Christians, look at the recent threads....
2. advocating genocide in Uganda.
3. committing child abuse by teaching their children the Bible.
Do believers propagate these threads by arguing with these people that are so starved for attention that they'll say anything to get it? Your comments...
That is a fact. It is abuse to force a child to believe in something. It's called indoctrination. There is no law against such abuse, but most likely we will see such a law in the future as this abuse comes to light.
I'm not a Christian (at least I suspect many believers on this site would disqualify me), but this is not a fact. Abuse is a word that must not be diluted. Child abuse is a horrendous phenomenon, and its horror must not be sullied by introducing ideas like this.
Everyone ever born has been indoctrinated into a cultural system. Atheism could be construed as abusive by this logic; it isn't. I concede teaching children about hell is not cool, in my book, but I suspect the parents who use the idea of hell to scare the sh*t out of their kids would be abusive no matter what beliefs they held.
Just my view point
It isnt't sullied in the least and is appropriate for what children have to bear being indoctrinated into their parents religion. Perhaps, you're confusing indoctrination with teaching.
I say as soon as a child is born we take them to a liberal education center so they can be raised like good liberals. Really, what the hell is wrong with you!?
If by "liberal education center" you mean public school... then that's where I went, and I turned out ok!
My sarcastic remark referred to a situation where the state takes kids from their parents to ensure they're not taught bible lessons. The parents would be removed from they're lives so the abusive parents couldn't program their children.
Well, this is the issue isn't it. Ironically, it was a healthy dose of left-wing, Marxist philosophy at university that woke me up to this: Marxists don't like liberals either, because to them, they are *within* the system, playing by its rules, part of the state -- to a Marxist, it is the state that is the problem.
So I got a good dose of analysis of the state as oppressive, intrusive, invasive, dominating and indoctrinating. Ironically, it works well for the Right too; just, instead of the "state", you can use the word the "government" -- the complaint is the same.
I don't mean by Marxist philosophers Soviets though, or Maoists, because, perversely, they are our prime example of the state intervening in everyone's lives -- look at what they did in Cambodia; took away ALL of the children so they wouldn't be contaminated with "bourgeois" ideals by their parents. (A bit like what the Canadian government/state did to the natives up here)
The fact we have to have these conversations is so sad.
I am, broadly speaking, a sort of liberal, I guess, but I actually think that the problem is that liberals demonized the family throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s. I mean, I support the idea of alternative family structures (God knows, witgh half the population divorced, there is no alternative) and of course wonen's political right to equality (and that of gays), but still, liberals were idiots, in my view, to let Dan Quayle and his folks capture the notion of "family values". Predictably, it is only now I am older I realize the importance of promoting family values; maybe people wouldn't have to have two parents working if *both* sides of the political divide had clung on to this more tightly.
This is what has allowed people to scream abuse at everything that moves -- the fact is, most families are more-or-less adequate, clunky, awkward, and rumbling along, but not depraved or abusive
Agreed. If you have kids, take care of them in an adequate fashion--seems common sense.
The inhumane use of language, unfortunately, effects everything. I see you are an interpreter--and must have an inside track in to the loss of true meaning when it comes to words....and thereby even philosophies or orientations.
I use the word "liberal" just to be a butthead, I know most people are good and well intended. There is more than one way to skin a cat, I just don't do it their way all the time.
but Marxism is just an ideal situation right, when you apply it in reality it will crumble, but the idea of communism is good, equality, the first thing is, are we really equal?
When I read your response and the quotes above there was no mention of that. I am in no way in favor of children being taken away from their parents. But I am also not in favor of parents only accepting their children when they have the same beliefs as them. In my family my sister and I are agnostic and my brother atheist. My parents are proud and support all three of us.
The fact that q was calling it abuse to teach your children the bible and should come with legal penalties, you missed that?
Yes, I did. It wasn't there when I quoted you. I already said that. And I already told you what I thought.
Cole you're parents did a great job and you will too someday!
Yet you think people like me are destroying the world.
No I don't but you have some beliefs I don't share with you. I think that we're in a period social evolution and there's going to be some pushing and pulling.
Well, we are dealing in generalizations. I already conceded that there may be cases where this was the case (using hell to be abusive), but I suspect the parents have to be mean-spirited to use it that way. I knew tons of kids from evangelical homes growing up, and they were *definitely* *not* abused! The idea is ludicrous in their cases.
As for me, I was brought up in a secular home, but I still got indoctrinated into all sorts of things I wish I hadn't been. I'd be surprised if there are many who escape this fate
Not at all, the indoctrination can take place in what appears to be the happiest of homes, although the happiness is most likely blissful ignorance. Violence is NOT a factor of indoctrination.
What you are admitting to is the fact that you accepted without question those things you refer. Anyone who uses critical thinking skills easily escapes that fate.
Well, at this point I would normally say something abusive, and then laugh, because the idea that a seven year-old has much in the way of critical faculties is just dumb. The forebrain doesn't stop growing till 25 for a start
Not neccessarily. In fact, looking quickly at the definition, I was no mention of violence.
I am talking about its usage by 90 percent of English-speakers, and allowing for the implied threat of violence. If someone shakes their fist at a child and says "By God you'd better not do that again, you little snot, or God is going to damn you" that is violent, hence abuse. But, as I say, this simply does not happen in most families.
On reflection in general I suspect in fact children from Bible-based families "frequently" alter the beliefs given to them as they get older, and more independent -- but maybe someone else on this thread can answer whether that is true.
This has been my experience as well, including my own personal path. I don't feel as though I was indoctrinated or abused since I was allowed to make my own choices with only a little resistance from my parents. Plenty of my friends and school mates had similar experiences. My views of religion and the church are quite different now than my parents'
I think that whatever abusive indoctrination Q speaks about is so rare as to be an anomaly. Certainly nothing severe enough to require legislation!
Of course, one does not feel they are being indoctrinated, nor does the parent undertaking the indoctrination feel they are doing so either. They were indoctrinated themselves. It's a system that has been working for centuries and has become a norm in our society. We even make it a freedom in many countries to practice religious indoctrination. In some countries, it's the law. Amazing really.
In other words, you've grown your own version of your god and your religion, just as your parents did from their parents. You still believe and you accept the belief uncritically, and will most likely pass it on to your children, and that's entirely the point. Everyone's version of their god and their religion is as individual as their fingerprints.
It is a world wide phenomenon affecting billions.
Funny how I have never once stated what I believe or don't and you assumed what you wanted to believe about me. This is why I consider this forum a pointless part of HP.
"Everyone ever born has been indoctrinated into a cultural system," is the same as saying we are all born. Ok, we are all involved in a cultural system but to what extent we are forced/encouraged to believe a particular life view is obviously very different for each of us.
Me, I was never brought up with religion nor atheism. There was a bible in the house and I read a little and asked my dad about the bible. He didn't want to talk about it and suggested if I wanted to know about the bible I could make up my own mind. He didn't want to talk about god. Same goes for my mother, more or less.
I know many people who are not indoctrinated. We are born and we exist in culture. We all exist in systems, that's life. Indoctrination is a word that can be equally abused. To suggest we are all indoctrinated as an opppostion to the suggestion that some children are victim to forced religious affiliation, you commit the same dillution you charge.
I have more than a few friends that were brought up Catholic and admit to the facts of indoctrination and the inability to shake the consequences. I have seen the same in children and teens and adults brought up in the pentacostal faith. Child abuse via religion is a real thing.
Are you advocating a select group dictate what children are taught by their parents in their own homes?
"They" already decide plenty for parents.
Parenting is sharing more than the nesessities. It is the passing on of values from generation to generation. Why would you feel anyone has the right to reduce parenting to glorified babysitters?
I think trying to control what values I teach in my home is an outlandish statement for attention. Holly
What do you think about those that raise their children from birth to hate and kill people of a different race, should they be allowed to breed their children to be racist killers?
