There is a lot of bad logic in this world.

Some things are held as vicious, life-threatening, menaces while others are claimed to be necessary for the salvation of humankind. Some religions receive special privilege that is above the law and others are denounced as cults or even criminal groups. How much of the decision making process behind these labels do you think is political and how much is reasonable? I hesitate to even use the word reason…

Presumably we designate things illegal because of their potential harm to society. Drunk-driving causes accidents, chemicals can be used to make explosives, drugs influence addiction and crime, etc. We hold this standard in our society that when something is associated with a particularly harmful behavior or event then we should ban it. In fact, often we do not even consider whether there is a causal relationship; association is often all that is required. In the spirit of our culture’s logic and aim towards safety, I would like to present a case to cleanse our society of a common ill that may indeed lead to our destruction. May I present the Mindinclined case to Criminalize Christianity:

Download ipod version

 Print This Post

Music By Linkin Park entitled “No More Sorrow”.

In the spirit of Canada Day and Independence Day I think that one of the most important things to celebrate is an increase in freedoms. The freedom to vote, speak out, criticize, and many others. Of course this isn’t unique to us here in North America, but it is time that we symbolize these things on this side of the world. The word freedom seems to be rather straight forward really; more-or-less it is an increase in choices and a decrease in forceful persuasion. However, not all people are so inclined to define freedom in this way. The catholic tradition for instance seems to define ‘freedom’ as ‘obedience’. I mean how can you really be free unless your a slave to the Pope and his minions?

In a speech by the Pope he says that freedom is

“to follow Christ in the giving of self even unto sacrifice on the Cross.”

Not only that, Jesus also

“gave meaning to freedom, otherwise would have remained as an empty possibility of doing or not doing a particular thing.”

So instead of choice, Jesus redefined ‘freedom’ as ‘obedience’? And we are supposed to follow his example.

This is equivalent to saying that there is no need to free slaves because their ‘choice’ to work is the ultimate expression of their freedom. I mean who needs real freedom when you can just make a choice to be a slave? Slaves have freedom don’t they? They can:

1. Be tortured through never-ending work and self-sacrifice.
2. Refuse to work and be tortured/killed for their lack of obedience.

Sound familiar?

In fact, Jesus is the perfect example of the Christian conception of freedom. Choose to be tortured or have torture forced on you. Isn’t that right? Jesus had the choice of physical torture for following God as depicted in the crucifixion story or the physical torture of hell for not following God. This is the idea of Christianity known as love of freedom.

So should we even give credit the the martyr’s of Christianity? Are they really all that brave for choosing a temporary form of torture in order to avoid an eternal one? How about the believers of today? Do we give credit for strength, bravery, and perseverance to these cowards that are actually just taking what they believe is the easiest way out?

I believe that the truly strong and the truly brave are those that are able to resist this form of psychological persuasion; those of us that under threat of eternal torture are still able to cling on to our rationality and find meaning through other avenues. It actually takes an enormous leap of faith to break the shackles of your safe and familiar cage in pursuit of the freedom that lies outside.

The church is right about one thing: freedom is well worth the hard-work it requires.

 Print This Post