Indoctrination: The Fear

Being a good, law abiding citizen I have never been to prison. I don't think I'd ever like to go either. It seems like a dismal place that doesn't just take away one's freedom, but crushes their very soul literally obliterating all hopes and dreams. One word comes to mind when picturing the cold grey walls in a prison cell: institutionalized. And, when that eerie word creeps into my mind, a very moving film follows in my trail of thought. Shaw shank Redemption tells the story of a bank accountant falsely convicted of murdering his wife. It describes his time in prison, and of course, his heroic yet very rebel act in escaping from incarceration while taking the law into his own hands. It's a great movie in number of even greater ways. However, it isn't necessarily the protagonist that comes to mind when I recall the film. It's the librarian in the prison named Brooks Hatlen. The "old man" had been a member of the prison population for over 42 years when his parole finally came up and he was "set free". He bids farewell to the last group of friends he made during his strenuous stay there and heads out into world to find a job bagging groceries. Shortly after, Brooks hangs himself. On the surface it is the most confusing act one can take about after being granted their freedom back. However, if you dig a little deeper you can see that, after such a long time of confinement one develops a certain feeling of appreciation for their surroundings and grows comforted by the day to day schedule they are engrossed in. Sometimes it really is hard to change something when it literally becomes your life and everything about it.

Call me crazy, but there just might something in this admittedly extreme comparison between the dynamics of religion and prison life. Anyone will tell you that the way children are raised will greatly influence who they will become, what they will do and even how they will do it. This is one of the main facets of religion that I tend to strongly dislike; the indoctrination of young minds. I could even go as far as to say it's a form of brainwashing. I won’t slam on Christianity like I am usually inclined to do because every religion is guilty of this "sin". When you go about telling a child what to believe, you steal any and all forms of logic and objective reasoning from them. It goes without saying, but those are two key tools needed to get by in today's world.

I remember a few weeks ago watching the documentary series "30 days" by Morgan Spurlock. On that particular episode a women with atheistic convictions was sent to live with a Christian family in the hopes of breaking some barriers that exist in today's society by forcing the two groups to learn about one another. I won’t go into the details of the episode (although I strongly urge anyone interested in watching the episode) as only the beginning of it concerns this post. Before the women left her family to join her Christian hosts, the show filmed her having one last dinner with her family and also documented the last dinner the host family was having. Obviously, the Christian family said grace and played up to the camera while talking about Jesus and all that good stuff with their children. This didn't astound me as am cognizant of the indoctrination that occurs within religion. What amazed me was the so called "free thinking" atheist family was discussing the fact that there is no God to their 3 year old toddler! This blew me away in ways mere words will fail to describe. It sickened me. No child should have their parents' convictions forced down their throats at an age they cannot possibly comprehend such things as a God and the complexities of religion. A kid should be busy playing with Legos and being mischievous, not learning that there is no god or that if you don’t ascribe to calling him a particular name you will not be saved. There is something fundamentally wrong with this.

Best selling atheist author Richard Dawkins made a great point in his book "The God Delusion" when highlighting this phenomenon. He discussed the idea of labeling children with such terms as "Christian child" or "Muslim child". To me, it seems terribly mistaken to figuratively give each and every kid on Earth a name tag with their name, favorite color, whether they like Barney and, not neglecting the all important one, which god they supposedly adhere to! Think about it this way; minors, that is any person under the age of 18, aren't allowed to vote for the obvious reason that their minds aren't matured enough to comprehend such important matters as healthcare, taxes and going to war. But, what about most important issue of all: God! How can a minor be possibly able to decided what they believe about god if they can't decide whether Obama's healthcare reform was a good idea or not!? This troubles me greatly because I think there is strong evidence to indicate that it has harmed society greatly.