I assure you that didn't happen in my home, and my home and my rights to parent is what I addressed. Holly
Does that mean you can't state an opinion on other homes? If you are silent, does that mean you approve of people raising their kids to be racist killers?
You are free to state your opinion any blooming time you want to, but what do you want from me? When you ask "does that mean?" it usually is the beginning of :
If I stand my home is my right - you flip out.
If I say nothing - you flip out.
If I say I raised a good son- you condemn that I taught him the Bible.
If I say we need to help those who do hurt their kids - you say I have no right to judge and you flip out.
I think you will now start throwing something out there with "logic, individual belief, etc" just to flip out some more. It is up to you. Holly
Just stating what I see and think.
You are saying teaching your children about your morals and values is abuse? Yes, what we need is a law...
Yes, again the confusion between indoctrination and teaching. We can teach children about religion or we can indoctrinate them into our religions. See now?
I see a lot of people think there should be a law for everything, and if you've seen real child abuse you wouldn't be calling so-called "indoctrination" by the same name.
That is all I care to say about it, though, so everyone carry on with the hate.
Irrelevant. Whether I've seen "real" child abuse or not does not preclude that fact that indoctrinating children into their parents religion is abuse. This is "real" child abuse.
More trolling, I suppose you'll never learn. Your outbursts are a direct indication of your lack of sincerity, credibility and intelligence.
You, my short-peckered friend, appear to be a perfect example of said indoctrination. You lack any form of critical thinking skills and integrity in your so-called thinking process.
Does this mean we're not friends? I have cookies?
I cannot be bought or bribed, sir!
What kind of cookies?
Hey!!! Don't talk to Dad like that. I don't know why, but I don't think he can defend hisself. I don,t mean you any disrespect Q, that just really creeped me out.
Can you not concede though that lumping this issue in with physical and sexual abuse, and psychological intimidation using belittling and threats over time does muddy the waters.
It reminds me of occasions I've heard Jewish North Americans born in the 1970s or later using the Holocaust to justify some position or other -- it disgusts exactly *because* the Holocaust was such a gigantic crime and should not be mixed up with, let us say, the albeit precarious position/plight of a strong, democratic, prosperous, confident modern Jewish state.
Lines have to be drawn in the language we use -- things have to be labelled correctly, or we can not navigate the world properly.
Then, let's have a good look at your response. You have offered up at least three categories of abuse; physical, sexual and psychological intimidation. While it could be argued that religious indoctrination is a form of psychological intimidation, it need not be as intimidation may or may not be part of the equation. But, the fact that you produced several examples does not preclude that childhood religious indoctrination cannot be included as another category.
And, if you want to take that one step further, how do you think most Christian parents will react if their children stepped forward and stated they no longer believe in the parents god? Do you think we would see some psychological intimidation and physical abuse? Could be.
I was offering a *definition* of child abuse, not a set of examples. I'm sorry, but I simply have too much experience around fundamentalist Christian families, i.e., empirical date based on a pretty big data set, and they are not the way you describe.
And for the record, most of their kids *did* "fall away" and *none* of them were disowned.
I concede, Adsense. God. Your posts are honest and you are using language honestly.
Yes, what you are talking about is RAMPANT over Hubpage forums. There isn't a very serious discussion of most matters, just a lot of posturing and 1/2 baked assumptions/truths.
One wonders how some can talk of abuse and indoctrination here and not realize how they themselves appear. In my humble opinion, you are using somewhat advanced critical thinking skills...and to boot, humane language. Others are not. You have a new fan.
Would you advocate what I consider relevant to be the law as to what you can teach your children? There are some places where peaceful peoples are allowed to pass on their values to their children. You pass on what you feel you must, and I will do the same. Holly
You think there is a difference between indoctrination and teaching, without failing to see that there is a difference between indoctrination and brainwashing. (Besides, if you break down the word "indoctrination" etymologically, it clearly refers to the act of teaching.) Brainwashing is abuse. Indoctrination/teaching is not.
And to forbid parents from instructing their children and raising them according to their religious traditions is a form of cultural genocide.
Teaching your children to think for themselves is the most valuable form of cultural progress.
Yes, it is, and I beleive that's already been covered.
Now you're being silly in the extreme.
Oh, really? There was a time when Native American parents were discouraged from raising their children according to their traditions, to the point that children were taken from their parents and educated in boarding schools, and it was all part of an attempt at cultural genocide.
The government. It was a political power grab.
Ah - so it was not an attempt to turn the indigenous people into good Christians with "christian family values."?
How very convenient that it was "the government" and nothing to do with "the religious."
You sheeple really will only ever see the wonderful family values of Christianity, and any bad things are OK because Pol Pot was an atheist.
Ultimately, not at all. It was a complete land grab. And not all Christian denominations supported "manifest destiny."
But the powerful ones did. I wonder if you could now furnish me with a list of "good" and "bad" denominations so I know the difference.
And this practice went on in Australia until the 1960s.
To bring them to Christ and instill in them good christian family values. For their own good.
Best ignored. Pol Pot was an atheist. Maybe bring up communism?
"Central in the Government of Canada’s plan was the utilization of the Christian church. The Canadian Department of Indian Affairs oversaw Christian mission work to “civilize” Aboriginal people and mandated most of the residential school administration to Christian churches."
Canada (not that I'm getting involved in this thread a second day running; life is far too short )
Ok, you're talking about the past. I thought you weret talking about the present. We can find plenty of examples of all kinds of atrocities in the past that aren't practiced today.
I am suprised you stated that Q Maybe Ernest will see this, Holly
And won't be practiced in the future if we learn from the past. Somehow, I think anyone who says it's "abuse" to pass on beliefs that aren't harmful to anyone else hasn't learned.
Hi (Q) From one Q to another, I don’t see your point. The words teach and indoctrinate have the same basic meaning except that the latter adds a negative connotation. Perhaps you can elaborate.
According the Webster’s Dictionary:
Main Entry: in·doc·tri·nate
1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach
However, I think as a parent, it is my obligation to teach my children, to the best of my ability, how to live and survive on their own. To accomplish this, I must instill in them as much of what I have learned from all of my own life experiences. Therefore, I could not allow them to wait until they understood tooth decay before starting them on a ritual of good dental hygiene. I consider it my duty to mold their character and their ethics in preparation for adulthood. This would include instructing my children about what I believe to be right and wrong even before they are able to understand why they are so. And, I do this knowing that, in time, it will become their obligation as adults to adjust what they have been taught according to their own conscience, and life experience, so they can teach and train their children for what may indeed be a different world then mine.
(as in Quilligrapher)
The latter is negative for the fact that indoctrination is the acceptance of ideas, "uncritically" which is the key word in the above definition.
For example, you are raised and taught a god exists and you accept it without question. Critical thinking would put into question the existence of the god especially when there isn't a shred of evidence to support the concept. But since you accept it "uncritically" you've not only lost the opportunity to learn critical thinking skills, you begin to accept a great number of concepts without question and your entire thinking process consists of little more than beliefs in this and that, no thinking required.
I applaud you for doing so, sir. And, I also thank you for not using scriptures as your guide, but instead your own lifes experiences. Kudos!
Q as in Q
Thanks for your comment, (Q). The words “teach” and “indoctrinate” have the same basic meaning and I believe that you agreed to that by not stating otherwise. The distinction you make is that “indoctrination is the acceptance of ideas, "uncritically".” But neither teaching nor indoctrinating involves any kind of acceptance and “acceptance” has nothing to do with either definition. I will address my children's ability to accept my teaching “critically” later. So I am left with my original statement: “I don't see your point. The words teach and indoctrinate have the same basic meaning except that the latter adds a negative connotation. Perhaps you can elaborate.”
