Don’t Judge a Group by Its Worst Followers

That is freakin great!

What’s so bad about being an American? a Brit? a Belgian? a Canadian? An australIan? a South African? a vegetarian artist?

Yes, ortcutt, but the question of “what’s wrong with Islam?” Isn’t answered by “Some of them decided to blow up the twin towers,” that would also be a faulty way of thinking to teach your kids. What’s wrong with Islam is that it’s a set of ideas passed down from a 6th century cave-dweller with absolutely no basis in reality and no supporting evidence.

I think the response to the kids’ discussion in this particular case was a very good one. But so much depends on the exact way the question is formed, and the answer presented. “What’s so bad about being a Muslim?” is a perfectly reasonable question. The answer, “Muslims flew the planes…” is a bad one, because it’s wrong, not because it happens to emphasize the worst possible behavior. It would have been reasonable to answer that being a Muslim, like being a Christian, encourages people to blindly take direction from others rather than looking inside themselves, and therefore makes it easier for people to make bad moral choices. I think that’s something that both a 10-year old and a 13-year old can understand.

Not that religious nuttery isn’t also involved but Islamic terrorists are often motivated by nationalism. The Taliban was a response to the occupation of Afghanistan by the USSR, and Al Qaeda’s main stated aim was the removal of American military presence from Saudi Arabia. The original PLO was a secular Marxist-lennanist group, as was I believe Al Fatah, and carried out terrorist attacks in the cause of a secular Palestinian state.

What I’m getting at is that it’s quite likely that no matter the religion, terrorism would have very likely been the middle east response to perceived Arab impotence in the face of Western incursion and control of the middle east.

It’s like the old joke about the journalist in a pub in Northern Ireland who when asked if he’s Catholic or Protestant answers that he’s an atheist  “Ah” comes the reply “but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant Atheist”.

While you are right that religion “encourages people to blindly take direction from others rather than looking inside themselves” it is also important to point out to kids that many religious people do think for themselves. You just have to look at the fact that most American Catholics use birth control to find proof of that. Many people blindly follow dumb secular ideas as well. The anti-vax, anti-flouride and anti-global warming movements are examples. Blind following isn’t exclusive to religion unfortunately.

As an atheist, I don’t want to raise my child to be biased against religious people. I teach them to judge people by their actions as individuals rather than making blanket statements about whole groups of people. If people are using religion as an excuse to do horrible things, then they deserve to be disliked for it. But I don’t want my kids to prejudge all religious people because some are bad.

Movements, however, aren’t the same as religions. Religions are structured organizations that people belong to and which tell them what is right or wrong, usually in no uncertain terms. Because of this, religion is particularly well suited to leading people into making poor moral choices.

Certainly, people can do that on their own. And there are other organizations that can do that. But in response to “what’s wrong with religion?”, my first and foremost answer always remains the same: it makes it more difficult to be an ethical person.

I would teach a child that while a religious person may be ethical, they should also be viewed with skepticism. They have chosen an irrational belief system, and therefore many of their other life choices are suspect. It is, of course, always good advice to judge people by their actions. But we’re fools not to consider who they associate with, as well.

Not sure Catholics are a good choice as an example what with the history of the IRA. It wasn’t that long ago that American Catholics would hold fundraisers for the IRA while they were blowing up supermarkets.

I do agree that is the purpose of religion. I agreed with you on that point. I’m saying you have to be careful how you phrase things with children. Many religious people do think for themselves rather than being told how to think. I wouldn’t use words like irrational with children either. It makes kids prejudiced against whole groups of people rather than judging people as individuals. I simply teach my kids that this isn’t what we believe. Personally, I think we should raise kids to be open-minded. It’s hard to do that with blanket statements.

Secular and atheistic don’t mean the same thing. There is no religious element to these movements, so they are secular. Isn’t Bill Maher an anti-vaxer?

I believe “irrational” is precisely the word to use in describing any theists (which pretty much includes the religious, wouldn’t you say?) It is not possible for a theist to be completely rational. At best, they must compartmentalize to a significant degree. There’s nothing wrong with teaching children that distinction.

Being an atheist does not automatically mean a person is primarily rational. But being a theist does mean that a person is primarily irrational.

I’m not talking about religion. I’m talking about theism. Believing in a god or gods is absolutely irrational.