Salaam
Oh, another (atheist I presume?) troll.
A common tactic they use is to make the presumption of atheism. Pretending that this is some sort of Archimedean (neutral) vantage point to judge all other worldviews, which is an 'odd' to put it mildly assumption to make.
So there are many worldviews in the world? So what? Since there are so many that means they must all be wrong? We can’t discern which one is right or wrong? Or which one is more true than false?
Don't you think you've been 'indoctrinated' in the culture, habits, customs of your society, is that necessarily a bad thing?
So why do a certain type of atheist, secularist and their associated cohorts peddle this supposedly 'reasonable line'? Contrary to the claims of the poster this ties in with the idea that seems very influential amongst the atheists, secularists etc that bringing up your children in your faith is a form of ‘child abuse’.
For instance Dawkins recounts – (This is taken from 'Rage against God' by 'Peter Hitchens')
‘in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicised cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place’.
He then goes on to repeat these allegations stating on British TV
‘What I really object to is – and I think its actually abusive to children – is to take a tiny child and say ‘You are a Christian child or you of a Muslim child’. I think it is wicked if children are told ‘You are a member of such and such a faith group simply because your parents are’
The word ‘abuse’ used here by both Richard Dawkins and my brother is far stronger than it first seems to be. In modern Britain and slightly less so in the USA, an accusation of ‘child abuse’ is devastating to the accused. It is almost universally assumed to be true. Juries, the media, are intently prejudiced against the defendant before any evidence has been heard. To suggest that any person so charged may be innocent is to risk being accused of abuse oneself.. . . . .
Goes on to say
To use the expression ‘child abuse’ in this context – of religious education and teachers – is to equate such education with a universally hated and despised crime. Such language prepares the way for intolerance and quite possibly, legal restrictions on the ability of parents to pass on their faith to their children, just as they are increasingly restricted in disciplining them. If Professor Dawkins genuinely believes what he said to the Dublin audience then he should logically believe that ‘brining the child up Catholic’ should be a criminal offence attracting a long term imprisonment and total public disgrace. If he does not mean this, then what does he means by the use of such wildly inflated language, and what is he trying to achieve by it?
So you see the deceptive game they play as they try to secularise or marginalise faith groups from the public square by stealth or other means. Be wary of it :skeleton:
I have to disagree with sister Riana17 comment about religion and politics, at some level it does have to play a role in the political life of any nation, the question is can it play a positive role or negative role.
To play no role at all is to become irrelevant much like what Christianity has become in the UK. We have to be involved so we can defend our interests.
Edit: - - -
Presumed he was an atheist, I presumed wrong, apologies