When someone mentions the word "hell", the first things that usually come to mind are a butt naked man with red skin and a goatee wielding a pitchfork surrounded by molten lava, fire and his demons, who all probably resemble him somewhat. To me, it's comical. For most people it is something obviously fashioned together by popular culture, such as television and the general media, and a couple religious verses here and there. But to children, it is the darkest of dark where the worst people of all go because they didn't listen to Jesus or Allah. I can't imagine what my current perception would be had I been coerced into contemplating the depths of hell an early age. The sad fact is that too many children today are forced to deal with that and comprehend that vile place created ever so beautifully by the master “story tellers” of religion. I believe it is terribly wrong and even "evil" to some extent to scare a child, willingly or otherwise, into a certain realm of belief. Apart from prematurely stealing the innocence I believe we should cherish and nurture for as long as society will allow, it distorts a person's reasoning in later life when they are forced to deal with the finer aspects of god and religion. Literally scaring a person into believing something will make them defend that particular conviction not because it necessarily makes sense to the logic God himself provided us, and most likely wants us to use, but because it is the one thing they have been "suffocated" by from as early as the time mommy told them about Satan and what he does to the "bad little boys and girls".

I remember hearing on a television documentary series that religion was, in all literal senses, the "enemy of logic and rationality". I also distinctly recall thinking that was a very bold and rather extreme statement for one to propose. Then I began debating some of the issues that seemed to stick out for me about religion in hopes of finding some sort of answer or explanation. Needless to say, for most of these issues, there was none. All I encountered was a bombardment of different interpretations by different denominations and, my personal favorite, the argument of context. I was astounded to find that so many people had to resort to such measures to defend what they believed. Surly, I pondered; there must be something more concrete and factual than this? There wasn't, or has not been yet. This was when I finally understood what that apparently extreme statement was trying to convey; once you indoctrinate a person into one, fixed set of beliefs, they won’t ever defend what they intuitively grasp by nature, but rather what they have been "trained" to adhere to. For example, a Muslim or a Christian will openly claim that they are prepared to defend anything in the Koran or Bible, even if they have not heard what it is yet, just because it is in their holy book. Normal reasoning and common sense must bow down before that particular person's "word of god". This goes back to the point I have tried to bring fourth in the blog as often as possible: in a world where everyone knows they possess the ultimate truth and all other possibilities are utterly mistaken, we will arrive at every possible outcome except "truth", all the while parading our arrogance to the world no matter how powerful the contradictory evidence may be.

Now, I would be foolish to claim that every religious person is this way. It's a matter of fact that there do exist, however small in number, a certain amount of open minded people who adhere to some sort of religion or other but do not make any claim to ultimate truth and inerrancy in their textual doctrine, but simply believe. This, I have no problem with. This is a display of grace and willingness to cooperate with other human beings and scientific evidence in arriving as close to "truth" as the big Guy in the sky will allow. I have no problem with calling God "Jesus" or "Allah" or "Buddha", but when one goes as far as invalidating everyone else's beliefs and claiming they know it all, that is when the world is faced with a problem. I don't see anything wrong with the idea that all the religions in the world are attempting to describe the same God, our creator. After all, don't they all claim he is "indescribable"!?

If all religions are as confidant in their truthfulness as they would proclaim, then why can't we spare the children of Earth the pain of indoctrination? I mean, if a religious family really does believe they have the ultimate truth, why not let their new born find it on their own? This is where the problem lies. All these people of faith seem to have everything but that. They don’t trust that a normal, rational and logical adult will arrive to the conclusions they have without "a little helping hand". Now, I’m sure many believers will cite "the great number of people who have converted to their way of thinking in adult life". To this I refer them to the equally great number that has converted away. All that proves is the message I brought forth in an earlier blog which said that we all need a father figure or protector in our lives and are willing to believe any number of theories or absurdities to gain that comfort. Indoctrination, as I have come to discover from talking and debating with religious people, is a tool used by religion to "boost membership" and keep everyone believing that faith has to be blind.

Jump then Fall

It was the third time in one month. After two very public and callous break ups, Steven had gone for lucky number three. Her tears flowed across her face as she stood there like a ghost in utter disbelief. She had made the same mistake every other poor girl looking for love had made when crossing paths with my buddy Steve. He didn't know how to handle the bawling girl that stood before him heartbroken (one would think with so much practice that a certain skill level would be developed in such situations, but no) so he gave her one last hug and walked away merrily towards the school gate. By now, word had spread of Steven's promiscuity and capricious nature but, to my never ceasing amazement, the girl's still ran to him and quivered with awe. He really was that good; smooth talking, confident and sexy. But what no one else saw in my buddy was his own shattered heart. He wasn't evil in his constant replacement of female companions but simply scared. Steve always said he'd never give himself to a woman just to be screwed over and toyed with. I guess it was never an option for him to be on the receiving end of the "It's not you, it's me" speech. I honestly can't remember if I tried to give him advice on this but sincerely hope that he has changed. Everyone seems to want to fall in love, but no one wants to jump. Knowing God, to me, is an awful lot like falling in love. You're either all in, willing to lose it all, or you're like my buddy Steven; dwelling in limbo never getting to know whether the risk was worth the reward.

