The Mutt’s Nuts

Where religion is about as attractive as a two week holiday in Afghanistan

Posts Tagged ‘beliefs

No more sacred cows

leave a comment »

For many years now, religious people have sought protection from criticism of their convictions on the grounds that they are ‘sacred’. Until recently, the s-word has usually guaranteed unquestioning respect for beliefs and activities that might otherwise have been considered ridiculous, bigoted or downright dangerous.

Nowadays, certain atheists have become much more outspoken and believers are finding that their religious views are being challenged, in some cases, quite aggressively. Naturally, this hasn’t gone down too well, particularly with the more dogmatic religionists who have enjoyed immunity from serious criticism for far too long and this vocal minority of articulate non-believers has sent fundamentalists of all faiths into a frenzy of indignation.

But why should belief in the supernatural automatically be labelled as sacred? Why should bizarre and unfounded myths about invisible sky-gods, and their accompanying rituals, be singled out for special treatment? Shouldn’t respect be earned? When certain interpretations of so-called sacred writings can engender intolerance, hatred, even murder in a fanatical minority of religionists, can they be considered worthy of veneration? If beliefs and scriptures can legitimately be interpreted to support violence and oppression, are they really deserving of respect?

Fundamentalist views, in particular, shouldn’t be afforded any protection from scrutiny and condemnation if and when it is warranted. The appalling attitudes towards gays, women and members of other religions (or none) by some of those demanding respect for the sacredness of their beliefs must be challenged boldly and consistently. Covering some very offensive ideas with a cloak of sacredness has allowed them to flourish. Disputing those ideas in the light of rationality and morality will show them up for what they really are.

Perhaps we should all start demanding that the things we hold inviolate are protected from disruption or condemnation. For example, after a long, busy working week I consider my Saturday morning lie-in to be sacrosanct. So I don’t appreciate it when earnest proselytisers come knocking on our door first thing every other Saturday, disturbing my peace and sending our neighbour’s dog literally barking mad. I’d tell them to buzz off and not bother coming back, but by the time I’ve stumbled, bleary-eyed, out of bed and found my dressing gown, they’ve moved off to have a loud and fervent conversation with the unlucky woman next door who chose the wrong moment to set out for the shops.

On a more serious note, the majority of people in the UK believe that free speech is an inalienable right. However, the exercise of this freedom seems to get some fundamentalists’ backs up to the extent of parading the streets carrying hate-filled placards and even rioting and stone-throwing if they think they can get away with it.

Most people cherish their families, but, again, religious fundamentalists apparently have no qualms about blowing up other people’s mothers, fathers, sons and daughters to get their warped point across. How can such perverted individuals demand respect for their views and yet feel perfectly justified in trampling on the very things that other people hold dear?

Labelling religious beliefs as sacred, in my opinion, often gives the believer carte blanche to express those beliefs in ways that inconvenience or even harm others with perfect impunity. I say, “No more!” Let them learn the kind of respect for the cherished convictions and freedoms of others that they demand for themselves. And banish the word ‘sacred’ all together.

Isla

Advertisements

Written by islaskye

March 30, 2008 at 6:41 pm

My patriarchal blessing

with 48 comments

mosespb.jpgI found it to be a wonderfully liberating feeling when I eventually rejected my religion and started to do some of the things that I had previously been indoctrinated to think were wrong. For example, Mormons have a revelation that’s commonly known as the Word of Wisdom, which is fundamentally a health code that, when obeyed, enables individual Latter-day Saints to avoid destruction as the Israelites who put blood around their doors according the instructions spoken by Moses when they were in bondage to the Egyptians (Ex. 12:23). Part of this health code prohibits church members from drinking tea and coffee, so imagine my exhilaration when I brewed my first cup of tea after so many years of going without. And dunking half a packet of biscuits made the whole experience even better. I am a Brit after all! It doesn’t sound like much, but I guess it was my way of giving Mormonism the finger. Plus, it made me feel good inside, but with a twinge of guilt that paradoxically increased the pleasure ten-fold.

