Child Abuse and religion
By: Geraldine Gonzalez de la Vega
We are all shocked by the allegations of child abuse and brutality committed by members of the Catholic Church in Ireland, USA, Germany, Mexico and who knows how many other countries. We are outraged that the Church more street, that the Church has to conceal or disguise and especially the Church reversed the roles and victimized in front of hundreds of sexually abused children, physically and mentally by those who are supposed to hold moral authority and are representatives of God on earth.
Pedophilia is a terrible crime and I think there is more to behavior that offends society that abuses committed against children. It is obvious that this is not a crime unique to the Church, unfortunately there are pedophiles in secular schools, sports centers, among friends and neighbors, between the same family. But here I will refer not to the sexual abuse committed by priests, but the mental abuse to which children are subjected to the indoctrinated into a religion, any religion.
The Catholic religion is at the core of sin and punishment, if one obeys the "law of God, commits no sin and thus to die, go to heaven for eternity. In contrast, if one disobeys and commit sins, will go to hell where you will spend endless time in endless torture. Whatever sin is more or less discretion, as the Bible, as we all know, is a contradictory book. So depending on the orthodoxy of every priest or father family, the list of sins is increased or decreased. To explain what I mean tell a personal anecdote:
At 12 or 13, for some reason I have not yet clear, I went to catechism classes. I agreed and I joined a group of pure girls, of course must be separated, sexism and the degradation of women in all religions is detestable. My classmates were specks of between 6 and 8 years. My "master" was about 16 or 17. I gave the book, which was like a comic book telling the story of Jesus. Class began, the subject was sin and hell. A girl at my side, raised her hand and asked "if the task was not to sin," the little teacher responded with great credit "itself is sin," the girl began to mourn bitterly, with terror. I comforted her and told her that was not true, that God could not be so bad as to believe that not doing homework was a terrible failure to send you to burn in hell. The class I ran catechist, thank God. And that was my first and last encounter with the faith.
Why this story? Because what I mean is that today we are deeply offended by the sexual abuse and brutality committed by priests and other members of the Catholic Church, but did not notice the mental abuse involving minors indoctrinate a religion. That is, it is not unique to Catholicism. I mean the Catholic because that is what I know.
Abusing the minds of children and scare them with a burning hell, surrounded by men and women wicked sinners of the lowest input that dismisses his parents, and there is nothing more subject a child to imagine a day without them, a horrific and terrifying demon that will torture them for eternity for not doing homework or having fought with the brother! Worst of all is that with the panic to hell and fear is to give her to a God who hears, sees and feels, (repeat this phrase with some frequency in Mass "have to fear the Lord"), religion closure in most cases ends completely, the child's inquisitive nature. The typical and why? of the children respond with "because God did it ',' because of God ', and so ad infinitum . "We must be good, because it is offensive to God." What better a 'must be good because that's the right thing'? They are told that the planet is about 6 thousand years, humans lived with dinosaurs that stars and planets were created by God, as the valleys and mountains, crabs and yes, us. Chemistry, biology, cosmology, astrology, physics, etc., all sciences are erased at a stroke. And here comes the hook, if you do not believe it, God is angry, and you know what? uh, is a sin to hell!
children were indoctrinated in those religions that condemn women and homosexuals to be human beings second, they do not consider the evidence but dogma, that seek to impose on others their way of thinking that confuse hope with the right morals and aspiring to one day all cloud our reason with dogma than to any rational mind will sound irrational and contradictory.
Everyone is free to believe what you see fit. There's no doubt. And personally I find it important freedom. The point I intend to do here is that while parents may believe what they please, can not compel their children ways of thinking, however well intentioned.
