School Prayer and Spiritual Rape

Kivaro

While reading an article about a federal court in Rhode Island ordering a public school last month to remove a prayer mounted on a wall because it imposed beliefs on students, I learned more about the founder of the state, an English Protestant theologian named Roger Williams.

He founded Rhode Island expressly to provide religious liberty and called such exposure to prayer "spiritual rape". Having never heard of that term before, I was pleasantly surprised to find that it came from the mouth of this Puritan minister, who lived in the 1600s. Williams thought it was impossible for any human to interpret all scripture without error. Therefore he considered it "monstrous" for one person to impose any religious belief on another. He also linked religious and political freedom.

I happen to believe that it is apt to compare indoctrination of school children with spiritual rape: what say you?

Penn

Kivaro wrote: »

While reading an article about a federal court in Rhode Island ordering a public school last month to remove a prayer mounted on a wall because it imposed beliefs on students, I learned more about the founder of the state, an English Protestant theologian named Roger Williams.

He founded Rhode Island expressly to provide religious liberty and called such exposure to prayer "spiritual rape". Having never heard of that term before, I was pleasantly surprised to find that it came from the mouth of this Puritan minister, who lived in the 1600s. Williams thought it was impossible for any human to interpret all scripture without error. Therefore he considered it "monstrous" for one person to impose any religious belief on another. He also linked religious and political freedom.

I happen to believe that it is apt to compare indoctrination of school children with spiritual rape: what say you?

I think indoctrination is a good enough term to use these days, without having to go as far as 'spiritual rape'. If anything, I'd go for good ol' fashioned 'brainwashing'.

'Spiritual Rape' to me just sounds way too OTT. Brainwashing is bad enough, but spiritual rape? I think an argument loses credibility if terms like that are thrown in too fast

MagicMarker

They should stick this on the wall...

Peregrinus

Kivaro wrote: »

While reading an article about a federal court in Rhode Island ordering a public school last month to remove a prayer mounted on a wall because it imposed beliefs on students, I learned more about the founder of the state, an English Protestant theologian named Roger Williams.

He founded Rhode Island expressly to provide religious liberty and called such exposure to prayer "spiritual rape" . . .

Dunno who told you this, but they were mistaken.

Williams had no objection to exposing people to prayer, and in fact he frequently prayed in public himself.

His objection was not to religion in the public square, but to the state attempting to interfere with religion. His aim was “to keep the holy and pure religion of Jesus Christ from contamination by the slightest taint of early support”. His objection to the state’s involvement in religion was not so much that it was an infringement on the rights of the individual, but that it was an infringement on the rights of the church; state control, in his view, must inevitably corrupt the church.

Williams would have no objection at all to a prayer being displayed in a public school if it was a prayer written and displayed by a student or a group of students - as is in case, I think, in the current brouhaha. What Williams would object to is the school requiring students to write or display prayers, or of course the school attempting to dictate the substance of prayers that students are to make.

Williams actually used the phrase “spiritual rape” to refer to “the authorities . . . forcing the consciences of all to one worship”. In other words, the state cannot ell people how to worship, and it violates their consciences if it attempts to do so. But he would have had no truck with the idea that simply being exposed to someone else’s prayer, even if it is a prayer that you would not join in, is a “spiritual rape”.

Ellis Dee

It sounds like Roger Williams was ahead of his time when it came to thinking on religion, but a term like "spiritual rape" is a bit strong. Rape has a very particular meaning, it is a grave crime against a person's body and can also have lasting and deleterious effects on the victim's psyche. To apply it to such actions as indoctrinating young impressionable minds with religious/superstitious beliefs is inaccurate and misleading. Unfortunately, as the recent history of Ireland shows, and of which there is plenty of evidence elsewhere as well, actual physical rape and what Williams called "spiritual rape" have often gone hand in hand.:rolleyes:

That is why it is so important to keep purveyors of religious myths as far away from schools and education as possible.:)

dmw07

Kivaro wrote: »

I happen to believe that it is apt to compare indoctrination of school children with spiritual rape: what say you?