I further detoxified myself by refusing to pray, purchasing normal underwear, ceasing to pay tithes and offerings, not attending long and often boring church meetings, drinking beer (which is actually permissible by my reading of the Word of Wisdom), shopping on Sundays, no longer furthering the cause of Mormonism, and I could list many, many other things besides. Posting my patriarchal blessing on The Mutt’s Nuts is my latest step in purging myself of my former programming. If you don’t know what a patriarchal blessing is, this site will tell you more about it.

I was incredibly disappointed by the content of my blessing. It consisted of no less than 900 words that said, in essence, nothing much at all. For the life of me I couldn’t find anything of any worth in it, except the same old tired-terminology that I was already accustomed to hearing week in and week out at church. It was supposedly a personal revelation to me from a personal God but, sadly, it had all of the hallmarks of a mundane church talk masquerading as an individual blessing. It should have been something special, but it wasn’t.

It’s begins:

Brother xxxxxxx, xxxxx, xxxxxxx as the patriarch in this stake of Zion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I lay my hands upon your head as a servant of the Lord to confer upon you your patriarchal blessing. To receive those things which are important to you in your life that shall be as guidelines to you through all mortality, as you may gain spiritual strength and desire to continue to serve the Lord in all faithfulness throughout all the days of your life. That you may, by doing so, gain your eternal exaltation in the Kingdom of our Heavenly Father.

So the scene is set. And how intriguing, which is what I initially thought at the time, that my blessing will be of huge importance and as “guidelines” that will serve me throughout mortality, eventually leading me into God’s kingdom. Understandably, I was actually quite excited when I heard the patriarch say that. Any excitement was short lived though, as will become clear as I explain by way of commentary.

For this is a great work which you have embraced and it is because of your diligence and your faithfulness and your humility and willingness to serve the Lord that you have been brought forth at this time to accept the gospel, as it is restored in all its purity and with all of the gifts and powers that are embraced in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That you may also enjoy this companionship of the spirit of the Lord to be with you, that he may lead, guide and direct you in all your endeavours in life. That you may assist in strengthening, building and extending this great work for it is the work that has been given unto mankind for its salvation, for the gathering of the House of Israel and all the faithful that shall come unto it.

There’s nothing of particular interest and absolutely zero that I didn’t already know in this paragraph. Surely I didn’t need a supposed personal communication from God to tell me what I’d been thoroughly lectured in at church? And the reasons why I’ve “been brought forth” to accept the Gospel “at this time” can be deduced from the fact that I accepted it in the first place. I had been a member of the Church for at least six months when the blessing was given, so it was safe to assume that I had those qualities in some degree. Humility being my most noticeable character trait and, coming in a close second, diligence because I was immensely good at showing others how to be humble.

For these are the last days when the Gospel shall be given unto the earth and great shall be your joy and happiness as you continue faithfully to serve the Lord in all diligence. Rejecting the temptations and the evils of this world that you may stand clear of these things. That you may speak with conviction and understanding to all those to whom you associate with. It is for this purpose that you may rise, and be blessed in this manner, that you may have the companionship of the spirit of the Lord to be with you to lead, guide and direct you in your decisions and in your faithfulness.

Again, nothing that I wouldn’t know from church. And, to be perfectly honest, I was pretend happy and pretend joyful while I was in servitude. It was quite a lot of effort to regularly attempt to convince myself that I was indeed happy and joyful. “I am fortunate to be a member of the Lord’s only true church, so I should be happy and full of joy!” Barf! I am decidedly happier now as an atheist. Living a sinful life and drinking a lot of tea is so much bloody fun.

At the time of receiving this blessing I was serving as a Stake Missionary, which is something that the patriarch knew as he had spoken with me and asked me questions prior to laying his hands on my head, so it’s a bit of a coincidence that the blessing mentions that I will speak “with conviction and understanding” to whoever I come into contact with (if I feel so moved by the Spirit, of course!) because that’s what missionaries do. That “purpose” sounds dubious in light of this.

