printable version PDF version

The Concept of Innocence in Today’s World
by finch Monday, Jul 17 2006, 7:20pm
international / social equality/unity / opinion/analysis

This short paper does not pretend to a thorough analysis, however, it is hoped that the few indications would suffice both to verify assertions and to indicate a rich direction for further research.

Innocence implies a lack of guilt or blamelessness; the images humans readily associate with the concept of innocence are those of infants, suckling babes, children and the newborn. A species tends to identify and place value on itself. In contrast to instinctive emotions we have the superimposition of cultural values/demands. Religion is the traditional repository and medium of constructed/cultural values. A cursory analysis would reveal that cultural values are not usually compatible with strong instinctive emotions. The value placed on the lives of defenceless children, infants and the newborn will be the criteria utilised to easily prove our assertions.

Large ‘organised’ societies are characterised by the repression of instinctive emotions and ‘values’. Regulatory codes and associative regulatory ‘authorities’ (police, legal, military, etc) are a feature of all large societies. Whenever and wherever prohibitions are placed on natural (instinctive) expression, barbarism usually prevails. This assertion is in direct opposition to the myth that traditional societies are barbaric, in fact, the societies that display a pathological disregard for the most fundamental inherent values are the ‘civilised’ societies. These societies have been heavily influenced or modelled on the values outlined in texts, which historically have been written at the behest of ruling monarchs. It should be noted that ruling elites rarely observe their own codes – double standards and hypocrisy are features of all large ‘civilised’ societies.

Today we are witnesses to the repugnant actions of civilisations with long recorded histories. The slaughter of innocent women and children is dismissed as the unavoidable consequence of modern warfare; one modern term for the slaughter of innocents is “collateral damage”. We have just relegated living human children to the realm of (dead) damaged goods! We have all been drastically diminished as a result. The inaction of observers (the viewing public) grants license to the murderers to continue and possibly increase the scope of their barbaric aggression. We are all guilty of complicity if we fail to act against those who would cheapen human life to the level of faulty commodities or damaged goods.

The factor that has anaesthetised our outrage in the face of horrendous atrocities is religious discourse. These abhorrent acts, which would be regarded as criminal in any healthy society, are today committed with impunity. We remain inactive in the face of the most abhorrent of all crimes against humanity – the ‘justified’ killing of infants and children. The toleration of modern barbarism is directly related to the psychopathology of religious indoctrination and its close cousins of tribalism/nationalism/patriotism. The natural sense of horror, shame, guilt and remorse normally associated with heinous crimes has been numbed by the perverse doctrines of religion.

Encoded in the major religions is the justification for the devaluing and killing of INNOCENCE. According to the religious teachings of men newborn babes and suckling infants are no longer innocent! The murder of innocents has become acceptable today – as is in evidence nightly on our television screens.

Islam and Christianity both subscribe to the doctrine of pre-determination or fatalism, regardless of the appalling nature of an event it was/is the will of God! Judaism as progenitor of both the aforementioned religions holds to the view that the ‘sins’ of the fathers are inherited or passed to the ‘sons’. Put simply these three major religions subscribe to the view that a newborn babe is sinful and guilty from birth! This claim is perhaps the vilest inversion of natural law one is likely to encounter. The Christian Reformists not content with the perversion of the prevailing religion, felt the need to ‘do one better’; the result is the doctrine that newborn babes are born in a state of “total depravity”! [The reader is referred to Calvin’s T-U-L-I-P model for verification.]

The two major religions of the East (Hinduism and Buddhism) offer no refuge or sanity, their doctrine of karma and transmigration of souls (reincarnation) holds to the view that we carry spiritual debts into each life; the proof of our transgressions is human birth! The need for a human life is proof that we haven’t achieved quiescence or liberation. Birth denotes reparation. Theoretically, one could be born to receive the rewards of previous good merits only; but to date not one human in history has not experienced some form of suffering. The greatest degree of suffering is usually reserved for the Messiahs/Avatars, Buddhas and Saints, a very interesting irony.

As a result of karma, original sin or pre-destination, the loss of innocence is assured by ALL the major religions. Over the course of centuries religious doctrine has profoundly affected the fabric of the entire culture – it matters little whether one is a practising religionist. Look no further for the source of your inaction, apathy and acceptance of the atrocities you witness every night in the comfort of your lounge rooms.

The murder of innocent men, women and children affects us all. Our tenure as a successful species is directly related to the value we place on the innocent and defenceless of our own species.

All religions are the creations of men; however, your natural instincts are products of Infinite Creation. I need not convince you regarding our inherent impulse for love, peace and harmony. The natural abhorrence we all share for violence is ample evidence to the fact. Trust your instincts and reject the teachings of men.

All human life is One. Choose Life and reject the purveyors of death.

Peace.

COMMENTS

response
by Anne Tuesday, Jul 18 2006, 3:26am

it's almost not worth responding.

this article has an extremely inaccurate characterisation of religious beliefs about children, and no recognition of the diversity within traditions - i know some of the different christian traditions, and i know that they do not believe that babies are born with sin. Religions have a symbiotic relationship with society- they respond and evolve- they are not necessarily rigid. Catholicism has changed significantly in this way since the 1960's and the second vatican council.

it's quite frustrating to participate in the Left when there is such a high level of ignorance, and a knee-jerk reactionary approach to anything that is religious.

oh well.

a.

citations accurate
by finch Tuesday, Jul 18 2006, 7:38am

The claims are accurate but obviously not all theological groups have been covered, please re-read the first para and understand some of the constraints of internet publishing.

It would be useful if you backed your inaccurate statement with some details and facts for all to assess; perhaps even contribute additional material for the benefit of readers – you are not prevented. But that requires action and effort doesn’t it?

Do you belong to the religious "Left"? MarXism finds it roots in the Torah – the first class struggle encoded was Moses and his ‘slaves’ confronting the ruling elite (Pharaoh). Hmmm! Theology comes in many forms it seems!