The point I make is twofold: first mentally abused of children by imposing a world in which there is only heaven-hell dichotomy and that there is a latent threat, for him, and their loved ones go to hell. On the other hand, is a right of children not being indoctrinated by their parents, no matter what they seek to impose dogma, whether religious or political. Not accept Marxist catechism, nor the social initiation to wash away the sins of the newborn. Parents do not enroll their minor children to Gymboree Republican, also celebrated in the San Angel Inn to accept capitalism as the ideology of the children of our neighbor. Why do we accept that parents abuse of their children as if they were his property and attend baptisms, first communions and confirmations imposed? Are we sure that these children, having all the information possible would choose to be part of that religion?
Why not better to allow secular education in which all religions teach critically in the minors for decision, when they feel they have all the information possible, which of them belonging or not belonging none. Why impose it from birth? Why indoctrinate the child to make you feel guilty for doubting, to inquire, to learn? Why threaten to burn in hell if you come to doubt what their parents and priests they say?
Worse, the indoctrination of children believe adults prejudiced, intolerant and discriminatory and ignorant. It is worth mentioning the example currently lives in Mexico with the legalization of gay marriage and adoptions. The point is, what is the difference between religious indoctrination and happened in communist countries (in Cuba yet)? What is the difference between a child who repeats that "homosexuals are abnormal" one who repeats that "the world belongs only to whites?
A year ago we saw in the papers a note about some parents in Winnipeg, Canada to "educate" their children in a fascist ideology. Small, less than 10 years, carrying on their shirts or backpacks swastika and said, convinced that "blacks deserve to be beaten to death." We also read the history of the small New Jersey was going to celebrate his birthday and father decided to send him to make a cake "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" he said. And that little Adolf is a little party held in his 5 years with his sister, Arian Nation, 3. Both under Winnipeg such as New Jersey were removed custody of their parents because the authorities considered that education was received indoctrination and this was harmful to them. Professor Helmut-Harry Loewen, University of Winnipeg said that it "was opening Pandora's box" because it removes the custody of the children based on political or religious convictions of parents. In the case of Winnipeg, Canada, counsel for the Department of Children, justified the removal of the custiodia, saying it is criminal to "paint a child as a table is painted with ink, if it relates to the indoctrination of children, for here then I wonder what role religion, are doctrines that, mutatis mutandis also "painted on the child as a table is painted with ink."
In this regard I share the view of the psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, quoted by Richard Dawkins in his excellent book "The God Delusion" and on which I base the argument presented here (Chapter 9). Humphrey says that "freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to mess with it ... But there is one important exception: the pro-censorship or dren." In the chair Amnesty Lecture in Oxford in 1997, Humphrey explained what was this censorship:
"The children have a human right that their minds are not rendered useless due to the exposure of bad ideas to some people, no matter who are these people. Parents, in the same way, God's not licensed for * enculturation of their children in whatever they have personally chosen: they have no right to limit the horizons of knowledge of their children, educate them in an atmosphere of dogma and superstitions or insist to follow the straight and narrow path of their own faith.
In summary, children and girls have the right not to have their minds stunned by the senselessness and we as a society have a duty to protect it. Therefore we must not allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example in the literal truth of the Bible or that planets govern their lives, nor can we allow them to pull teeth or locked in a dungeon. "
Dawkins adds: Parents should teach their children what to think but how to think ... The point is that it is the privilege of the children decide what they want to think and not the privilege of parents to impose by force majeure. In short, this is not to ban religion, or prohibiting the catechisms, no. This is to prevent mental abuse. This is to prevent the indoctrination of children, religious or political beliefs of any kind. This is to advocate for science education and criticism of children. This is to distinguish between education and religion and that the children learn to distinguish one area from another faith that does not impede their understanding of science. This is to require parents to respect the right of children to decide for themselves what to believe, give them all the tools of knowledge possible, only then will, indeed, better people.
* The enculturation is the process by which the older generation transmits its ways of thinking, knowledge customs and rules to younger generation. Enculturation is based mainly on the control that the older generation has on the means of rewarding and punishing children. Each generation is programmed to replicate not only the conduct of the previous generation, but also to reward behavior that conforms to standards of his own experience of enculturation and punish, or at least not reward the behavior that deviates from them. (Wikipedia)
0 comments:
Post a Comment