In this statement you begin with a hypothetical premise, “you are raised and taught a god exists and you accept it without question.” I accept your premise and confirm that the “you” in the premise is actually Quilligrapher. Therefore your starting premise is not only a true statement, but also one that I have the life experiences and valid qualifications to respond to. You then go on until you arrive at this conclusion:” you've not only lost the opportunity to learn critical thinking skills, you begin to accept a great number of concepts without question and your entire thinking process consists of little more than beliefs in this and that, no thinking required.”
There is absolutely no supporting evidence between your starting premise and your conclusion at the end. You offer no evidence. I see no facts.
Again, I was indeed raised and taught a God exists and I accepted those teachings without question when I was being taught. However, without ever having met me, a misguided mindset has you believing that I “lost the opportunity to learn critical thinking skills.” You really think that I “accept a great number of concepts without question”, and finally, you are convinced that my “entire thinking process consists of little more than beliefs in this and that, no thinking required.” Can you explain to me how you come to know this about me without ever having met me?
Thank you, (Q) for that kind round of applause. With your permission, may I once again point out how a mindset can often lead to erroneous conclusions. I said that I felt it was “my obligation to teach my children...from all of my own life experiences.” However, I did not indicate if all, how many, or if none of those life experiences may have used scripture as a guide. Maybe I did use scriptures as a guide, maybe I did not. Which one is true is irrelevant!
One final point, if I may. We are talking about children here. I, for one, would never accept any argument that supports ALL teaching must be delayed until the child has reached an age when they can critically accept what is being taught. You would have to justify to me delaying my children's education until they are old enough to understand why they need to start school as soon as they are able. Or, should I not indoctrinate my children to brush their teeth unless they are old enough to understand tooth decay? Or should I not teach my children what I found to be valuable about spirituality and ethics just because I learn some of those concepts from their grandparents?
(as in Quilligrapher)
If you did use scripture as a guide, did you cherry pick what you wanted them to believe or did you teach them everything? If you did cherry pick the bible, do you consider that ethical?
Who said anything about 'delaying' teaching? Children can be taught to think at an early age, as long as their not being indoctrinated into a religion as this will destroy their ability to think.
You could teach your children instead. Have you tried that?
Do you teach your children that "spirituality" exists or do you teach them that it hasn't been demonstrated to exist? Big difference.
Q as in Q
Hi again (Q). So far, your responses continue to advocate your opinions yet you refuse to offer any supportable explanations as to why or how you reached your conclusions. Therefore, you are asking me to believe that your way of thinking is superior is mine solely because you believe this to be true. I see no supporting evidence and you offer no facts that remotely support your conclusions. You are, in effect, saying that you have neither.
You continue is insist that “teach” and “indoctrinate” have two totally different meanings AFTER reading a verifiable authority that says that the basic definitions of both words are essentially the same. This suggests that your mindset is so rigid that it resists change even in the face of hard evidence.
I notice that you did not respond to what I said at all. Instead, you introduce another hypothetical followed by two questions. You also ignored my statement that the use of scripture as a guide is irrelevant within the context of my post. Once again, your response fails to offer any explanations as to why or how you reached your conclusions.
”Who said anything about ‘delaying' teaching?”, you ask. I did! I did so to demonstrate that parents often need to expose their children to things before they are old enough to accept the concept “critically.” You even suggest that teaching religion “will destroy their ability to think” and you do so AFTER I proved to you by my own example that this conclusion is absolutely illogical and utterly false. This suggests that your mindset is so rigid that it resists change even in the face of hard evidence. Here, once again, you choose not to respond to my question but, rather, attempt to deflect my point by asking another two part question. To answer a question with another question is to admit you have no answer that you can defend. Do you have any concrete reasons for your beliefs? Such unsupported conclusions are nothing more than your own individual opinions that you accept as facts within your perception of reality. Which is okay with me. Think whatever you want. But, why try to convince others to think this way if you can’t explain why and how you arrived at these conclusions?
I teach my children things that I found to be valuable about spirituality and ethics because I have learned from my own life experiences that these concepts were beneficial to me and, in my parental opinion, will benefit them as well. For example, I think they will have a better life if they believe, as I do, that they should not steal. I would even punish them for stealing in order to reinforce that their life will be better if they think this way too. When they grow up they will be free to become bank robbers or cheats if they so choose. But, I will know that I fulfilled my obligation by teaching them that I thought such actions would reduce the quality of their lives. I can believe that it is wrong to steal without having to believe that Moses spoke to God. There is much to be learned about living from the Koran, and the Bible, and a Good Housekeeping magazine. When I find it, I use it.
I am really interested in learning about what you think, (Q), and even more interested in learning why you think this way. Please don’t respond with just more of what you think if you have nothing to offer about why.
Q. (as in Quilligrapher)
They aren't the same words, by definition, in a dictionary. What verifiable authority do you refer?
No, what it demonstrates is someone (you) doesn't know the definition.
Yes, I did.
I didn't ignore your statement. Your claims to use scripture as guidance was not followed by an explnanation, yet you expect me to provide explanations. You're being hypocritical.
You proved nothing. I have no idea where you get that notion.
No, it demonstrates you're being intellectually dishonest.
No, I asked the question for clarification.
Those values have nothing to do with the Quran, the bible, god or any other invisible and undetectable entity. Those concepts were evolved and around long before your invisible god.
The punishment/reward system offered by religions doesn't work, never has. To follow such a system would be futile.
My interest on this thread is discussing whether or not Christians should give attention to this nonsense.
Of course they should. Why don't Christians teach their children about religion and not just force them to believe in Christianity? In fact, I've seen so many Christians who know very little about their own religion, yet believe in it without question. Have they been taught?
Yeah! And they'll also ban math and science too! What we need is more stupid immoral kids so the stupid immoral ones we have now won't feel excluded. Please!
You put a lot of thought into that didn't you?
Not that I have all day for this--which means you'll get the last word--BUT there is a difference between fact and opinion.
You have stated opinion.
ABUSE would be like a Catholic priest sodomizing an altar boy.
teaching your kids about your faith is NOT abuse.
You're right. Indoctrinating them into your faith is abuse.
Are we still on this. Abuse is... oh never mind
Yes, and it is a topic that will continue to gain much ground and many will find themselves having to deal with it whether they like it or not. It's the same with any other topic that arises where old ideals are continously being tested and debunked.
Better get used to it.
Yawn. Is there something wrong with your stats?
Yes, I do see how the topic can appear boring and unimportant and can easily be dismissed.
So was the vote for woman.
The intellectual feminists don't necessarily want you on their side, I'd guarantee.
I hate to state the obvious (which is a lie), but the difference is that the vote for women was one of the most monumental changes in human history, and I am not given to sensationalist language. What you're talking about is tripe
This thread is tripe, is that what you are saying?
And actually, women in past history have run whole societies. We have not been the only society to exist. Making 'the vote' in America sightly a moot point.
What I am saying is that as a liberal feminist, with what I'd say humbly are relatively intellectual views, I do not want to be associated with the stereotypical quote, quote, 'leftist' doctrine 'Q' is spewing as inevitable and right.
It isn't. In my opinion, it is similar to another religion and also a populist tripe.
Do you disagree that this was a monumental shift in human history? Easy for you to say; it wasn't you going to jail in front of the White House eighty years ago just for trying to get suffrage, something women all over the West should have had millenia earlier. But why fight, when there is a much dumber argument going on. What is he on about? It's got me
As a woman, I'd consider the invention of birth control the true monumental shift. And I probably could teach a class (hyperbolically speaking) in women's history...
He's on about the fact he thinks atheism is RIGHT. And although the 'believers' here on Hubpages are hardly good debaters on behalf of theism, I don't think that's correct.
I get tired of the 'scientistic' enlightened who consider any theistic belief 'abuse,' as you have in forthright language pointed out it is not.
There was more than one shift. In fact the twentieth century was so full of shifts you really do have to wonder about the awesome power of atheism, or at least modernity, to change things for the better (this is unfair -- Martin Luther King and his ilk were not atheists, and neither was Gandhi).
As for abuse; I liked my earlier argument. It was not successfully addressed, so to come back several hours later as if my points were never raised, well, it's not kosher
That isn't very "humble" of you.
And, although you appear to love labeling people, you never provide content to your labels, nor do you argue any points made. You simply dismiss it all with your own preconceived notions of "intellectual feminism"
Nice start to a claim. Anything else to add or is that it?
The difference between intellectual feminism (much of which I disagree with, and much of which I find fascinating) and you is that someone can spend, you know, a year, or a few months, reading broadly across the genre, attending lectures, and make up their mind about a vast, and complex, and often contradictory field (as academia perhaps inevitably has to be); you got your argument from a crackerjack box
I have been observing your posts for some time and what I am offering is a meta analysis of your behavior. You are not worthy, in my opinion, of any true debate.
Your 'taking out' constantly of 'believers' is silly. But I think all you can add to the conversation.
No, sorry, the tripe is q's -- I wasn't clear
Let me know when you meet one and we'll ask her, just to be sure.
Ah, the truth will out. Man, you've really yet to get this arguing thing down, don't you. Perhaps you should write a hub or two for practice.
Here's a hint -- don't run down your own talking point
Btw, the next time Lita offers only ad hom responses, will you also be at her side running me down?
My response was to your 'argument.' Yours have been entirely ad hom attacks.
You DO need to get this debate thing down, yeah?
You didn't have a response to the argument, you simply dismissed it with validation.
I haven't seen a debate from you yet. I even went back into your posts and found very little content.
Instead of hurling insults and indiscriminate denunciations at religion-in-general, the newly religious atheists could do far more good by encouraging the growth and flourishing of open-minded belief--the kind of belief that lives in productive tension with modern science and cultural pluralism. In doing so, they would be following the example of Thomas Jefferson and several of the American constitutional framers, who advocated a liberal, skeptical form of piety as the kind of religion best suited to a free society.
How likely is it that these "new atheists" will moderate their anti-religious ire, abandon their futile hopes for a godless world, and begin contributing in a more positive way to the project of improving the religion we have? Not likely, since it would require a fundamental change in their moral and intellectual outlook. They would have to abandon their haughty condescension in favor of generosity of spirit... They would have to commit themselves to persuasion and restrain the urge to...to utter tripe. But most of all, they would have to concede that what is needed is not faithlessness. It is intelligent faith and/or tolerance.
"Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus."
Yes, we would have to abondon morals and our intellects altogether and follow the so-called morals of scriptures, which have been placed here before you time and again, you know, the really ugly, nasty ones.
In other words, give up sanity completely. No thanks.
Is this where I am supposed to say "Tell the hand" or something like that?
For a few, it was decided with Nietzsche long ago--which incidentally, didn't really mean God was actually dead. The populist/scientist-ic crowd is now proving they got gumption and zeitgeist.
How about someone citing sources for the definitions of the words abuse and indoctrination?
It was me who questioned his use of the word abuse. I think that we can come up with a definition that most of us are happy with, more-or-less -- that is all that dictionaries do anyway, to get their definitions in the first place... (besides, I don't believe in Webster's, not being American, so right there there's a weakness in using sources ). As for indoctrination, that one's not my baby
Timely post, cause I waqs thinking the same ! Which is why I have ceased to look at these posts anymore, I wrote a hub on the same thing, called Hubpages microcosm of USA, but I am glad to see someone else take notice of this sick need for attention a few have here.
I don't know that this is a reach out for attention but the ability to express yourself in relative anonimity.
You have to admit that as ferverish as some of these conversations get, you wouldn't want to have them face to face as some bad things may happen. Even if you don't agree with what the individual is saying, you learn something if only how wrong you think the other person is.
Givin the slight chance you are referring to me; My email is on my hub witch has my name on it. I'm a man. I stand behind what I say. My name and face are on the twitter and Facebook pages I have linked to my hub. I think Christian Cults are sick twisted and dangerous. If you want to eqaute that to mean all Christians are like that; SO BE IT. WHO ARE YOU??? You sound like a big man with your threats. SHOW YOUR FACE!!!
threads like these which invite trouble and arguments, wherein both sides try to outdo each other with outrageous, rude, degrading and unrespectful comments until they get frustrated and come back once more to post another thread, and then change their log in name,
I cant believe this is occuring in a site where people are supposed to be writers, not only becuase they call themselves writers but as a human being in a social world, there should be limit to what each one can do,,,,insult etc
You and I seek the same things from here it would appear, thank you for being there and your refreshing input
Even on this thread they're going to dump on it. It may be difficult to resist, but I think sometimes we can provoke the crazies by engaging them. Thanks for your comments.
you are right they are doing it here as well !!! I hope you understand if I dont check on this thread anymore !!! But I will look at some of your other articles, thanks again for at least validating my suspisions as well, all the best
I don't want to limit them. Usually, that only creates a bigger problem. My issue is whether or not we should be more reflective before we respond and exercise some constraint before we engage these accusations.
I agree with you. Some people just will not let go!
I missed that part; where you have to be a Writer to join this Hub. I thought is was just another blog where regular people could be heard. I'm not a writer. I'm just a reagular guy stating my opinions on political subjects. I wish I was a writer, I wouldn't get banned so much.
How would you rate my recent hub?
Which is the worse blasphemy, Amen in the context which I described or...f-off? If God is Good(Jesus, Allah, Budda, Hindi, etc), then why are we fighting each other and not coming together for the common good?
If it is not for the good of all, how is it good.
Ergo, how is it really God, of which we flipantly and
casually say 'Amen' to in our daily prayers?
Unless we are together the religions of the world
are nothing more than political and corprate entities
preaching their own gospels solely for their own
good and political/corprate survival.
These threads are the product of their own indoctrination
I agree. I really enjoy engaging unbelievers in worthwhile discussions on fundamental questions and I know you do too. But, I'm starting to think that on threads that are mostly accusatory, they probably should not be answered. When you talk to these people, you don't get a response to an argument; you get another accusation.
This is called 'grandstanding', and not all of it is aimed at religion. The intent of said individulas is to create a topic that will get a lot of debate time, making them falsely believe that they are actively stimulating conversation in others.
I agree. This is not an issue of religion per se. I mentioned on another thread that this is usually people's way of getting attention because they are unable to garner respect in other forums (like professional accomplishments, for example). As Prettydarkhorse said, this is a writer's forum and it is productivity and quality that should distinguish members of the writing community.
I would agree with that. Can you explain then why there are so many threads with nothing more in the content of the OP but an affirmation to a god? How is that productive? Is it quality, by your standards?
Yes, it can be "quality." Have you ever read Confessions by St. Augustine? How could anyone not consider that "quality"?
In accepting the Lord, I have a direct experience of God. God has the capacity to make himself known to those that believe on Him. I have done that and I accept that experience as veridical. Absent any defeater of that experience, I am justified in accepting that experience as a true one, just as I'm justified in knowing that my wife loves me. I can't prove that to you, but that does not mean that my experience is not a true one. My acceptance that my wife loves me is not "irrational"; I think it's best to say it's "nonrational."
While it may not make much sense to an unbeliever to say that God abides with us, it does make sense to a believer, both on this forum, across the world, and such an experience was known by those in the past. He knows (or can know) God in his life. As for others that have not had that experience, I'm sorry that they lack such an experience (the forgiveness of sins, a strong sense of destiny, the hope of eternal life, the love of God, the peace of God, etc). But, it makes no sense to me to deny my experiences as veridical just because someone else lacks that experience.
As for "productive" I think it can be very productive. On several occasions I have read how a believer has received some blessing from the Lord. That can be a great blessing to me. "Encouragement" is conducive to productivity. It might also cause some to ask whether or not it's possible to really know God or not. So, yes, I also believe it can be productive.
I agree, although I do not frame anything necessarily through being 'a believer.'
However, using Augustine as an example, whole theological philosophies and concerns are disregarded (I suspect because many posters are not even familiar with them).
As for calling theists 'irrational,' THAT is irrational. Andrew Sullivan, editor of the Atlantic and a practicing Catholic, called it best on the Bill Maher's show featuring "Religulous." (I will find the quote and post it.)
Anyway, irregardless, 'anti-religionism' has now entered the realm of the populist imagination, and that is the level it's at--very apparent on Hubpages. However, adherence to this populism doesn't approach true discussion.
I thought you were talking about Hubpages?
No, you don't. Having an experience is not the same as accepting to have the experience.
Gods have the capacity to make themselves known to anyone, not just those who believe. None have made themselves known to the world as yet. Or, did I miss the film at eleven?
Yet, if your wife truly loves you, it would easy enough for her to demonstrate that to anyone. The justification you claim to your experience with god has no foundation of demonstration beyond your own imagination.
I see that as an argument from authority, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Gods in general make no sense to unbelievers, that's exactly the point. Making claims beyond that in regards to gods abiding with us has no grounds for pursuing if the existence of the gods hasn't even been established.
What you're really saying here is that you think you're special because you believe to have had experiences with a god. And, since the gods you purport to be omniscient and omnipotent could make it a very simple matter to provide me with the same earth shattering, life changing experience as you, my waiting in vain these past years is not something I should discount?
Notice how this failure does not speak for me or any other nonbeliever, but in fact speaks volumes to the nonexistence of your god.
The facades and false hopes created by religions do more harm than good as they simply replace one vice for another and fail to deal with the root cause and offer only placation.
Strawman argument...your initial quip deliberately misreading the intent behind his words sets the tone for the entire 'debate.'
As far as I'm concerned, the new atheists are just a religious sect that is trying to find converts as well. Unimpressive.
What are you referring to exactly? I see no strawman but I would be happy to change my post if indeed one is pointed out to me.
Do you consider the vacuous claims of theists to be impressive in comparison?
Do you understand that a lack of belief is not the same as worshipping the invisible and undetectable.
I consider NO vacuous claims to be impressive. Yours, too. And I would not attempt to 'argue' with one so adroit in choosing the meaning behind, around, or threaded through what has been stated.
Just to point out in example the obvious: Bibowen (who incidentally, I disagree with most of the time) was referencing St. Augustine as quality reading material. You made a cutesy (I assume) and asked if he was not indeed talking about Hubpages?
How innocent. You use postmodern theory so well.
In other words, you can't defend yourself. Ok, I get that.
So what? It has nothing to do with the rest of the debate. Is that all you have to offer here, Miss Bleck? Or, is that not your real name?
How refreshingly disingenuous of you. (Imagine that.)
I'm saying your debate is not a true debate...and that adds much to the understanding of the conversation.
I can't imagine, responding in kind, that is.
Those in the gallery usually do shout down their disapprovals to those within the debate. Fostering little else to offer, they are quickly forgotten.
(I.E, postmodernism can include the systematic destruction of semantics, of which the loss of meaning is analogous to the confusion of tongues.)
From one of my hubs.... I foresaw a possible question.
I don't think teaching your child out of the Bible could be classified as abuse. Teaching doctrine that is interpreted out of the Bible to reinforce sectarian beliefs and practices can be dangerous as this can be cultist in its' basis.
I have personal knowledge of cultist church teachings that have created schisms between grandparents and grandchildren at far too early an age for the grandchildren to understand the complexities of mature faith and acceptance of others beliefs. This can get abusive if allowed to go too far.
These are just examples of people using good ideas and construing them to do bad things. People do it all the time, even here on HubPages.
Is using the terms "terrorists", "advocating genocide" and "abuse" a little stretched... maybe. But as embellished as you may think it is, the place of religion in those situations is questionable.
I saw a 60 Minute story a while back. It was about the Ku Klux Klan. And there was a family in the klan taking a picture in their sheets and hoods. The mother was holding a newborn with a tiny sheet and hood on. This is what Cults do. They produce Terrorists. The Advocted Genocide or "Holy Wars", and they commit child abuse. Everyone seems to be able to tell the difference accept you.
Atheists are starved for attention?
I don't see it that way.
I think you believers don't want or like to be criticized in your beliefs, because you can't sustain them.
I, personally ,don't believe in anything. And If I post in religion is to give my opinion, opinion I'm entitled to, just like you.
And I'm not starving for attention. I get all the attention I want, without having to come to the RF. Thank you
When did they give girls a right to an opinion? Thats a load of bull!
hi sneak !
Thanks for the 'girl' thing, but I'm a woman, and entitled to my opinion, whether you like it or not !
Those kind of threads are just plain ignorant.
This can easily be turned around to show the truth, like so ...
Militant atheists and gay rights anarchists are
2. advocating predatory homosexual recruitment of schoolchildren into gay activities in Uganda.
3. committing child abuse by teaching their children about evolution and homosexuality.
I think believers are just wasting time by replying to some that are just trying to antagonize like marinealways24, (Q), tantrum, Bovine Currency, Cagsil and a few others in here. We'd be better off to just ignore their threads and posts. But I think we need to expose the truth like in the Uganda issue.
Ok...Since you invited me. Let me ask what truth you exposed about the coming Holocaust in Uganda(BACKED BY A CHRISTIAN CULT)? Just because you tried to make the point it's going to be Holocust Lite; does not change the fact the when the killing starts all Homosexuals in Uganda will be Murdered.
And it's a stupid argument to make that you commit child abuse by teaching your child religion. Most of the good things we learn about being decent human beings come from our parents teaching us about religion. Most parents teach their kids common sense along with religion, so they can distinguish what is good and evil.
Yes. Here I think the Bible provides some guidance. I Peter 2 talks about personal attacks and says that they should be treated "with patience." I think it's best to deflect personal attacks (for the most part). However, there are times when it isn't right to sit by and allow flagrant lies to proceed. Especially when they involve the lives of others, they should be exposed.
You are right, your biblical lies should be exposed by everyone. Pretty silly for you to think out of all beliefs in the world, yours is the only correct one. Some people don't need a belief book to understand how to live and have a conscience.
For sure Bibowen, the lies need to be exposed. Like the Uganda issue or this other one about homosexual predators.
Education official involved in teaching 14-year-olds strange sex techniques
Yes, I became aware of Czar Jennings some time ago. He's a real piece of work. It goes without saying that the information spotlight needs to shine brightly to expose his sorry life.
The thread about Czar Jennings was so disgusting HubPages deleted the post and closed it to replies. But you can read the editorial here if you want. There is a warning at the top of it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 … czar/?feat
Ignorance is a much easier path to take. Why not just get us all banned instead, then you can write affirmations to god to your hearts content. That's what you really want, isn't it?
Those damn pesky unbelievers are getting in the way of you shoving your beliefs down our throats, making faith based decisions in government and law to satisfy the invisible and undetectable, which is really nothing more than your own selfish ideals.
And btw, MAKE MONEY, you never answered a question I posed sometime back in which I asked you if you ever got permission from your god to make money off of him?
When you eventually stand before your god, as you seem to beleive, what will you offer him when he asks for his cut of the profits? Your soul, perhaps? And, what do you think he'll do with it? Bring sunscreen, lots of it.
I would support number three...with the addition of teaching a child the bible "AS TRUTH".
I NEED MORE ATTENTION!!! I know why you and Make Money were so alarmed by my forum topic: The US Christian Right promotes a Ugandan Holocaust.
Now I know why you tried to distract me with your name calling. Now I know why you started this Forum topic to discredit me. Make Money said there was more to this story. It took me awhile to figure it out. It's about your bottom line.
http://allafrica.com/view/group/main/ma … 10965.html
Interesting that you lie about this.
Teaching children garbage such as the world being 6000 years old and getting them to repeat mindless prayers to non existent super beings when they are incapable of understanding what they are praying to is indeed child abuse.
This is not the same as teaching them the bible.
Sorry you needed to lie about this. Jesus would be very proud.
You are a child abuser.
Comments please about why the religionist need to lie about what was actually said.
Why do religionists lie so much? Is this what jesus would have wanted?
Technically, they're Christianists - people who think they're Christians, but who are obsessed with limiting the rights of other people and perverting a perfectly sensible message of treating your neighbor as you would yourself (the Golden Rule, which is pretty much universally respected across value systems).
A pity that those who scream most loudly about being Christian are, in fact, not Christian but Christianists. They give Christians a bad name (unfairly).
Yeah! It's like liberals who aren't liberal. They want their version of sociaty and they don't care who they hurt to get it. They gladly stand in judgement of whose a Christian and whose not when they have no intention of repsecting anything Christian.
alot of em are the same person just entertaining themselves I guess
Certainly better to guess than do any actual reading and speak from knowledge.
You can teach a child whatever you want. You can abuse a child. You can do all kinds of things--control, domination, indoctrination, etc., but in SO many of those cases, the child starts to figure out the charade and starts following his own moral compass, whatever that may be.
I am one of those people. It took a long time to come through lies and deceits, the coverups, hate and abuse, but I believe I'm a better person for having come through all of it. I think for myself. I don't mock believers, and I don't mock nonbelievers. Those who mock either or both are themselves the worst of fools.
About the time anyone believes they have the world and universe figured out is about the time someone will come along and knock down that house of cards. The disorientation is horrible. You have no idea what's next or if there is a next anything. But the journey through it is the best thing that can happen to anyone.
It's only by questioning the answers that we can eventually answer our own questions. Other's questions are not nearly as important as our own. The answers come from within, not from without. Those who are wise help others to find those answers within themselves, not beat them into another person with a sledge hammer.
So teach what you want. In the end, it's irrelevant, because we are individuals and must think, discover and learn as individuals. In the end, you cannot take the individuality and uniqueness out of a person. They figure it out on their own.
Works on both sides Bibowen. Not you personally, but plenty of religionists do the same
@Bibowen - I agree with you that too many threads are started to be confrontational. And I agree with Misha that this is a 2-way street. And I see that you have in effect started another one, by failing to notice the symmetry of the situation.
In my opinion, I can better serve and support my child by exposing her to a variety of ideas, beliefs, concepts, and philosophies and let her make her own choices. If she choses to follow my beliefs, great, if not, so be it. At least she will have been given the opportunity to do the research herself in order to make her own conclusions.
If you teach a child that they must always look to you for how they should believe or behave they will never grow on their own. They will always doubt their own decisions and will always turn to someone else. That someone else that comes along won't always have their best interest in mind. They have to be taught to be free-thinkers and think for themselves.
Can you define angry? Is it a group belief or an individual one? Why are you so emotional about this? What is your logic?
I am passionate as in it is a matter I believe in strongly. Anger is something out of control or near it.
And your last question...what do you think the logical answer is to that? Holly
Angry = you getting defensive about me asking you questions. You say you don't want me to talk about logic then you instigate me to write about logic. lol What sense does that make? I agree with government stepping into ppl's lives as little as possible, how do they correct whats wrong when people are too emotional to state their opinion? If it is a known fact people are teaching a belief of hate to minors, I think someone should step in, the hard part is deciding on what and when to step in without violating free belief.
There are some really heavy foolishness and hypocrisy posted in this thread.
Geez. You guys have different views of what is "liberal", if we are using labels. Which to me is pretty lame and a cop out. Its easier to blame things on other people when you can just group them all together and label them, isn't it?
Greetings! It's me again.
When we commit to marriage and the beginnings of a home we thus obtain that right to raise our posterity according to how we feel is right, true and correct. It's my privilege and right! I would not impede upon someone elses similar right simply because I don't agree with it. It's their right and I respect that. As long as it falls within the realms of the law you may raise your family as you see fit. You, as the experienced parent have a better chance to raise your child than if you left the childs wellbeing to him/her self.
As for my home I teach love and the doctrines of service to others and the necessities of salvation as I see it and have experienced it. That - is my responsibility to pass on to my rising generation. At the same time that I arm them with these tools of life I let them know that the time is soon coming when they will be their own masters over all decisions of their life and that they have the right to accept or reject the teachings I have tried to instill in them over the years.
Mark my words though. The immediate problem is with the government impeding on the raising of our children without the respect of the parents. This I fear most!
What bothers me most is there's much about religion that can discussed in a civil manner, yet it happens so rarely. Instead, it seems threads always come down to believers and non-believers exchanging insults and attacks.
As long as both sides insist on taking a predominantly "I'm right, you're wrong", black and white approach to the issue things will never change.
More on topic... The outlandish thread titles come from both sides and I'd love for that to stop -- but I know it won't.
World religions, atheism, agnosticism, spiritual and non-spiritual views are equally fascinating to me; and believe it or not, all have valid points worth thinking about.
Just my 2 cents.
ANYWAY to answer the original question--yeah SOMEONE probably talks a lot of shit here just to get attention.
(I think you phrased the question backwards though in that it is probably non-believers who start the trouble from what I have observed anyway.
Just one reason I love Sullivan:
Unfortunately, the panel discussion on religion I'm talking about, where he is equally as eloquent against the simpleton atheist sect, has mysteriously disappeared. Hmmm.
And that is also to say that Nietzsche a long time ago proposed that God (God= BIG Religion...the sham) is dead. But that did not mean that atheism was THE answer. Too many quasi-intellectuals, I'm afraid, have misinterpreted what he said. Hence, you end up with stuff like Bill Maher's "Religulous."
Repeated over and over again in populist glory ad nauseum on Hubpages.
This is all total b.s because the truth lies somewhere in a shade of gray that takes into account many factors that's not being considered here. Yeah.
Education in a given subject allows one to make more informed choices and decisions.
"It's abuse to force a child to believe something" Puhlease. Of course, they shouldn't be forced per say, but how on Earth are they going to learn how to survive life if they aren't given the manual? They weren't born with one you know.
Wow! How come you're cupcakes get all the sprinkles? Thats not fair!
LOL...I was thinking along the same lines. More like face down in the sand.
You know, people think I'm prettier than I think I am. In fact, it's usually an afterthought to me. My intelligence and opinions, I hope, are more important.
I wish! I don't think anyone ever has all the sprinkles. They're just distributed differently.
But teaching your children to think for themselves and raising them in your religion are not mutually exclusive.
So I guess the bible would be a good place to "educate" your kids from.
I wonder how this would go down?
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB
That should keep em in line!
Religionists don't argue any of the hard ones! They just avoid them!
Things I have learned from religion:
Treat others with kindness and decency
Respect your elders
Love selflessly, not selfishly
'Tis better to give than receive
Life is always precious - guard it sacredly
I don't thing any of these things are bad, not do I feel brainwashed for believing in them. Where the Bible falters is when people twist its message to serve their own agenda - like when a person kills four cops and says Jesus made him do it.
Like anything else in this world, a tool can be used to help others or wielded to cause harm - but the tool itself remains innocent when left to itself.
I'm still waiting for a reply from Bibowen or Make Money to any of my questions they ran from on my Thread "Right Wing Christians promote a Holocaust in Uganda". You called me names, you wrote distractions, but you never really addressed the justification of the Murder of the Homosexual People in Uganda.
If they are OUTLANDISH STATEMENTS as you say, address them with real facts. The truth is THE FAMILY is after Oil, and they are willing to allow the President(A member of the Family) they installed in that Country to Murder his Citizens to distract the people from the Crooks and liars, and thieves that are there to steal their Oil and leave them with nothing but a destroyed Country.
