Ed Vedder’s soundtrack for the film Into the Wild is very, very good, and entirely worth buying even if only for the song Long Nights.
Website of Joshua McGee
Me
Fun
- The Laws
- Diacritic Decoration
- Random TinyURL
- Number of the Beast
- The Most Narcotic Period of Anniversary (or, The Most Wonderful Time of the Year)
- Passing the Torch
- Shrine for the World's Best Wooden Spoon
Magic: The Gathering
Philately
Études
Site
Subscribe by emailFind Me Elsewhere
 |
|
Typos fixed and spam q. answered:
“Religion is child abuse”
Not sure if you really believe this, or are quoting someone or whatever, but do you believe the absence of religion is better? I’m thinking of where that has been mandated –in various communist countries where all religion is essentially considered as such, and all I see if unparalleled of suffering, whether in Russia and Siberia, the gulags, Nazism, Cambodia, China, North Korea, etc. Then one has to consider the fact that almost every major societal change in the Western world has come from and because of those with religious conviction (Christian), such as the officialising of adoptions, Red Cross, education and literacy itself for the masses, the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, and so on. Sorry, but your statement seems rather naive, if you don’t mind me saying so..
Mmm,
Given that I’m normally the one defending religion on this board (as Josh seldom fails to remind me), I’m hesitant to speak against your comment. I tend to take the opposite position of what a person says on principle, however, if I think that there’s a point that can be argued, because it gives people the opportunity to refine and revise their positions. Opening disclaimer aside, let’s get started…
You’ve created a straw man; since Josh never advocated the outlawing of religion, attacking the position based on historical instances where the state has outlawed religion is a fallacious argument. I’m quite certain that Josh is of the opinion that ANY government outlawing of what people think or believe is intolerable. However, religion is not special in this regard; locking up or executing someone for believing in a god is no better or worse than locking up or executing someone for believing that the moon is made of Lego blocks. The state doesn’t have the right to tell people what to believe, but that doesn’t make every belief worthy of respect or consideration.
Slavery was opposed by people with Christian backgrounds, it was also supported by people with Christian backgrounds. Religious organizations pushed forward civil rights, and religious organizations took stands against civil rights. Education has been advocated by the church, and education has been stymied by the church. The fact of the matter is, in any situation where a group is as widespread as Christianity (or many other religions) is, you can easily pick and choose examples of positive or negative effects that things that members of that group have accomplished. Talking about ways in which religion has moved forward civil rights or education in the past is all well and good, but I can think of ways and places where religion is holding back civil rights and education in the present.
My opposition to the phrase “religion is child abuse” comes from the same place as my opposition to the phrase “abortion/meat/fur is murder”… If someone KNOWS that ACTUAL child abuse or murder is happening in their communities, and they know where it is happening, and who is doing it, aren’t they morally obligated to do more to stop it than simply making blog comments or voting for someone who says that they’ll eventually do something about it? In my mind, people need to either admit that such phrases are empty rhetoric or they need to step up to the plate and actually treat such behavior as child abuse/murder.
You’re most of the way there, Bob Mike.
Aren’t they morally obligated to stop it? Not through direct application of force they are not.
The difference is between something being morally akin to murder or abuse, and being legally akin to murder or abuse. Only a madman would bother saying “Shooting a man between the eyes is murder.” Of course that’s murder. The reason “fur is murder” has rhetorical weight is that it urges someone to make the connection, and (sometimes) implies that the speaker hopes that it someday becomes legally regarded as such.
I do believe that instilling religious beliefs into people too young to defend themselves is de facto neglect, when it is not outright abuse. Either the person does know better, or should. But we are still in the Dark Ages in which many otherwise normal people do not know better. Thus the rhetorical weight of the phrase “Religion is child abuse.” Rhetoric, yes. Empty, no.
I would argue that we are at precisely the juncture where blog posts and voting are the correct means to accomplish change. You are advocating, what? Vigilantism? Literally stepping up with a baseball bat? Surely not. Education will be the route to change, and the charge, while incendiary, obviously does make people take note.
Vigilantism is the far end of the curve of available options in such a situation. What it come down to is this: If there were a building in my community where I GENUINELY believed that child abuse was taking place on a regular basis, I would make efforts to help those children to escape, whatever the legal consequences might be. Institutionalized child abuse (which is what has been suggested is happening) is as morally repugnant as slavery; we had an Underground Railroad for the latter, so why isn’t anyone stepping up to create one for the former?
There are, beyond question, situations in which religious groups are actually abusive; in those situations, there are often organizations working to free the victims from the harmful activities to which they’re subjected. These situations are not, however, the norm in my opinion.
Hell, even setting aside the question of whether or not a person would break the law in order to protect children from systematic abuse, there’s the matter of whether or not I would associate with a person who I knew to be abusing or to have abused children. I’m fortunate in that it hasn’t been an issue that I’ve had to confront with any regularity, but I like to think that if I found out that someone who I otherwise liked and admired was a child abuser, I would shun them. In fact, I would be outright hostile (in a non-violent capacity) to them. I like to think that my friends (yourself very much included) would have the moral conviction to do the same.
Until someone is ready to do that to every friend, every parent (their own and those of their friends), every co-worker, and every public official who commits or supports these acts of “child abuse” or “murder”, I have a very difficult time believing that they have any actual conviction that what they’re saying in anything more than empty rhetoric. Child abuse and murder are two places where I would be willing to draw a line in the sand. You can’t say that child abuse or murder is wrong, and then have any association with child abusers or murderers. Those are unpardonable offenses. Anything tolerable, even grudgingly, should be called something else.
By the way:
Yes, the soundtrack is very good (for the record, my favorites are “Society” and “Guaranteed”).
So is the movie itself.
And especially so is the book on which the movie is based. I would strongly recommend the film for anyone who’s read the book, and would strongly recommend reading the book (first) for anyone who hasn’t.
Dave, you know that Society (as well as Hard Sun) is a cover, right?
Yeah. I got them liner notes.