I just have to comment on your review because I feel like I need to defend the author. First let me say that I am a Mormon--born, raised, graduated from BYU, served a mission, married in the temple...but I haven't attended church for three years. I was not offended, I was not (am still not) "sinning", none of the reasons I used to think people "turned away from God".

But my religious journey is another story. First, I find it sad that the focus of your review is your disappointment that Ayaan turned away from God. There is so much more to be gained from this book, but reading it as the account of a kind of fall from grace just destroys the beauty that is in it.

Secondly, it's not fair to demand that a memoir offer solutions in order to be a great read. This is not an academic book based on research and offering possible solutions. It's a memoir. That's all. Memoirs tell stories that people think need to be told. This book accomplishes that.

Also, I love the Mormon church and generally defend it. I consider it a very important part of my life and who I am. I also love the members. I have very positive feelings toward all things Mormon. However, doesn't it disturb you that you easily spotted the similarities between Islam and Mormonism but you had to SEARCH for the differences, because you didn't want your religion to be labeled "radical"? Don't get me wrong, I don't think Mormonism shares Islam's most heinous characteristics, I just think it's weird that what you physically typed in your review didn't seem to phase you at all.

Next, you say that the LDS church encourages members to seek truth and confirmation, but the operative term in that assertion is "confirmation". Let's be honest, the church doesn't encourage an open, independent search for truth. They encourage us to seek confirmation of what they tell us (or suggest to us) is truth. Sorry, I don't want to get into negative things about the church...

Finally, in Ayaan's defense, I think that "turning away from God" can sometimes be healthier for someone than adhering to a strict, stifling, abusive religion (no, I'm not saying Mormonism is abusive at all). People don't need religion to be good, happy, productive, or loving. I think Ayaan and many of the rest of us are better off without it.

When you say turning away from God, it is implied that God exists. Ayaan doesn't believe in God because she feels that there is no evidence of God's existence, not because she thinks atheism is "healthy".

But she did once so isn't that turning away? And if not then she turned away from the belief in God and that saddens me just the same. Nevertheless, to have meaning to your existence, you must do what you must.

Every time I sit to write a response to your comment, I spend an hour trying to say everything i want to say, in a brief but concise manner that cannot be misunderstood or misconstrued. I fail each time so I give up and say nothing.

I'm determined to write something this time. How rude of me to go so long with no reply. There are so many points in your comment that I would love to address but I don't know if we can properly communicate our feelings on this thread; especially since we know so little of one another.

With that, I'm going to address your point in the second to last paragraph. "Let's be honest, the church doesn't encourage an open, independent search for truth." My thoughts...you are still alive aren't you? You don't have armed guards protecting your life do you? Were you stoned when you left the church, were you put on trial for your 'open' comments here? The church does allow a person, to openly question any point of doctrine, but if you come to an understanding that it is not true, then you are right, there is no place for you in the church.

I then ask you, why would you even care? You've rejected it, you have your agency, leave it alone. My guess is that you can't leave it alone, because others aren't leaving you alone. Family and friends may constantly be asking you to come to church, forget the grudges you may be holding onto or perhaps they are asking your to forgive someone who hurt your very deeply...whatever it is, you left and they won't leave you alone, perhaps they think your different beleives are unfounded or based on trickery or deception.

In my experience, in this instance, there are two types of members of the LDS Faith. There are those who believe in personal revelation and those who don't (but perhaps say they do). Most of the members fall into the second group. (I did for a long, long time)

When confronted with an individual questioning doctrine, they tell you to stay away from those things and give no attention to it. I beleive they are wrong to do so. I beleive their faith is lacking to such a degree that they do not know for themselves that God will in fact answer every question we bring to Him. They are either afraid that the answer would be contrary to what they are taught or they would receive no answer whatsoever. Because of their fear and their closed relationship with God, they do what everyone else has taught them to do, just ignore it and stay away. The other minority group knows that God will speak to men through the Holy Ghost and will not turn you away from your questions but will help you find a healthy way to find and hear your answer.

If you have asked God about your questions and turned another route based on his answer, then there is nothing to reproach. If you have only worked it out in your mind and have failed to take your concerns to the Lord, then this discussion is over as it should be will all who disagree or fight against the doctrine of the church. We are comparing apples to oranges and are not discussing the same thing if these steps have not been done.

How can I make these allegations? I don't know you, I don't know others who have left the church, I only know me and what has happened to me in my own conversion. I will tell others to ask God, because that is what I had to do, but it was a very painful process that left me quite lonely and depressed. I hate to know anyone is about to set out on that journey. Perhaps the warnings from others to stay away from such things are just an effort to save you from the heartache you will indefinitely encounter as you search for truth.

So what do you think Adrienne? I've either unknowingly, perfectly illustrated your point, (which will confirm to me, that these things cannot be 'discussed' on such a forum) or perhaps I've offended you. My comments are judgmental and stereotypical. I'll own that. Is there anyway they cannot be when we know so little of one another?

There is nothing unsettling about someone turning away from God, especially not for those of us who have done it. For us it can be a major turning point in our lives. For me, it was a confirmation of what I had always known, and I have never been happier. There is nothing unsettling or wrong about that.
What is unsettling are the people who have the opinion that our lack of faith makes us somehow less of a person then they are. What is unsettling are the people who have told me that I am going to Hell for not believing, or the fact that my parents make me pretend like I still believe in front of the rest of the family, or that there is no hope of my friend being president because no-one wants to vote for an atheist. What is unsettling is that people were killed because they made a movie or a cartoon that insults Islam. Killed. Murdered. Gone. Because they made a movie that expressed their view of a religion. That is unsettling.

