Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H
Gormley


FAITH IN GOD AMOUNTS TO THINKING, "HE IS ALWAYS WITH ME WHATEVER" BUT THE PRICE IS THAT YOU ARE BEING VICTIM-SHAMED

For religion, God and morality (morality is fairness and love) amount to the same thing,  Justice and love are this person, this God.  It is unfair how we are judged for thinking that is strange.  In reality justice is not a person so it is not fair to say it is or fair to be frowned upon for saying

Mother Teresa believed that the poor should be encouraged to love more and love would be their rock no matter how hard things got.  Actually she could not have believed that very long for experience would have taught her different.  She was implying that many of the poor if not all were just worse off for not being loving enough.  Even to deny she was saying that is still amounting to saying that possibly and potentially they could be to blame for many of their problems.  They are being potentially accused of lacking in love.

m shaming" that I have heard or read:

The one who is judged to be victim shaming says this: "People in poverty should be taught to love. This will aid them in their stress." The suggestion is now judged by some to be "victim shaming" because it subtly implies that the impoverished are deficient in their ability to love. Also, the emphasis on love ignores that poverty is a materialistic reality requiring a materialistic solution (such as fair wages and good housing).
The one who is judged to be victim shaming says the following: "People who are treated very badly by others need to practice forgiveness. Forgiveness can help people overcome such effects of injustice as depression and rage." The suggestion of forgiveness is now judged by some to be "victim shaming" because it asks an already-hurting person to do the painful work of forgiving, which implies that the victim needs fixing. This is shaming the already-hurting victim. Further, an exclusive focus on forgiveness ignores the quest for a fair solution to injustices from others. "Justice first!" is the solution.
The one who is judged to be victim shaming thinks this way: "Colonized people need to practice rising-above-the-situation or transcendence so that they are not bothered by the control from others." It is judged by some to be "victim shaming" because the call to transcendence puts the colonized people in their subservient place. It further is shaming because the practice of transcendence is considered by Marx to be "the opiate of the people." Practicing transcendence shames the colonized people into avoiding the materialist revolution, and revolution is an attempt to overthrow an unjust system by materialistic means.
Finally, the one who is judged to be victim shaming thinks this way: "We should ask a person who is not physically fit to have the strong will to start a rigorous exercise program." The call for fitness, or an interior willing or motivation to change life-styles, is to focus on only one aspect of that person—physical endurance and the current lack of that—and so this person has been "victim shamed" precisely because an imperfection in the person is the primary focus. The solution again is materialistic: to reinforce the person for attributes other than a lack of fitness, which should be ignored.

In each of our four examples, the newly evolving concept of victim shaming has the following characteristics: