The Hijacking of Morality

By ~yak ~

Arthur C. Clark said one time that one of the great tragedies of history was the hijacking of morality by religion.

But what really is this "morality" when the religious use it?

Christianity and a few other religious regimes have even gone as far as saying that without their religion, morality cannot exist.

What is self-evident and verifiable by history is that religion, while making such boasts, is one of the most immoral institutions ever made by man.

Christianity alone is a shadowy hive of continual criminal conduct. The more obvious constants include institutional predilections toward rampant pedophilia, corruption, criminal coverups, extortion and religious, emotional and physical torture, adultery and more.

Despite the near weekly revelations of these and other crimes against fellow humans, Christians across the board deny their existence or they minimize them, saying that it's only a few bad people, a few isolated instances. The facts, of course, demonstrate a very different reality.

All of the numerous and growing number of christian crimes are forever recorded in the news headline archives, police, state and federal criminal records. They've been going on for so long, they are included in history books --the history of church crimes against humanity.

And they are in fact crimes.

Pedophilia is a crime. covering up pedophilia and other crimes is itself a crime. Extortion, corruption, sexual, emotional and physical abuse are crimes.

But Christians seem to believe that these are not really crimes. And despite their verbal protests to the contrary, Christians demonstrate that they approve of --condone-- these crimes perpetrated by their fellow Christians by paying money to the very institution that harbors these criminals. It supports and defends them.

Christians use the term "tithing" a practice of giving money, usually expressed as a percentage of their personal income, to the organization to pay the salaries, housing, clothing, food, entertainment and legal defense of criminals.

In fact, Christians not only pay the organization, they defend this practice and their right to do so. They may cite that money goes to missions, child care(!), the poor and so on, when in fact most money given goes into operating funds for the purposes cited earlier. They turn a blind eye and "wish away" the real problems that they willingly bankroll.

(Some have the temerity to say that they give money to do "god's work." If housing, supporting and defending pedophiles and a variety of other criminals is god's work, that is to say, part of "god's plan..." Well, that's another Epic discussion for another time.)

In America, there is another term for the practice of giving money, shelter and any help to criminals. It's called "aiding and abetting" criminals and their activities.

Is it moral to knowingly and willingly pay an institution that supports and defends criminals and their activities? Is it moral for a person to give money to an institution that supports and defends abuses and abusers?

Make this statement sound moral: "I pay money to a church or church-related institution that besides helping the poor, uses those funds to harbor, support and defend pedophiles and other abusers. But when I give my money it isn't for all that bad stuff."

You can't do it.

In modern terms, what Christians are doing is crowdsource-funding known criminals and their activities.

Why are these people and organizations allowed to receive and distribute money? Aren't they just like the Islamic "charities" that made the headlines at the beginning of American wars against the people of the middle east? Those charities gave money to the poor, too, but also paid to house, feed and protect criminals --just like christian organizations do.

The US government froze the Islamic charities' funds and prosecuted the givers because they were bankrolling what in reality is another form of crime called terrorism. Why are christian organizations allowed to operate freely and unchecked?

So, when you next think about your christian neighbor, co-worker, babysitter, school teacher, soccer mom, or politician --and know that they willingly and knowingly give money, by which action they condone the activities of and "aid and abet" known criminals and their activities, do you consider them to be in any way "moral"? Really?

Or can you call them what they are: people who approve of and perpetuate some of the greatest crimes against humans today --and those christian-funded crimes are happening while you are reading this.

It is indeed a great tragedy and truth that religion has hijacked morality. It's an even greater tragedy that these religious people and organizations are allowed free reign to carry on, unabated, harming humans --scarring some for life-- under the guise of their "morality."

Given the facts, I must say that "christian morality" is a very unique point of view.

Your thoughts?

Comments

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

ACTS OF GOD

By David Andrew Dugle ~ S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden – Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two

Search This Blog