> The following post is sure to provoke someone's wrath, but I am going to > share these thoughts anyway. I was raised Catholic but no longer practice > and consider myself to be not religious.
Ooh, that makes me angry Sorry, couldn't resist. :) Actually, I think (naturally) this is a great topic, because it explores the mindset you had being in and not out of so-called organized religion. It's something I enjoy discussing (usually) with others. > 1) The first time I stopped attending church I simply decided that it was > boring and I was getting nothing out of it at all. Sounds familiar. Like you, I was raised Catholic, and I think that the heavy emphasis on the liturgy of a church service (did I say that right?) causes the same reaction for people in the Catholic denomination, as well as some other denominations which have similar services (e.g., Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist). I am not suggesting these denominations have identical worship services, but to someone ignorant in Christian theology, I think that person might come from any of these services seeing little difference. JMO > I also felt that in the > absence of any kind of evidence the whole afterlife thing was up for grabs > and I > wasn't going to hold my breath about it. That was when I was 15. That makes sense to me. I would imagine you weren't alone. > I attend > sporadically for the next two years, giving it up finally and permanently > when I was in college. Sounds familiar, both in terms of my own experience but also in many other students who shed their church clothes when they went off to college. Let's face it -- a lot of kids go to church because they are made to go, and once you don't have to go, why go? Like a lot of people, I attended sporadically...tried to get back into it, find ways to get more out of it, and after a while simply ditched it completely. To me it was like a relationship you've outgrown, but leaving seems so hard. > 2) Once we get past the boredom aspect, the main reason I no longer > practice > my native faith, and am not particularly drawn to any other, is because > most > world religions appear to be focused in large part on the control of > sexuality and appear to promote a (sometimes thinly veiled) negative > attitude > towards sex. I guess it depends on what someone means by negative attitude toward sex. Clearly religions tend to restrict sexual behavior, and partners, etc. Obviously just about everyone in this life seems to favor SOME restrictions on sexual behavior, so to me religion just moves that line. So I'm not sure I concur with the negative attitude, but that may be how I am reading you. > Starting with the absurd views of the Catholic Church about consensual > sexual activity between adults and contraception, I just don't know why any > God would care who you have sex with as long as you are not raping, > seducing > children or those incapable of consent, etc. So God wouldn't care if you went out and got some on the side, away from your spouse? I would imagine most non-religionists here don't cheat on their spouses, and don't think it's a good idea. But why? I'm not defending the Catholic church's position by the way. In my limited knowledge of church history, it seems monasticism regrettably paved the way for an over-emphasis on virginity and chastity. So you wind up reading the Song of Solomon as an allegory. Puh-leez. It's a love story. It's EROTIC! So what does that tell us about how sex is depicted in the bible? From how I read that book, inside of marriage, go NUTS > 3) Related to #2, the subjugation of women, the suppression of their > sexuality and general blame of women for all manner of evil, doctrine that > they are > inferior etc seems to be a part of most major religions also. I'd rather not debate this, but it seems to me that to some extent the suppression of women with respect to roles (as an example) is not specific to religious institutions. We even see this to some extent in the animal kingdom, so what can we say about its origins? > 4) And then of course it appears that in all cultures, at some time or > other, people have used religion as an excuse to harm, oppress and kill > each other > (someone's recent post - when good people do bad things, it's religion.) True, people may use religion as an excuse, but should that be the fault of the religion? or God? For example, if a Christian were to kill people in the name of God, would this be justified? Not biblically. Not based on any church theology I am aware of (notwithstanding some lunatic fringe group). > 5) I've been amused by how many of my formerly non-religious friends > decided > to get religion again when they had children. I've noticed there is a sudden incline in church attendance after procreation. > I can't get my head around the > idea that you can't raise a child to be a decent person without religion. I think the problem is, and this is related to a post I made last month, that religion / churches, synagogues, etc. have provided so much moral education that even non-religious people see these institutions as useful for cultivating a moral child. But moral education is certainly not confined to these institutions. > Well that's my rant for the week. I actually don't know why I felt > compelled > to share these thoughts. I don't think it's related to my being a > psychologist, I think I would have grown up to feel this way about the > matter > regardless of my career choice. Perhaps it is more related to my gender/sex. > I was > just not going to adopt any system of believe that I found at heart to be > demeaning and negative about women and sex. > > Nancy Melucci Well, if you can't get your mind around a theology, I can't see how your heart and soul would follow. Great post! Jim Guinee --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