Hi Make Money/Bibowen
I know I really had nothing to do with this. I still feel like I did something, instead of sitting around and hoping it would go away. I feel we should all speak up when we see something in life that is really really wrong. Your one little voice might make all the difference in the World.
Uganda to Drop Death Penalty, Life in Jail for Gays!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … 6JnNOFJv64
Just trying to spread the good news. I know how concerned you all were about this issue.
Thank you Friendly, I love to see a Nation advance.
Let's not get carried away here. The Nation is not advancing. It's being Rape and Robbed by the Shah Museveni, that was install by THE FAMILY the cult that he is a member of. Since 1986 they have been there to help spread disease and hate and chaos and civil war. They have oil. And the people have no one in the government looking out for their interest.
I told you so. You are right, you or no gay rights anarchist had anything to do with this.
Let's hope these predatory organized anarchist homosexual groups learned a lesson from this. Now in light of Obama's risky-sex czar they need to learn the same lesson in the US. Let's hope it spreads.
You are such a smart man!
Help me out with some of these passages that were in that article:
"serious inquiries about sexual filth propagated by a senior presidential appointee"
"his seeming encouragement of sex between one of his high school students and a much older man as well as his praise for Harry Hay, a notorious supporter of the North American Man Boy Love Association."
"sponsored by Mr. Jennings' organization"
Make Money, please explain to all us out here; that you think are stupid; what crime did this man commit? What statement did he make that should disqualify him from his appointment. What group is he a part of that works against this government or any of it's citizens? Give us something besides some slick, sleazy attack ad.
So glad you guys have so much confidence in "the word"
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
You Better have it exactly right now, or I will tell mummy and daddy!!!
This is an article from a Homosexual Man in Uganda. He could be Murder any day now. I think you should here it straight from him, what is happening in his Country.
As a gay Ugandan, Frank Mugisha has endured insults from strangers, hate messages on his phone, police harassment and being outed in a tabloid as one of the country's "top homos". That may soon seem like the good old days.
Life imprisonment is the minimum punishment for anyone convicted of having gay sex, under an anti-homosexuality bill currently before Uganda's parliament. If the accused person is HIV positive or a serial offender, or a "person of authority" over the other partner, or if the "victim" is under 18, a conviction will result in the death penalty.
Members of the public are obliged to report any homosexual activity to police with 24 hours or risk up to three years in jail – a scenario that human rights campaigners say will result in a witchhunt. Ugandans breaking the new law abroad will be subject to extradition requests.
"The bill is haunting us," said Mugisha, 25, chairman of Sexual Minorities Uganda, a coalition of local lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex groups that will all be banned under the law. "If this passes we will have to leave the country."
Human rights groups within and outside Uganda have condemned the proposed legislation, which is designed to strengthen colonial-era laws that already criminalise gay sex. The issue threatened to overshadow the Commonwealth heads of government meeting that ended in Trinidad and Tobago today, with the UK and Canada both expressing strong concerns. Ahead of the meeting Stephen Lewis, a former UN envoy on Aids in Africa, said the law "makes a mockery of Commonwealth principles" and has "a taste of fascism" about it.
But within Uganda deeply-rooted homophobia, aided by a US-linked evangelical campaign alleging that gay men are trying to "recruit" schoolchildren, and that homosexuality is a habit that can be "cured", has ensured widespread public support for the bill.
President Yoweri Museveni appeared to add his backing earlier this month, warning youths in Kampala that he had heard that "European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa", and saying gay relationships were against God's will.
"We used to say Mr and Mrs, but now it is Mr and Mr. What is that now?" he said. In a interview with the Guardian, James Nsaba Buturo, the minister of state for ethics and integrity, said the government was determined to pass the legislation, ideally before the end of 2009, even if meant withdrawing from international treaties and conventions such as the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and foregoing donor funding.
"We are talking about anal sex. Not even animals do that," Butoro said, adding that he was personally caring for six "former homosexuals" who had been traumatised by the experience. "We believe there are limits to human rights."
Homosexuality has always been a taboo subject in Uganda, and is considered by many to be an affront both to local culture and religion, which plays a strong role in family life. This stigma and the real threat of job loss means that no public personality has ever "come out".
Even local HIV campaigns – which have been heavily influenced by the evangelical church with a bias towards abstinence over condom use – have deliberately avoided targeting gay men for both prevention and access to treatment.
"This means many gay men here think Aids is a non-issue, which is so dangerous," said Mugisha, who together with a few colleagues, has risked arrest by agitating in recent years for a change in the HIV policy.
At the same time, some influential religious leaders have warned about the dangers of accepting liberal western attitudes towards homosexuality.
Both opponents and supporters agree that the impetus for the a more hardline law came in March during a seminar in Kampala to "expose the truth behind homosexuality and the homosexual agenda".
The main speakers were three US evangelists: Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge. Lively is a noted anti-gay activist and president of Defend the Family International, a conservative Christian association, while Schmierer is an author who works with "homosexual recovery groups". Brundidge is a "sexual reorientation coach" at the International Healing Foundation.
The seminar was organised by Stephen Langa, a Ugandan electrician turned pastor who runs the Family Life Network in Kampala and has been spreading the message that gays are targeting schoolchildren for "conversion". "They give money to children to recruit schoolmates – once you have two children, the whole school is gone," he said in an interview. Asked if there had been any court case to prove this was happening, he replied: "No, that's why this law is needed."
After the conference Langa arranged for a petition signed by thousands of concerned parents to be delivered to parliament in April. Within a few months the bill had been drawn up.
[In an email to the Guardian on 30 November, Scott Lively said, "I have stated publicly that I do not support the bill as written. It is far too harsh and punitive. My purpose in addressing members of the Uganda parliament in March was to urge them to emphasise therapy, not punishment in their anti-homosexuality law." His long-standing position was, he said, that public policy should "actively discourage homosexuality but only as aggressively as necessary to prevent its public advocacy, much the way laws against marijuana are used in various states here in the US: the law is very lightly enforced, if ever, but the fact the law is on the books prevents advocates of the drug from promoting it, for example, in public schools."]
Christopher Senyonjo, a retired Anglican bishop, said the bill would push Uganda towards being a police state. "This law is being influenced by some evangelicals abroad," he said. "There's a lack of understanding about homosexuality – it's not recruitment, it's orientation."
But among religious leaders of all faiths his is a rare voice. Langa, the pastor, said the only thing lacking in the legislation was a clause for "rehabilitation" of homosexuals, whom he "loves" and wants to help. Gay rights had the potential to destroy civilisation, as the west could soon find out, he said.
"As one parent told me: 'We would rather live in grass huts with our morality than in skyscrapers among homosexuals'."
• This article was updated on 1 December 2009 to add a later comment by Scott Riley. A sub-heading - US evangelists are main activists behind measure - was amended to clarify that the evangelists were pressing for tougher laws, rather than specifically for the death penalty.”
This has to be the sickest fear and hate based country in the world at this time.
The ordeal of those in the country is barbaric and the work of zealots.
There is actually a method to this madness:
"This is starting to sound like a twist to the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Some CULT FOLLOWERS go to a Country, infect them with their religious belief. Make them abandon any kind of safe sex practices because of that religious belief against it. Teach them to hate and fear other people in their society because that religion says so. Wait ten years or so for the people to become hopelessly infected with disease and fear Then they point to a scapegoat within the country so the people are too busy dying and killing each other to think clearly about who and what is really killing them. I'm I close?
This CULT called the family has been in Uganda since 1986 and they have been destroying that country since then. The President seems to have been installed like the Shah of Iran. Maybe you missed this link that Pam put here explaining the whole history of this plot.
Wow! Did Make Money and Bibowen really start carrying on!
