The Wrath of God

dwaxe

is not a fanatic
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
1,506
Location
The Internet
A frightened boy suddenly awakens to a cacophony of noise and action in the proximity of his home. Unfortunately, he is about to die. This is in Turkey in 1915, Europe in 1943, Cambodia in 1975, Iraq in 1987, Rwanda in 1994, Bosnia in 1995, and New York City on September 11, 2001. History provides thousands of examples in which sectarian polarization leads to strife and conflict. The most destructive of these magnify and evolve into spontaneous warfare or attempted genocide. Factions whose definitions are virtually set in stone offer most prime circumstances for conflict, and every one of their conflicts is prelude for another. Feuds deprecate and decay humanity because they kill people and breed generations of hatred.

Whether it is the result of bigotry or politics, a feud will have the tendency to catalyze war, and war has an affinity for killing its participants. One need not look far into the biggest of all feuds, with its healthy share of both politics and bigotry—religion. Centuries of anti-Semitism set the stage for the rise of the German Nazi party in the 1920s and 30s. The banner of Christianity flew for the Crusades and Inquisitions of Europe, supported by a church that, centuries later, would lend few words to the genocide in their backyard. Although extremists have begun to do the dirty work of the religion that they are a part, moderates are too often hesitant to oppose them. Secular Jews lend support to their cousins in Israel, even with the understanding that Israel’s agenda involves removal of the Muslims who settled there during their “absence”. It is gratuitous to mention Islamic extremism’s latest exploits, and mainstream believers’ sluggish oppositions permit religion to campaign thousands of people to their deaths.

The origins of bigotry are innate—all humans possess an “us vs. them” mentality. A person’s upbringing defines what is which, and feuding groups take full advantage of this fact. People of a singular ideology can initiate a child into their faction by denying knowledge about any other. Even those for whom ideology is unimportant possess fiendish frenzies to shape a human being to be similar to them. The instinct to impart and receive knowledge is essential for survival, and imposing beliefs upon children is usually morally ambiguous, but parental coercion is unethical when strict adherence to those beliefs lead to death. In January 2007, Ria Ramkissoon took her baby and joined a small group by the name of One Mind Ministries. They committed a crime when “they denied a 16-month-old boy food and water because he did not say "Amen" at mealtimes. After he died, they prayed over his body for days, expecting a resurrection, then packed it into a suitcase with mothballs.” In forty years, this dead boy could have been the leader, and he may have starved a 16-month-old baby to death, ad infinitum. Considering One Mind Ministries’ abilities, it is no great feat that Fred Phelps had 60 family members with whom to picket funerals. Nor that hundreds of children in the United States die of curable illnesses each year because their parents refuse treatment for religious reasons. Nor that Osama bin Laden can inspire the loyalty of thousands of followers. However, it is inconceivable that each week, the “them” becomes those of differing religions when millions of people teach stories about a genocidal, authoritative, and vindictive god to children as truth.

Polarizing factions rarely fail to intensify violence from bigotry. All genocides in recent history support that fact. All forms of religious violence harm the next generation the most. Child suicide bombers and negligent murders are only the pinnacle of the problem—many children who sincerely believe in an immutable set of laws from a higher power cannot help but dislike those who claim to have different laws, and they develop enough to become those who extend the bigotry. The boy claimed at the beginning of this essay will not return to life, and it may be that these deaths are inevitable—but it is certain that one can diminish them.
 
Do we really need to refute this rubbish again? An one who has even bothered read on the subject will find that you are not right with your facts.
I think a definition of the word "clearly" can be applied to this post:
Urban Dictionary said:
Clearly one of the greatest adverbs in the English language. Can be used at the start or tacked onto the end of absolutely any - and I mean ANY - sentence for emphasis, adding that extra-special pretentious feeling that one desires in one's speech. Used particularly when the speaker would like to make the person being addressed feel that what is being said is purely common knowledge and that they are utterly ******ed for not already knowing it or for disagreeing with it.
Now please tell me which facts I am wrong on. Unless you actually respond to my essay, it is difficult for me to address your point.
 
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the OP is asking, or what the subject has to do with the 'wrath of god'.
 
Better art:





 
it is inconceivable that each week, the “them” becomes those of differing religions when millions of people teach stories about a genocidal, authoritative, and vindictive god to children as truth.

many children who sincerely believe in an immutable set of laws from a higher power cannot help but dislike those who claim to have different laws, and they develop enough to become those who extend the bigotry.
You should look up 'inconceivable' in a dictionary. You might be surprised.

As for moral outlook, I agree with you that religion naturally ******s children's development to moral autonomy.

This is just what I thought when I saw the title.
 
Top Bottom