The Bible, ever ready to tend to all situations with an abundance of wisdom and advice, seems to have addressed this same concept. Granted, it doesn't mention anything about teenage love and raging hormones, but Jesus portrays this idea very well. Revelation 3: 15-16 says, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other. So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold- I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Now, what would a good Bible verse be without an equally beautiful and artistically voiced threat; such as the one of spitting the fence-sitters out of Jesus' mouth? But, I digress. This passage, to me, is a very powerful one. It commands us, and rightfully so in my opinion, to be polarized about our faith and relationship with God. The "hot" being the Bible abiding Christians who do all that is instructed of them and the "cold" being the heathens. What I find pleasant is that Jesus seems to frown upon the Christians dwelling on the fence with their faith more than he does me, an ice cold critic. There might be hope yet! This verse is very important in that it clearly highlights, directly quoting Jesus Christ himself, that people who compromise but an inch of their faith are, figuratively speaking, doomed. Jesus asked us all to jump, with the reward not being teenage love, but eternity in heaven. But, I sometimes wonder how many Christians today are doing what is demanded of them by their deity?

From my observations today, there aren't many Christians who are as “hot” as they should be. What's ironic is that the ones that are abiding by the doctrine that they hope will send them to heaven, are viewed as extremists and radicals. I personally believe that it is very true to conclude that faith, of the burning hot nature that we are speaking of, has waned after many years of fluctuation since its early conception, most notably in the late 19th century. One needs not look further than Galileo and his meddling with the church to see this phenomenon. Christians back in those days were far more "radical" than the ones today, and the church knew that seemingly unwavering faith would have to be compromised with the findings of scientists such as Galileo. The lukewarm tendency to believe in God was inevitable with the accelerated understanding of our universe that science has provided. To me, it's not necessarily a bad thing that religion has finally begun to retreat ground in the face of science but, as I have mentioned before, this is not what any particular set of beliefs commands of its followers. It must be noted, however, that this depolarization is not solely caused by scientific breakthroughs but also by the development of equal rights and modernization of human equality.

The main contributor to the lukewarm faith epidemic is the picking and choosing of scripture to abide by or ignore. Many things bother me about picking and choosing what to believe. For one, the age of our beloved mother Earth. I'm sure you've heard of the theory that a day in the book of genesis could have been a thousand or even a million years. This particular idea, to me, is simply conceding in the face of modern science which has proved the Earth is most certainly not merely 6000 years old. I recently read an article by a Christian apologist who foolishly tried to claim that continental drift, which occurred over millions of years, inch by inch, fitted in perfectly with the Biblical portrayal of the world. He claimed that the continents “could have moved at a much faster rate" back in the day, thereby still staying true to the young earth ideology. How preposterous of a self claimed scientist to ignore the power of heat friction that would have surely caused Armageddon had the continents moved at such a rate. But, I digress.

Another aspect of the Christian faith that apologists have blindly tried to weave together with modern day science is our beautiful predecessors, the dinosaurs. Countless articles have been written about a few "mistranslated words" in their vain attempts to reconcile the proof that dinosaurs existed with the Biblical account of world history. What gets me is that they completely ignore the evidence that proves these larger than life creatures roamed the planet many eons before we were ever blessed by God to dwell in it. The most over used rebuttal of this is that carbon dating "cannot be trusted". Well, if one can claim to have an original depiction of the Bible because of many corroborative copies, then it is equally fair to conclude that that vast amount of skeletal remains that have been carbon dated are also just as accurate. Evolution, particularly micro evolution, is my personal favorite in the list of culprits that cause lukewarm faith within religion. Despite there being absolutely no mentioning of it in the Bible, God's inerrant and apparently perfect word, Christian scientists still take a few steps back in the face of scientific evidence. Again, I most certainly do not have a problem with the Christian community succumbing to the acceleration of science, but it really does go against what their god asks of them in their faith in him.