What I did not realize was that I was not close. I was right on the mark! President Museveni is actually a member of this Cult The Family. And was installed just like the shah of Iran was installed for a specific purpose; to help Infect that Country Body and Mind. Weaken the people, drive them into chaos and civil war for one reason. The same reason Countries all over the Middle East and Africa have been or are being destroyed. The lies being made up in Uganda about the homosexual people in that Country is just as calculated as the lies made up to invade Iraq. These Cult members and not Christians, they are the same Crooks, and thieves and liars that sent us to war as a distraction to steal oil from Iraq.
Uganda has Oil!
http://allafrica.com/view/group/main/ma … 10965.html
And the Homosexual People in Uganda are about to be massacred because their country has Oil and the Family does not want the people of the country to profit from it. Shah Museveni is going to Murder his Citizens as a distraction so they wont realize he’s just there to help Rape and Rob their Country. I’m not College Educated; so I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one that figured this out. Why is this being allowed to happen again and again?
Give it a rest Friendlyword, you are starting to look like one of those anarchists. It looks like I'll have to correct you on this thread too. Like in about 75 other countries in the world homosexuality is also illegal in Uganda. Taken from Friendlyword's thread titled "The US Christian Right promotes a Ugandan Holocaust."
Like smoking cigarettes you'd have to want to quit first.
Hello Make Money!!!
Child molesters are criminals. Straight or gay. Try to get past that and let the laws that already exist take care of them. I'm trying to convey a sense of urgency concerning the slaughter of innocent people that's coming. Your distractive arguments are not helping to stop this Holocaust, it is fueling the fire. I'm not impressed with your exhaustive research on child molesters, we both know that's not the real reason for the coming slaughter. Give me ten paragraphs and twelve links related to the The Families' involvement in this countries' political affairs and and the reason for it.
Did you not read the Obama's risky-sex czar editorial Friendlyword? <snipped - no personal attacks in the forums> Jennings should be removed from his position for the same reason that the predatory organized anarchist homosexual groups are jailed in Uganda.
I dont think Man/boy love is okay. I think it's Child Molestation. Mr. Jennings might think the same thing I do. But we dont know that because that attack ad tried to put words in his mouth just like you tried to put words into my mouth.
<snipped - no personal attacks in the forums>
You really do think people are stupid and dont know what you are doing to this man.
I agree with Presigo. I don't read 'em anymore. Most of it's for show or to startle. From some of the stuff they write I've got to believe no one can be that logically warped.
That Washington Times editorial "Obama's risky-sex czar" about how disgusting Jennings is is mild compared to what I read about him this morning. He needs to be removed, bottom line. <snipped - no personal attacks/hate speech in the forums>
Am I right in thinking you just called someone a queer?
Be a good christian and go report yourself would you make money?
I never report personal attacks myself, but I feel confident that you do!
Yeah sure you don't earney. Why is it that my post got snipped but his didn't. Tattle tail.
Wo, RD and Ernest. The OP said Make Money was into incest. Let's be fair! It's tit for tat.
How did I miss the tit? I usually notice these things?
I KNEW you'd pick up on that, RD!
Did you see the tat - as in puddy tat?
For what it's worth, I think Earenst is being earnest. I can't see him being a snitch.
What surprises me. is that ernest has such a hard heart. He seems to be the ultimate smart ass, and that might cause others to bristle. I just think it horrific that one could live their life with so much hate ! I feel as though we should turnaway from hatefulness and try to find good in each other.I am sorry Ernest that you feel you must spread hate and anger like so much venom.
Where is the hate? I said I do not report others.
I do not do hate.
You hate that I disagree with you and then project that hate on to me. Sorry the persona will not hold. Do some research.
Thank you ColeBabie, I would like to see him say that to Asha the Trasha! She is four now and with her twin sister Lauren in tow she is formidable! Like many adults she has met, I just behave myself and stay on her good side.
Anyone messes with my good name, I got an army of GKids ready to set em straight led by Asha!
I will tell you iI am not sure what you werre trying to say. I suppose it was some kind of threat. Do not spit your venom and expect others to casually except the bite. You are entrenched in your beliefs, I get that, buit why doi you feel you have the right to shoot others down. I understand that blogging is narcistic, but your views are just not superior. Find a small semblence of humility.
id that convenient ? Please do not pretend that you have tolerance for those who believe. You are a person who has passion in your beliefs or lack there of, but you do not have compassion for those who believe
And I, on the other hand, have just the opposite reaction to Earnest. He seems honest in his posts and very caring when the situation calls for it. You strike me as a member of the religious right, hence narrow minded and resistant to scientific enlightenment.
I don't see Earnest as mean or hateful. I disagree with him in many areas, but he has never been disrespectful to me. He has a right to his opinions.
Habee I have always admired that you can often see both sides while standing on one of them! Kudos.
Thanks, Earnest. I've always considered myself to be pretty fair-minded. I think I must have a broader view of Christianity than the far right wing has. I totally believe in tolerance, acceptance, forgiveness, and love for my fellow man and creatures that share our planet. It's not for me to judge others.
No problem Earnest! Asha is a lucky little girl
Ok I'm off to bed now. Play nicely kids!
"Everything she know"?? Who taught you grammar??
Yes, I have learned much from Randy, who is my senior. He hasn't been able to convert me to agnosticism, however.
As for Earnest's intolerance, he knows I am a Christian - a believer - but he's always considerate of me and my views. Maybe that's because I'm not judgmental?
Sometimes you and I are like a dog at a bone in many forum areas, but you keep it honest, and I respect that very much.
Thank you for that. I have a feeling about you as well, you, like myself are passionate, and I do respect that, keep it on neutral terms and we will be fast friends for sure. Cause I do respect you.
I'm crashing also. Had to bury a dead cow today, something I bet many of you have never done before. Later, dudes and dudettes
'Night, Randy! I still think you should have eaten that cow!
And before anyone says Randy is hard-hearted, I'll tell you something about him that he never would. That cow he referred to was an aged bovine who got down days ago. Instead of just letting her starve to death or shooting her, Randy hauled feed and water to her every day.
When he and his dad (who died a few years ago) had cows that got old, they could have just hauled them to the slaughterhouse and made a few bucks. Instead, they allowed the old cows that had served them faithfully by raising a number of calves "retire" and live out their final years in peace and comfort.
Presigo, I read a couple of your hubs today and enjoyed them. I think I left a comment on one or two.
Your Asha sounds like my Lexi. She's 6 and is FULL of herself!
Yep! I lost my first argument on a legal technicality when she was two! I just do as I am told now that she is four. She is way smarter than me anyway as is her slightly more retiring half hour younger sister. Being a grandfather means many bashings from the twins. They love me so much it hurts! At least they stopped using their teeth to climb up with!
You have an uncaged six year old? Brave, very very brave! :lol;
Show me yours, and I'll show you mine - granddaughters, that is.
Do you have boys, too? I have only 2 granddaughters, but I have 5 grandsons. We're expecting another girl in May.
by flacoinohio4 years ago
I am in the process of clearing a very large thinker behind my home. It separates my yard from the neighbors yard on the property behind ours. Now that there are some clear spots, my son wants to play with...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
Many traditional and fundamentalist religious parents raise their children to what is tantamount to abuse. Such children are brainwashed into thinking that the only legitimate and acceptable construct is the religious...
by Firoz3 years ago
How does religion bind people?
by DaKingsKid6 years ago
Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, and Baby Jesus.They find out that Santa is not real.And the Tooth Fairy, Not RealAgain the Easter bunny, Not RealWhat happens to the Idea of baby Jesus?I feel like I am...
by CJ Simonelli3 years ago
Change - mutations, adaption, survival of the fittest, variations based on the environment, and perhaps even some speciation, as in a new "species" of flies - are undisputed facts that do NOT contradict the...
by Mark5 years ago
This is probably going to be a very touchy subject, but I am curious to see the responses. There are many who want the creation story and God taught in school. I am curious, why does this need to be taught in academia?...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.