All the promises that are given unto you this day are subject to your faithfulness and diligence in keeping the commandments of the Lord. Continue therefore humbly that your joy may be full, and that you may receive the blessings of the House of the Lord in due time to be upon you. That your companion in life shall sustain you, and that you may continue to serve the Lord. That you may gain your eternal reward in this way that you will have the opportunity and the privilege to give leadership and council in a manner which is pleasing unto your Heavenly Father. You are choice in His sight and great shall be your joy and happiness because of your faithfulness.

In the first sentence we have the usual get-out clause that makes everything your fault if things don’t go to plan and ensures that God is never blamed for anything. And after that the standard progression for all men in the Church is laid out – temple, marriage and leadership. The last line of the paragraph is similar to what’s been said already. Surprise, surprise.

You are one through whom the blood of the House of Israel flows and the blood of Ephraim is within you and it shall be manifest unto you as you are diligent to the words of the council, that are given unto you from time to time by the brethren.

All patriarchal blessings inform the recipient of his or her lineage. There’s nothing new here. Though I can’t help but wonder what the patriarch had in mind when he said that the “blood of Ephraim…shall be manifest unto you”. What does that mean?

Seek therefore to bear your testimony, in all truth, and faithfulness, to the knowledge, to the divinity of this great work and to your thankfulness to your Heavenly Father at all times. That you may seek Him in private prayer to seek the help and guidance that shall be yours, for the Lord will delight to honour you and to give you all of the joy and happiness that shall come by being true and faithful to this great work.

Obviously, I got a bum deal from my Stake Patriarch because here we have yet more everyday church stuff. Testimony bearing. Prayer. And obedience. I would like to read some of the other blessings that he gave around the same time to see if it was just me or if they’re equally bland and far from inspiring.

I seal upon you this day that you shall inherit the blessings of your patriarchal fathers. You shall be one that shall come forth in the morning of the resurrection with immortality and eternal life to take your rightful place in the Kingdom of our Heavenly Father. Therefore continue with all joy and happiness in this life, rejecting evil from whatever source it may come, but proclaiming the gospel, in your faithfulness, in testimony at all times. For this I give you that you may have the courage to stand up for the truth and right, and for the work in which you have been engaged. That you may go forth in all comfort and that you may have the health and the strength throughout your body to fulfil the duties and responsibilities that will devolve upon you.

Hasn’t the majority of this already been said? Eternal life? Tick. Joy? Tick. Happiness? Tick. Rejecting evil? Tick. Missionary work? Tick. Health and strength? Tick. Oops. That’s something new.

Do these to the best of your ability in furthering the work of the Lord. If you are faithful in these things you shall receive the higher priesthood. Continue, therefore, to study the scriptures and all those things that the Lord’s servants have to say and to give unto you in council and advice.

Even more standard church stuff. Scripture study. Obedience to church leaders. And I knew I was pretty much certain to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood at some future date anyway, because that’s how things work in the Church.

All the promises that are given unto you this day are yours to enjoy and will be fulfilled in due time of the Lord. There are many other blessings that you shall enjoy, which shall transpire, and for this you shall bear witness and shall recognise the hand of the Lord in all things. You shall recognise the hand of the Lord in sickness and in health and whatever circumstances or trials of life that you may be called upon to pass through.

I think the patriarch was running out of things to say by this point as it’s evident from this paragraph that he was trying to wraps things up by making sure he had all the bases covered. I don’t think I’ve ever found generalisations inspiring, and so much for the blessing being a personal one.

All the blessings and promises that are given unto you this day, I seal upon your head as a servant of the Lord in His name, the Lord, Jesus Christ, our Saviour and our Redeemer, Amen.

And thus it ends.

This blessing was just another thing in a long line of things that contributed to my cognitive dissonance concerning Mormonism. You’d think that if it was really a revelation from God to me, then surely he should have at least warned me in no uncertain terms of anything that would become a stumbling block to me and possibly jeopardise my eternal future. Imagine that you were a father with an important message for your son, a message that you could only give once. What would you say to him? Wouldn’t you make it as personal and as relevant as possible, taking into account all that you knew about his personality and the path that he was likely to take in life? I know I would.