The last two points I will make are of a social nature. Women being ordained, which is obviously something the Bible would never utter, is the first. We have picked and chosen what to believe in light of our ever growing equality. Once more, this isn’t a bad thing in my eyes. The second is the abolishment of slavery in the modern world in light of, well, common sense. I am very aware that I have been rather sketchy with the list of things that I believe can be attributed to a person of lukewarm faith, so I apologize for not going into more detail on matters such as the age of the Earth or Dinosaurs. Rest assured that such matters will be dissected with further precision in future posts.

I feel as though, in light of the recent recession of faith since its conception, that it is fair to assume that one day religion it will inevitably be completely eradicated. With the acceleration of science, and human logic in the social sphere, religious dogma and myths are bound to eventually die out. Who knows, maybe one day we won’t give homosexuals a hard time because a book told us to, or make unscientific claims on something as scientific as the evolution of our race or the age of the world we occupy. I am confident this day will come, but won’t be waiting for it as eagerly as I am waiting for Jesus' second coming! But, that's a whole other topic which I look forward to commenting on soon.

Before concluding, I would like to express my admiration of the groups of people like the ones at www.answeresingenesis.com. Despite using apologetics in wrestling with science and a minimal amount of actual research, I appreciate the hardnosed defense of their faith without conceding anything to science. Of course, this is foolish in the sense that they are essentially bringing a knife to a gun fight when going up against science with apologetics, but nonetheless, their faith is one to be in awe of. If any of what the Bible says about heaven and getting in there is true, then they're surely invited to the party! The basic message I am trying to convey here is that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. It's just not how the world works. I plead with all those that call themselves Christian to analyze the passage highlighted in this blog (Revelation 3: 15-16) and evaluate their own "faith". To fall in love, you must jump. To hopefully fall into heaven, you must jump farther than your mind may let you. In this case, don't defend your religion by conceding points and picking and choosing scripture, but take a stand. You're either hot, and do everything that your faith requires, however outdated or preposterous it is, or you're cold, and give in to the modernization of scientific and social concepts while conceding that the book you preach from may be outdated. Jesus said he doesn't want lukewarm.

The Everlasting Word of God

It's always been in my nature to argue. Not in the sense that I would go out and disagree with anything and everything just to get the thrill of a good "heated debate", but I love defending my position. This little trait is ever apparent when the topic of God arises in social situations. I love it. Nothing satisfies me more than hearing someone else's opinion about this most important of topics, sharing my own and providing reasons for my convictions. It pains me to say, but there is also a kind of satisfaction in being proven wrong at times. It's like I missed something, or just plain ignored it, and then, in the heat of the battle, it was re iterated back to me in a way I could see my own misinformed opinion. I will never admit it to my foe at the time (no one likes looking stupid, eh), but when they bring something up for which I was mistaken, I get a sort of thrill. It's like I'm one step closer to possibly knowing what this whole mess is about. So, this passion for debate has ignited many conversations with friends about God and theology. Most of them being about the god of the Bible, I recall endless hours spent quoting scripture and weaving my way through fact, fiction and, my personal favorite, interpretation. One very interesting phenomenon I noticed while talking with Christians about their theology is how often they excuse some of the claims of their Holy book with the Argument of Context.

To put it simply, the Argument of Context claims that a particular notion is exempt from rational judgment and scrutiny because of the time it was written. The obvious place to start looking for ludicrous claims in the Bible is our beloved Old Testament. I must confess, it really makes for a good read at times because it includes a lot of the essentials needed to compile a gripping plot and amusing story. Containing violence, deceit, incredible bravery, victory against impossible odds, romance, debauchery, forgiveness, fiery judgment and weeklong parties, it's quite surely Earth's bestselling book ever. To begin on a quite shocking note, the Old Testament has some warped views on rape, saying that a women who is violated must marry her attacker and, in some cases, even be stoned to death with him because she didn't have the presence of mind to call for help (see Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 and 28-29). Even though I'm sure some radical people out there still hold some of these views today, the greater portion of humanity can agree they are somewhat "far-fetched". Especially when considering the punishment of death for homosexuals and non-believers (see Leviticus 20: 13 and 2 Chronicles 15: 12-13). The god of the Old Testament also has assassins on his pay-roll. Yes, the angels of death are of great importance to our father (see Exodus 23: 23). To end this rather bitter paragraph on a somewhat funnier note, I need not refer further than Deuteronomy 23: 1, where a man whose testicles are crushed or cut off cannot enter the Assembly of God. The line's gotta be drawn somewhere right!?