What i find interesting is this is a religious person striving to exclude state control so that it can't interfere with it's (Mostly Williams mad interpretation of the bible) dogma. It really is the puritan shining through.

Now a days, religions strive to infect state control so that it can exclusively exclude state control on their dogma. Not on all religions though, obviously that would be too fair a system.

Williams was not ahead of his time, he was just too scrupulous in his opinion of state/religion. Which is nice to see

dead one

As forum moderators, we do not enjoy editing or deleting inflammatory posts

i smell hypocrisy

Dades

dead one, I deleted your completely off-topic post questioning Peregrinus (who was just quoting Roger Williams) about Jesus. I could have carded it but for your sake I left it alone.

Now you have a infraction for wasting all our time, and a ban will follow if you keep this false oppression nonsense.

Kivaro

Penn wrote: »

I think indoctrination is a good enough term to use these days, without having to go as far as 'spiritual rape'. If anything, I'd go for good ol' fashioned 'brainwashing'.

'Spiritual Rape' to me just sounds way too OTT. Brainwashing is bad enough, but spiritual rape? I think an argument loses credibility if terms like that are thrown in too fast

Some view religious indoctrination as child abuse to begin with e.g. Dawkins, and I understand that it's an inflammatory phrase. But when you think how the early religious brainwashing of children was part of the process in the sexual abuse of some of these children, then one can see why it could be used in this context.

Gbear

Kivaro wrote: »

Some view religious indoctrination as child abuse to begin with e.g. Dawkins, and I understand that it's an inflammatory phrase. But when you think how the early religious brainwashing of children was part of the process in the sexual abuse of some of these children, then one can see why it could be used in this context.

I presume it was intentionally attention grabbing when Dawkins used the "child abuse" tag on indoctrination.

The problem isn't that there's anything wrong with the use, it's that people have such narrow approaches to words that there's rarely room for nuance.
Maybe in Ireland in particular, because of what the church has done here and the prevalence of it, "child abuse" can be easily interpreted as "child sexual abuse" when the term is perfectly apt for that, physical abuse of a non sexual nature and mental abuse, including religious indoctrination.

Although I think that "spiritual rape" is needlessly inflammatory and using it brings nothing to the debate, it is a perfectly apt description of what goes on in my book (although I think the word "spiritual" is BS - maybe "mental rape" or "rape of conscience" might be better?).

robindch

Kivaro wrote: »

Some view religious indoctrination as child abuse to begin with e.g. Dawkins,[...]

In TGD, Dawkins said that people wrote to him, claiming they were indoctrinated as children, listing the forms that this indoctrination took. In the specific context of the indoctrination they described -- similar, for example, to what was shown in the excellent, if frightening, "Jesus Camp" -- I think "child abuse" is a fair term.

Dawkins fully supports discussion of religion, without proselytizing and has said so many times. He's also offered on many occasions to do church readings from the KJV, but hasn't been, so far as I'm aware, invited. And even where proselytization of innocent minds does happen, does not claim that it's all equally damaging, or that it's all "child abuse".

oldrnwisr

robindch wrote: »

In TGD, Dawkins said that people wrote to him, claiming they were indoctrinated as children, listing the forms that this indoctrination took. In the specific context of the indoctrination they described -- similar, for example, to what was shown in the excellent, if frightening, "Jesus Camp" -- I think "child abuse" is a fair term.

Couldn't agree more Robin.

I came across this while reading Pharyngula. Scary stuff.

When Americans become Christian

This data illustrates the importance of influencing children to consider making a decision to follow Christ.

The link on the site leads to a 404, but a google search leads to this:

4/14 Movement

We must not be defeated by the opposition or deterred by the obstacles ...

Like I said, scary, really scary.

From where I'm sitting, the idea of proselytising in this manner to children who lack the capacity for critical thinking is child abuse whatever way you phrase it.