I’ve always been disappointed by this blessing, but as a faithful church member, I would often read it over and over again in an attempt to find inspiration in it. I had more chance of finding a needle in a haystack.

Curmudgeonly Yours

Written by Curmudgeonly

February 5, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Sam Harris on religion

leave a comment »

Curmudgeonly Yours

Written by Curmudgeonly

January 9, 2008 at 1:07 am

Ali G on religion

leave a comment »

Curmudgeonly Yours

Written by Curmudgeonly

December 12, 2007 at 1:27 am

Mitt Romney knows better

leave a comment »

There’s a particular Mormon forum that I used to be a regular contributer to, for many, many years. I don’t post there now, as I’ve lost the sense of “belonging” that I had in the days when I was an active participant there. But occasionally, I will silently visit and read the words of those who I once had an affinity for, and this brings me to the reason for this entry.

Earlier today, I read the transcript of Mitt Romney’s speech, the link to which I had come across at the forum that I refer to, and a certain paragraph jumped out to me. Actually, there were more, but I want to say a few things about this one paragraph:

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

I read that and immediately thought to myself, “Oh, come on, who are you trying to kid? Whose eyes are you trying to pull the wool over?” Of course, it’s quite obvious that he’s trying to appease certain Christians who find his brand of religiousness troubling. But seriously, as a practicing Mormon, the importance of willingly submitting to the words of church authorities will have been indelibly etched on his psyche, so I don’t believe for one minute that he’s capable of temporarily disentangling himself from a lifetime of Mormon indoctrination at the drop of a hat. If Romney is as devout as he appears, I doubt that he will be able to ignore his deep-rooted prejudices, his innate Mormonism.

So I just want to show how a “good” Mormon, like Romney, views the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Although he says that they will never “exert influence on presidential decisions”, the church authorities, especially the prophet and President of the Church, wield a huge amount of power in the lives of Latter-day Saints. I hope to demonstrate this by referring to an address that’s very well-known in Mormon circles.

In 1980, Ezra Taft Benson, who was at the time a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, gave a talk called The Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, which has since become a Mormon classic, where he explained that if a person hopes to be crowned with God’s glory in the hereafter then that person must follow the prophet. This “grand key” – as he called it – is chief in importance as it alone unlocks the door to the highest heaven and all the membership of the Church knows this, so there’s no getting around it. This talk encapsulates everything that orthodox Mormons – including Romney, if his profession to be a faithful church member is correct – believe about their prophets. So though Romney claims emphatically that he can ignore his firmly implanted beliefs when making crucial decisions, I very much doubt this, given the paramount significance of the prophet’s utterances in the lives of Latter-day Saints.

Benson says that “the prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything” (fundamental 1, emphasis mine) and follows that up by quoting from Mormon scripture:

Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you. [Doctrine & Covenants 21:4-6]

Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to “give heed unto all his words”–as if from the Lord’s “own mouth.”

Suppose the prophet makes an official declaration that runs counter to a presidential policy decision. How would Romney, as a Mormon, respond to this? Am I to seriously believe that he will choose to ignore the Lord’s mouthpiece and, in effect, ignore the Lord himself?

In his talk, Benson addresses this dilemma and answers it (fundamental 7):

The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Said President Harold B. Lee:

You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life…. Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow…. Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church. [in Conference Report, October 1970, p. 152-153)

How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.

So where’s the wriggle room for a professed faithful Mormon when it comes to choosing between obedience to the Lord’s anointed and political expediency?

In his speech, Romney suggests that its inappropriate for a spiritual leader to become involved in political matters, that their stewardship is solely “within the province of church affairs”. But Benson says (fundamental 5):

The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you’ll be blessed and time will vindicate you.

And he reinforces this concept later in his talk (fundamental 9):

The prophet can receive revelation on any matter–temporal or spiritual.

Said Brigham Young:

Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs…

In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, “Ye Elders of Israel…. will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual and temporal in the Kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?” Not one of them could do it….