Any Christian would refute that the Old Testament is particularly that; old. I would be ignorant in saying that I did not recognize Jesus as "revolutionizing" this law. The bible presents him as challenging the teachers of the law during his time on Earth and even, in some cases, intensifying the law. Only one thing troubles me slightly. If we look up Matthew 5: 17-20, Jesus seems to be a firm upholder of the Law of Moses. He even says that "until Heaven and Earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished". So, according to this quotation, we should still kill homosexuals and heathens while also condemning a woman to marry a man who rapes her. Nevertheless, this little contradiction does nothing more than highlight some of the inconsistencies in the text of the Bible. For the rest of this essay, I will humbly assume that Jesus does practice what he preaches in that he loves everyone and doesn't have any particular desire to demolish the so called "wicked". It is interesting to note though, if we assume that Jesus did come to revolutionize the old law, that "God's word" is anything but eternal. It had to be changed to work for a new age on Earth. How long before we need to amend our already revised Holy books to fit in with our image of the world and how we think it should be governed by our creator. Before you know it, we will be quoting from the Newer and Newest Testaments, too!

While the New Testament is far less radical, it does contain some verses that may raise a few eye brows in the 21st century. The first I will cite is one previously used on this blog, and refers to Paul's chauvinistic treatment of women (see 1 Timothy 2: 11-12). The context of argument will undoubtedly refute that times were different back then; women didn't have the rights they do now. Fair enough. But if we make that claim, then our Bible is severely outdated and is in need of revision, much like the kind of revision Jesus gave the Old Testament. Another not-so-crazy yet obsolete verse in the Bible is when Jesus teaches that if a man is to even look at a woman with lust in his eyes he has committed adultery with her in his heart, and therefore is subject to the appropriate punishment. I won’t be audacious enough to speak for the entire male population here, but I simply doubt there is a man alive today that has not and does not continue to commit that dyer sin. It simply seems out of touch with today's culture. The final passage I would like to bring under the magnifying glass is the chapter in 2 Corinthians warning good, law abiding Christians to not be "yoked" with non believers. The first two sentences in the passage claim that all non believers are wicked people who dwell in darkness. A stark comparison to the believer forever embellished in light and righteousness. Only religion could come up with such derisive ideas. Aren't we all designed to appreciate and value our diversity? Did Jesus not teach us to love one another unconditionally and without a price tag? This last passage, found in 2 Corinthians 6: 14-18, pains me more than any other in the New Testament. It preaches ignorance and the idea that we should not learn about our fellow humans and appreciate our differences but instead, advises Christians to stick to the pack so as to not waste time discovering the dark unbeliever who will surely have nothing in common with a child of the Bible. This seems to be yet another ploy by religion to keep its followers in line and from discovering the wonders of interaction with people of different convictions. It seems our world is not just being torn and divided by wars fought in the name of different gods, but also by the prevention of love amidst two varying individuals. How very sad.

To summarize, the argument of context is one essential to a Christian in defending their faith. How else would you explain separatism, murder and rape? It is inevitable that such problems would arise when constructing an eternal book of worship about God, especially when written by humans. I realize I have extensively criticized the Bible in this post and concede that I don't believe it is entirely filled with such ludicrous, outdated and obsolete claims. I'm very sure, what with all religions being so similar to one another, that quite possibly all other forms of belief consist of such passages unknown in today's modern world. The message I am trying to convey is that if we have to take so much of this Holy book in context now, how much longer will it be before it is utterly out of tune with reality and outdated? Although a Christian, Muslim or Jew might need context to justify their beliefs, God does not. If any of these books were his word, they would be truly everlasting.....