FUCK.

[conuly]

Just today I googled and dug up this link. By and large, I don't have any need for atheist writings, I was raised godless and have never seen the need to justify my (lack of) faith to anybody. But all that aside, I knew about the link and site.

Looked it up in response to this post (and thank you, ginmar, for giving me nightmares right before Thanksgiving!) that's making the rounds.

The above link contains mention of what I consider to be emotional and spiritual abuse of a young child. Read at your own risk.

I have no words to describe how appalled I am that anybody could be proud of teaching their kid that they shouldn't feel good about themselves (no, she actually said that). Reciting a litany of what she's done wrong every day. Sheesh. Don't lie to your kid if they ask, but ever heard of saying "Nope, you weren't perfect, but you did try, I saw that, and I bet God did too"?

I suppose it makes sense if you believe from the start that "we are all born God hating and evil" (by which I assume she means we are evil, not that we hate both God and evil). But then it *doesn't* make sense. If we're all born hating God and being totally evil, why would any of us desire to change one whit? But clearly her daughter wants to be good enough for her mom, wants to be good enough for her mom's view of God. I don't get it. I just don't.

Poor kid.

Comments

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

I think that first article is incredibly obnoxious and self-righteous. Her comments on other religions are beyond belief. Judaism is a religion about guilt? Maybe, but it's certainly not about guilting people into acting better in order to secure a good afterlife like she says, because Judaism doesn't even agree on what happens after death! And regarding Buddhism, an American woman living in a nice, comfortable house in California with her family is hardly in a position to throw stones about someone else's position of privilege. If she'd reply that that things aren't nearly as easy for her as it'd seem from that, what right does she have to say that Buddha had the perfect easy life because of his upbringing? There are plenty of rich, spoilt children who still aren't happy because they're lonely, or bullied, or their non-material needs are entirely ignored - since when does having money automatically give you the perfect life? It's an incredibly naive view. And "I hope [Buddha] didn’t hurt his arm patting himself on the back." - yes, because living as an ascetic for six years having grown up in a palace is really, really easy. If you wouldn't dream of saying to a person you met "I hope you didn't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back", then why on earth is it okay to say things like that about anyone? I don't place Buddha on a pedestal and I don't believe he was enlightened as Buddhists do, but what right does anyone have to belittle someone who was simply trying to put himself in other's shoes and gain a better understanding of the world? Isn't that a noble ambition, regardless of whether you believe he succeeded, not something to be mocked?

I think the second article you linked is horrible, but the first one makes me more personally angry, because people read things like that and take it to be the view of atheists in general, and I hate to be associated with that level of closed-mindedness and smugness. I hope that the child in the second link grows up to be self-confident and with a sense of self-worth despite her mother's efforts to the contrary, but I also hope that if she chooses to turn away from Christianity because of it, she won't be as bitter and disrespectful of others' beliefs as the author of the first article. Just because your parents imposed their beliefs on you doesn't give you the right to spout ignorant vitriol about all religions.

[conuly]

I think that first article is incredibly obnoxious and self-righteous.

Yeah, it is. And that's the *other* reason I rarely have any use for atheist writings. I mean, it's hard to find anything nice to say unless you stick with "Yeah, don't believe in God, but I do like long walks on the beach...", but there's nicer ways to do that than just outright going "You're a bunch of fools". (Not to mention I find it strange to say people "don't know what they believe". I'm sure they do. What they believe may not be internally consistent, and it may be at odds with what their religion strictly tells them to believe, but I'm sure they do know what they actually believe.)

I also hope that if she chooses to turn away from Christianity because of it, she won't be as bitter and disrespectful of others' beliefs as the author of the first article.

You reminded me of another link. One that's better than this one, anyway. I'll save it for another day.

[siderea]

Not to mention I find it strange to say people "don't know what they believe". I'm sure they do. What they believe may not be internally consistent, and it may be at odds with what their religion strictly tells them to believe, but I'm sure they do know what they actually believe.

Speaking with therapist-hat on, there's a whole modern, well-regarded branch of psychotherapy which proceeds on the basis that often enough people don't know what they believe about a whole bunch of stuff, quite aside from religion, and that these unrealized beliefs (can and often do) lead them into grief. Why should religious matters be any different?

[conuly]

What I mean is that if you don't know you're "supposed to believe" this or that thing that's in your holy book or official teachings then you simply don't believe it. You don't "not know" what you believe, you just are confused as to what your teachings say as compared to what you think they say.

(Mind, the number of Bible passages I've been told "aren't in there" by believers approaches the absurd. People ought to acquaint themselves with their own holy books so I don't have to do it for them. But that's beside the point. What they don't know probably isn't hurting them.)