I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be. [Journal of Discourses, 10:363-364]

The Mormon prophet is able to pontificate on any subject he feels inspired to speak about and it’s the duty of church members to “heed” his words and incorporate them into their everyday life, and even mindset. The prophet’s words will always be preeminent in relation to “earthly knowledge” or the wisdom of men.

When Romney says that the prophet’s authority “ends where the affairs of the nation begin” he’s pitting himself against Brigham Young who stated that no man should “point out the path a Prophet of God…or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things.” Of course, I don’t believe that Romney thinks he knows better than God’s chosen representative on earth, as that would belie his persona of being a good Mormon, so I can’t help but think that he’s deliberately being disingenuous by making such a statement.

In all, there are 14 fundamentals that Benson talks about – read the talk! – which give a correct impression of what all true blue Mormons believe. I hope the points I’ve brought out give a glimpse into how important the concept of obedience to higher authorities is within Mormondom. And as a former Latter-day Saint who found the prospect of being a latter-day ain’t more attractive, I understand completely the homage that members pay to those powerful men who sit in the highest quorums of the Church. This is why I find Romney’s statements utterly unbelievable.

To think that he would allow a lifetime’s worth of propaganda not to “exert influence” on him is a ludicrous idea, more so as he believes that his indoctrination is a good thing that will eventually lead him through the pearly gates. He would have been taught from a very young age to follow the prophet, and that that is where safety lies. It’s preached week in and week out at church and reinforced in the home. Not only are church authorities always exerting influence over him by virtue of what he’s been taught to accept as true from childhood onwards, Benson’s summary of what Mormons believe regarding their prophet explains what Romney’s attitude would really be if he was faced with a conflict between political necessity and the pronouncement of the man he upholds as God’s mouthpiece on earth.

Curmudgeonly Yours

The blasphemous teddy

leave a comment »

A British schoolteacher has been arrested in Sudan accused of insulting Islam’s Prophet, after she allowed her pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

120px-teddy_bear_01.jpegThis news story just epitomises the danger of religious extremism. A teacher at a school in Khartoum asked a class of 7 year-olds to name a teddy bear as part of their topic work for the national curriculum. They voted for Muhammad as their favourite name, but several parents complained to the Ministry of Education that it was an insult to Islam and she was arrested. Worryingly, the school has had to close until January for fear of reprisals.

The fact that some religious followers are so sensitive that they would take offence at the innocent naming of a toy by a group of children is an example of how absurdly extreme fanatical belief can be.

IslaSkye

Written by islaskye

November 26, 2007 at 10:50 pm

Religion hurts

leave a comment »

After nearly 30 years of embracing a particular set of beliefs, I found it very difficult to let go. And yet I knew I had to let go, if I was to move forward with my life. I’ve heard it said that leaving your religion is like experiencing a bereavement and that’s certainly how it felt to me.

But as my life as an active Mormon receded further and further into the distance I was able to see that the faith which I thought filled my life with happiness and meaning, had actually been positively harming me. Six years on, I find little pleasure or interest in talking or thinking about the church and its teachings. This saddens me because, at one time, it was my whole life and, I thought, would be my eternal future as well. But I cannot forget how my religion and its leaders duped me on a grand scale. Nor can I forget the pain its teachings and actions caused to me and to others that I know.

I don’t want to claim that Mormonism, or any other religion for that matter, does not have any positive effects on a person’s life. However, as a former believer, I can now see that it can certainly be harmful and I think this needs to be acknowledged and understood.

Below are a few personal examples of what I mean.

The Mormon church will tell you that it is a family-oriented organisation. That sounds very laudable but, in fact, the emphasis on the LDS version of happy families pays little thought to the needs or feelings of individuals. If you are not part of a standard family unit you are made to feel “different” and being different in a church that lives and breathes conformity is a very uncomfortable place to be.

