I've been following the "reality television" series Breaking Amish since its premiere, and while anyone who has done any research on the Amish communities (I did so a couple of years ago while entertaining a concept for a novel I allowed to fall through the cracks and into oblivion) might suspect the show was staged, I have felt compelled to continue watching. The idea of a group of young people leaving behind all they know--and the support of all of their loved ones--is compelling. Sadly, this week's episode was unable to pull off the realism portrayed in previous weeks, the rejection met with not a single tear shed by any of the participants being far too telling. It is sad to think the participants have lost everything in order to pursue their dreams, but one must ask how genuine these sacrifices truly are.
Conversely, the upcoming premiere of the new season of Sister Wives, a show about an American polygamist and his four wives, leaves me with a completely different feeling of disdain. This feeling comes not from a group's desire to live by their own religious freedom, but that they feel it is admissible--almost flaunted--because their religious beliefs dictate that it is okay to break the law as long as their religion says it is.
The idea that religion might dictate one's every move might seem foreign, or at least obstructive, to most. However, given the recent political climate, it seems a necessary topic on which to write. There are political challengers who would take away the liberties of others in the name of their own religious beliefs should they be elected, and the prospect of that is terrifying to me. While America was based on religious freedom, it was not based on any one religion's beliefs; one person's religious freedom does not equate to the freedom to dominate others with said beliefs. Religious freedom is religious freedom, be one Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, or any other creed. The thought of legislation being pursued based on one person's beliefs--thus infringing upon the beliefs and rights of those who do not follow said beliefs--appalls me.
Conversely, the upcoming premiere of the new season of Sister Wives, a show about an American polygamist and his four wives, leaves me with a completely different feeling of disdain. This feeling comes not from a group's desire to live by their own religious freedom, but that they feel it is admissible--almost flaunted--because their religious beliefs dictate that it is okay to break the law as long as their religion says it is.
The idea that religion might dictate one's every move might seem foreign, or at least obstructive, to most. However, given the recent political climate, it seems a necessary topic on which to write. There are political challengers who would take away the liberties of others in the name of their own religious beliefs should they be elected, and the prospect of that is terrifying to me. While America was based on religious freedom, it was not based on any one religion's beliefs; one person's religious freedom does not equate to the freedom to dominate others with said beliefs. Religious freedom is religious freedom, be one Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, or any other creed. The thought of legislation being pursued based on one person's beliefs--thus infringing upon the beliefs and rights of those who do not follow said beliefs--appalls me.
| That is one of many reasons I chose to write Myths of Gods. The excuse of imposing one person's beliefs upon another, even taking away rights of minorities who may or may not fall under a given religious category, is just that: an excuse. What these people are suggesting is nothing short of theocracy, a way of life that has proven to thwart decades of progress in , for example, certain Islamic countries. Before religion dictated their legislation, women excelled in their communities. Now, they are oppressed, held from education and prestigious jobs, their rights revoked in the name of a given group's interpretation of God's will. I fear the United States may be moving in a similar direction. We have made many strides, and at a great cost, but there are those who would strip us of of this progress in the name of their own personal religious beliefs. The same goes for gay rights. We have been moving in a positive, progressive direction, but all that might be for naught if we allow the wrong people to fall into power. | |
I wrote Myths of Gods for many reasons, but one of the main reasons was my need to address the potential dangers of a theocratic state. When we allow regulations and legislation to be dictated by the religious beliefs of one group, we alienate the liberties of those who fall outside that group. One might do many things in the name of God--restrict, oppress, even kill--but that does not make it right. What is right is working toward the liberty of all the people, regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation. Doing otherwise in the name of any god is simply blasphemy.
RSS Feed
