form of propagating propaganda and any and "all" communication is propaganda! It is defined as "any systematic, widespread dissemination or promotion of particular ideas, doctrines, practices, etc. to further one's own cause or to damage an opposing one."

It is used to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior in order to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. Here is a "short" list of synonyms for propaganda: advertising, evangelism, communication, publication, announcement, bill, teaching, tenet, opinion, hype, creed, rule, dogma, fame, public relations, blurb, broadcast, circular, classified ad, commercial, declaration, display, endorsement, exhibit, exhibition, flyer, literature, plug, poster, publicity, attitude, belief, canon, concept, convention, conviction, instruction, position, precept, rhetoric, rumor, statement, tradition, tenet, etc., etc., etc.!

I don't want to get too nitpicking here but as you can easily see by this extensive yet "short" (sarcasm) list of synonyms for propaganda, there is hardly a one of us exempt from using it. Just about every form of communication used in the world is and has been, now and always, for the sole purpose of propagating propaganda!

To be politically correct, as well as to ensure no one gets left in the cold through discrimination, I feel safe to proclaim boldly I might add, the human race is full of...Okay I won't say the "it" word here but as the definition clearly shows, we are all guilty of being "media sensationalizing propagandists"!

Everyone has a belief system and religion is basically a belief in which you practice. There does not have to be a "God" centralized in a belief to be considered religion. Do you not brush your teeth religiously believing that this serves a purpose you benefit from? All belief systems are formed in the mind and acted out in the things we do. What can we say is "mental" abuse if we are all guilty to some of "media sensationalistic propaganda"?

I believe those who wish to rip apart others belief system and at the same time impose their own are suffering from a severe psychosis with an inability to perceive realistically. If we allow such behaviors to continue to fester in society, this anger with a motive to destroy our neighbor's freedoms, we will soon be living in the days of tyranny.

Isn't what this topic suggesting more specifically: "Should we just kill the "God" idea?" What shall we replace "God" with then? We cannot just erase the "God" idea without penciling some other idea in. Surely you understand that man absolutely cannot act without a belief system.

It is his one and only motive "to do" everything and anything. Without a belief system man is dead or worse yet, a robot. So what shall be the "God" replacement? Shall it be technology, knowledge, science, or perhaps man himself?

As much as we may not like what other people believe, if we remove their "Right to Freedom of Speech" we remove our own. To tell someone you cannot believe your belief is to wish them death! For a man without a belief cannot act. As man may believe to the dragon he feels threatened by, in slaying he believes he is free at last... at the closing of the curtain may he come to recognize it is himself he has deceived...it is he who is the dragon.

I will end with this question to ponder: Have we become so vile a species as to wish our neighbors death?

-

*http://encyclopedia .thefreedictionary.c om/Hypocracy

*http://richarddawki ns.net/article,118,R eligions-Real-Child- Abuse,Richard-Dawkin s

*http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Sensationa lism

*http://dictionary.r eference.com/browse/ propaganda

Learn more about this author, Rhonda Coyle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.