Religious freedom

I don't know how many of you are aware of the case of a little boy in Brasil who had something like 42 needles in his body?

He is now recovering after a series of complex operations to remove most of the needles, especially those close to his little heart.

His stepfather and his mother are both adherents of a form of voodoo, a religion practiced freely in Brasil. for the most part it is harmless, BUT what sorts of restrictions ought governments place on any sect that teaches and preaches harmful rubbish encouraging this sort of inhuman treatment of the innocent?

:C I hadn't heard of that incident, but I haven't seen the news for ages. Its hard to believe that anyone could do that to a kid, but unbelievable things keep happening in this world. Belief trumps science a little to often. I had an arguement recently with someone who reckoned Altzimers was just an excuse to lock old people away, and that we just need to look at it differently. :doh: But maybe in Brazil, where life seems a little out of control for most people this sort of thing offers some sort of hope. :shrug:

What I would do with the people who stuck pins in their son would depend on whether they knew it might kill him.:C

Yes TL, superstition and ignorance has definitely triumphed here.

The family is from a very poor area of Sao Palo where this sort of ignorance flourishes.

I don't think his parents meant to kill him. They were convinced that he was Possessed and thought they were going to help him.

Over human history, the abhorrent things done in the name of religious superstition defy belief. Of course they are all justified in the minds of the perpetrators because they serve the will of some higher being.
It is one of the great human tragedies that the human mind seems to need some form of religion, and that this, which is meant to set people free actually enslaves them.
Getting off my soapbox now - this little boy's case is so sad because of ignorance. Isn't this usually the case in such stories.
SG

I seem to remember that not all that long someone died in Victoria through being buried up to the neck in cow dung to drive the demons out.
To me this is only the other side of the same coin that wants to canonise Mary Mac
Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbur

To me this is only the other side of the same coin that wants to canonise Mary Mac
Jim

---

I don't mind this so much. This is the Catholic Church's way of honouring someone who has led an exemplary life. Sort of like a Catholic knighthood if you will. Mary MacKillop was a good person who did good things for others and copped a lot of cr@p from her own church power brokers while she was at it. To me, she would have been a good person and would have done good for others whether she was religious or not. So good on her and three cheers. It's the soft minded religious superstition that does more harm than good, that I object to.
SG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scribbly Gum

It is one of the great human tragedies that the human mind seems to need some form of religion, and that this, which is meant to set people free actually enslaves them.

---

Enslaves? I dare say that's very much the minority. I know plenty of people who've been freed from addictions or fears or whatever because of their faith, me included.

With every belief system you have those who'll take a twisted view on them. They're called extremists and don't reflect the majority. If you start taking the extremists views as that of the whole then you'll probably join the "Ban Religion" brigade. There are a lot of people who've done that and they always forget that the non-religious have had their fair share of nastys (Pol Pot, Hitler.) And if the extremists reflect the whole then they should be banning all beliefs, which just wouldn't work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scribbly Gum

I don't mind this so much. This is the Catholic Church's way of honouring someone who has led an exemplary life. Sort of like a Catholic knighthood if you will. Mary MacKillop was a good person who did good things for others and copped a lot of cr@p from her own church power brokers while she was at it. To me, she would have been a good person and would have done good for others whether she was religious or not. So good on her and three cheers. It's the soft minded religious superstition that does more harm than good, that I object to.
SG

---

It's nothing to do with her life that I meant. It's the nitpicking tribunals who have to decide if she's caused miracles before they declare her a saint.
cheers,
Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by funkychicken

Enslaves? I dare say that's very much the minority. I know plenty of people who've been freed from addictions or fears or whatever because of their faith, me included.

With every belief system you have those who'll take a twisted view on them. They're called extremists and don't reflect the majority. If you start taking the extremists views as that of the whole then you'll probably join the "Ban Religion" brigade. There are a lot of people who've done that and they always forget that the non-religious have had their fair share of nastys (Pol Pot, Hitler.) And if the extremists reflect the whole then they should be banning all beliefs, which just wouldn't work

---

We are entering the area of philosophy here. A religion is a belief; it does not have to be based on a supernatural being or beings. To those who followed Stalin or Hitler their belief had every hallmark of religious fervour.

To support the point that Scribbly Gum made about enslavement of the mind I will cite examples in which the people who believe would not consider themselves, nor would other people, consider them to be extremists. The Jesuits knew brainwashing techniques centuries ago. The idea was "give me a child to the age of seven and he will be mine forever. To my mind the Hitler Youth was based on the same idea. Jews are taught almost from birth about the Chosen People and the land given by God. Do we call these people and these beliefs extremist.?

It is not my intent to judge which, or if any of the above examples are extremist. My point is that belief not based on reason is an enslavement of the mind because it blocks rational discussion.

Jerry

And what's your definition of reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by funkychicken

....the whole then you'll probably join the "Ban Religion" brigade. There are a lot of people who've done that and they always forget that the non-religious have had their fair share of nastys (Pol Pot, Hitler.) And if the extremists reflect the whole then they should be banning all beliefs, which just wouldn't work

---

Hitler was raised as a roman catholic.

In public statements, especially at the beginning of his rule, Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian heritage of German culture, and his belief in the "Aryan" Christ. In a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

"... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." (Mein Kampf, 1925-26)


Pol Pot started life as a Theravada Buddhist. He studied at a Buddhist monastery and then later at a Catholic school. He even contemplated becoming a monk.

Cambodia’s communism was influenced by Theravada Buddhism (the belief system of the Khmer people) and its teaching of renunciation of the material world, demonstrated by Pol Pot and his followers smashing cars and industrial equipment with hammers.

So...who has the nasties?

Let's see, Einstein was an atheist..."The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." (Letter to Eric Gutkind, 1954)

Thomas Edison was also atheist - "No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life-our desire to go on living-our dread of coming to an end as individuals. I do not dread it though. Personally, I cannot see any use of a future life." (New York Times, 1910)

And of course, Homer Simpson "Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"


Anyway, we all know God prefers atheists...

I will go with Homer :D

I thought someone would pick on that, I'm not really into studying genocide.

What about the blokes that shot up Columbine?

If pointing out the facts as opposed making random guesses to support a point of view is 'picking on' something, then my hand is up, I'm guilty.

From Columbine - Eric Harris (the psychopath of the pair) was raised as a catholic, as his father was catholic; Dylan Klebold's father was a Lutheran, his mother was Jewish. Dylan recited the Four Questions at a passover seder held at his family home a few weeks before Columbine, yet he was buried in a Lutheran service.

Personally, I wouldn't ban religious beliefs, just put them in the same category as astrology, numerology, psychics and other, similar fantasies - ie - you can believe in them, just don't try making real world decisions with them.

Getting into some interesting ares here.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism all have a set of principles outlining the way we should live our lives. In Judaism and Christianity this set of principles is The Ten Commandments. the other two mentioned groups have very similar "rules' ,or principles. I can think of very few people who would argue against these principles. Even amongst atheists and agnostics these principles are regarded as right and proper.
This being the case I find it impossible to comprehend the use of ones religious beliefs to justify even the smallest act of unworthy behaviour.