Both men and women are encouraged to marry by their early to mid-20s. Any single person older than that is patronised into feeling that they are something of a failure, and that they should rectify the situation as soon as possible. This imperative to marry can cause some unsuitable marriages born out of the desperation to be part of that holy grail – the perfect family. Until I eventually married in my 30s, I felt the subtle force of marginalisation that many single church members experience. Add to that the stress of avoiding sexual encounters with the opposite sex, or even developing a romantic relationship with a non-member of the church (particularly difficult in areas where the church has only a small congregation) and already the detrimental effects of Mormon culture become apparent.

Once married, the expectation is that a couple will start a family. Although in later years the use of contraception has not been frowned upon as much as it once was, there is barely-disguised surprise if a couple fail to produce an offspring within the first two years of marriage. Women, in particular, are told that the production and raising of children is their supreme purpose in life. I remember very clearly hearing a talk by one of the church’s Twelve Apostles, which explicitly declared that bearing children was the most important thing any woman would ever do. For someone, such as myself, who discovers that they are unable to conceive, this is a devastating and demoralising doctrine. I spent many hours pleading with God to explain to me why I was denied this incomparable blessing, when children were being born every day to feckless and even violent parents who would never give them the committed and loving upbringing that my husband and I could offer. I received no consolation, either from God, or from uncomprehending church leaders. Thankfully, the anguish that I felt in this situation was immediately eased when I finally rejected the church and its teachings, negating power that it once had over me.

One other example of the damage religious dogma can cause occurred in the life of a young woman who was part of our church congregation. Although I didn’t realise it at the time, I am now convinced that the church’s stance on the perfectly normal issue of masturbation directly caused, or at the very least contributed to, this young woman’s ongoing struggle with mental illness. The terrible guilt engendered in her by the church’s disgust of her habit and the effort of abstention, has made her life a misery for many years. Success in avoiding the activity brings great “highs”, but lapses cause terrible “lows” that have blighted any hope of a normal, productive life or enduring romantic relationship.

Mormons are taught to decry those who are thought to have allowed themselves to become “offended” by the actions of the church or one of its members. Being “offended” is regarded as a weakness, even a sin, on the part of the one who is on the receiving end of the offence. No credit is given for the possibility that they may be justly indignant or hurt. Anger is also condemned as a sin which must never be indulged. These attitudes, I feel, are unhealthy and unfair. I will admit that I was angry when I discovered that the church had doctored its own history to eradicate the unsightly blemishes that it really contained. I was hurt by the church’s intimation that I was somehow lacking because I was unmarried and then, later, unable to bear children. I am furious when I think about the stigma that the church placed upon a young woman who felt obliged to confess her private intimate activities to her male leaders in an attitude of shame and guilt, leading to a skewed idea of her value as a person and as a Latter-day Saint.

It’s perhaps this attack upon a person’s self-worth that is the key to the damage religions can wreak in an individual’s life, because our feelings about ourselves are determined by our perceived success in adhering to a set of improbable rules, many of which run counter to our inherent nature as human beings. In the LDS church, we were encouraged to “put off the natural man”, in other words to set aside perfectly natural human behaviour in the quest to become “spiritual beings”. It is this burden, I’m sure, which leads to so much guilt, frustration and unhappiness in the lives of the faithful as they find themselves constantly trying and failing to stifle their instincts. The stress of attempting to live a “higher law” turns life into a series of barriers to overcome, rather than experiences to learn from and enjoy. Accepting myself for who I am, rather than trying to be something different (and, by Mormon definition, better), is one of the happiest results of my deconversion.

There are many other incidents I witnessed as a Mormon which indicate to me that obedience to a set of rules laid down by a different culture in a different era can cause untold damage to the psyche and well-being of believers today. And I’m sure that they occur in all religions, not just in the LDS church. Looking back on these experiences has allowed me to finally rid myself of the fallacy that religion is an unremittingly good thing, that it is the cure for all the ills of the world and that those who extricate themselves from the cloying embrace of religious belief are rejecting something innately valuable. On the contrary, I have found greater peace of mind and appreciation of myself and others since stepping away from religious influence. Losing my religion has allowed me to gain so much more of what I think is really important.

IslaSkye

Written by islaskye

October 28, 2007 at 8:46 pm