4 hours ago, animalmagic said:

Civilisation evolves and takes the time to record known, proven truths; years ago this was not the case and the storytelling/fables/religion was used to pass on messages on morals and rules to live by.  Laws are based on a consensus by mankind who decide what are the rules within which a civilised society should operate; those rules are always open, in a free society, to question as we learn more about ourselves and the world around us.  Indoctrination of children is not necessary as education is the key, as long as they are able to learn and understand the logic behind the rules they are capable of eventually making their own decision on whether to abide by them and face the consequences laid down by civilisation if they don't.

A belief in a supreme power is something claimed by the various representatives of religions, they not only question the rules but completely ignore them and then disobey them.  If they can ignore the laws given by their supreme power to the extent that they have been shown to do, then why can't everybody else?

The capacity for good and evil is inside every person, whether they choose one or the other is based on personal choice and circumstances.  That choice is better influenced by knowledge than belief.

Depends on what is permitted as "knowledge" 

If some Westerner puts a gun against your head and forces you to choose between the "good West" and "evil Thailand", what would be your choice? 

Or - more abstract - if you had to make a choice in the ongoing North South conflict,  which side would you be on, and why? 

 

Keep in mind that after your own moral standards human rights are universal - or they simply don't exist.

Edited August 18, 20187 yr by micmichd

8 hours ago, Credo said:

I don't think there is a direct relationship between child sex abuse and religion.   Religion is simply the cover for many people who engage in these illicit activities.   

 

As to why the storytelling is allowed, it's pretty much a part of every civilization.   We have to have rules in order to interact on safe and known ground.   We have common beliefs.   Those beliefs are what establishes the laws we live by and we can't really question those laws because they are based on our belief in a Supreme power.   

 

If we stop indoctrinating our children, they won't believe and without belief, they won't follow the rules.

 

But, all that said, I don't know that we would have less pedophilia if religion disappeared.   

 

Maybe less pedophilia if the sex = sin formula would disappear. 

16 hours ago, Credo said:

I don't think there is a direct relationship between child sex abuse and religion.   Religion is simply the cover for many people who engage in these illicit activities.   

 

As to why the storytelling is allowed, it's pretty much a part of every civilization.   We have to have rules in order to interact on safe and known ground.   We have common beliefs.   Those beliefs are what establishes the laws we live by and we can't really question those laws because they are based on our belief in a Supreme power.   

 

If we stop indoctrinating our children, they won't believe and without belief, they won't follow the rules.

 

But, all that said, I don't know that we would have less pedophilia if religion disappeared.   

 

Well the first statement is fair in as much as it would be difficult to prove one way or another, unless the paedophiles were claiming that they did it for God in the same way that numerous terrorists have openly claimed that they are committing their acts  for Allah. You could argue that since the RC church in particular have provided the perfect circumstances, they are only unfortunately attracting paedophiles who would otherwise have gone elsewhere. This sadly ignores the huge impact of enforced celibacy.

You should remember that rules are made by those in power largely to suit their own ends, which is mainly to ensure that they retain power, and the continued ability to keep exploiting those without it. There are of course many good rules, but that does not mean to say that there is any inherent virtue in rules themselves per se.