Emily,

If I claimed that turning away from God is unsettling to the turner...I appoligize, that was not my intention. It is just unsettling to me, because I don't understand it, not when I have acheived the same happiness in my faith that you have in the lack of. If you feel judged from my behalf on that account. Stop.

As far people being murdered and killed for their expression of ANY issue, that is FAR more than unsettling. Let's not group the two under the same umbrella.

God is a child's answer to the world. Rationalism and reality are not easy for many people and the delusion that is religion persists for this and many other reasons. Anyone who leaves a "faith" should be applauded not only for their effort but commended for the leap from childish thought to freethinking.

Pablo,

Since when was a child's thought considered anything BUT freethinking?

Do you have children? Have you spent anytime with children? If you did you would understand that although their thought is simple....it is FREE and therefore I don't understand how you think "childish" thought is different from what you are defining as "free".

I'm getting hung up on semantics aren't I? Drat rules! But hey, I'm questioning them...does that mean I get an applause? :)

But I must say, you have peaked my curiosity. What reality and rationalism am I missing out on because I have childish thought and believe in God?

Gwen

P.S. why did you only give the book 2-stars?

Your assumption that I have never spent time around a child is wrong ("If you did...") My son will be three next month. A child isn't a freethinker in the sense that their experiences are severely limited. They are also, in a very real way, slaves to their impulses, not having developed the emotional tools to overcome their instincts.

You are also confusing childish with child-like. Childish means a lack of maturity, or infantile. Child-like implies truthfulness or candor, and yes, freedom. In these terms, I stick to my comment that religious thought is childish.

As for what you're missing out on, well, I don't know you so I can't name any specific behaviors, but many people, especially Americans, miss out on things like science - from astronomy to biology, from virology and medicine to geology and anthropology, from psychology to sociology, people who are taught the religious answers to these questions are given the wrong answers, thus they are missing out on the reality, the truth, of the world as it is. Just to name a few examples.

I didn't give the book two stars...I haven't rated it yet.

But I have a question for you, your comments having piqued (not peaked...sorry, that's the English teacher in me) my curiosity. You wrote, "No matter how backward you may think Islam, or any religion, it is unsettling to me to see someone turn away from God."

Why is it unsettling? Would you feel that way if someone, in the name of religious purity, someone like your own grandmother, took you, as a five year-old girl, (as they took Ali) held you down, then with a pair of scissors cut off your clitoris and labia, sewed your vagina shut, then tied your legs together for a week?

Is that not unsettling enough to turn away from?

This wasn't done out of medical need (like cutting off a leg to save a life), or punishment for some crime, (unless you think being female is a crime the way Islam and many sects of Christianity and Judaism do). It was sheer religious, tribal, primitive, barbarism.

Pablo...so much to say...I'll start at the top and work down.

Yes I know the difference between childlike and childish and I know you do to. I just think we can all stand the opportunity, to be better understood....and now there is one less question because you were clear and I understand what you mean. I would much rather be understood than be right. Although it is fun to be right.

Next...my belief in God does not disprove science, it explains it and vice versa. I believe in a God bound by rules (some scientific). Science (all types) are bound by rules also....how does either disprove the other?

Sorry about the 2-star assumption and the use of the word peaked. In my defense, I did change it from peek to peak ;)

Ok now onto the real question..."Why is it unsettling [when someone turns urn away from God:]?"

To explain my unease, I must first start by restating that my unease comes when others turn away from God, not religion. Everything you illustrated was how another HUMAN hurt Ayyan . Not how God hurt her. I'm not sure why it is so difficult to make that separation but that isn't my issue. I understand why people turn from a religion.

With that clarification, are you still interested in understanding why I am uneasy when someone rejects God?

Gwen

P.S. Thanks for the spelling, grammar and thought corrections, I cannot improve unless I am made aware of my errors. Ignorance is never my bliss. :)

How does either disprove the other? God, by definition, is a supernatural being. Science, by definition, only deals with the natural world - things observable, measurable and repeatable. Since God does not fall into any of these categories he is, by definition, not natural, not "real."

When you say you believe in a God "bound by rules" you're interpreting the bible because that's not what it says. A God bound is no god at all.

Science doesn't disprove God anymore than science disproves unicorns. What science does do, however, is disprove the claims of religion. For example, when the bible says the earth was created in six days, we know that is false. When it says the earth doesn't move, we know that is false. When it says woman was created from man, we know that is false. By disproving the claims individually it chips away at the authority of all religious claims. If God can't tell his authors that the world is round and not flat, then either God is an idiot or the authors making claims on His behalf are lying.

As for turning away from God, well, as someone who believes that no such creature exists, what I found astounding isn't people turning away, it's people turning toward. How people still believe in any such things, God, Allah, Jesus, Xenu, what have you, is beyond me. I understand why children believe - my three year-old thinks Santa brought him toys. But like any emotionally healthy person, there will come a time when he puts these things away. My children will be taught about religion (their father's Jewish lineage, their mother's Lutheran one), but only in anthropological terms.

Like Richard Dawkins, I believe that religious indoctrination is little more than emotional child abuse. A world without religion and religious beliefs won't be perfect, but it will be exponentially better than the one we live in, the one Miss Ali was raised in, mutilated, debased and despised.

Pablo,

Have you ever read a book and learned something that the author may not have intended you learn?

Gwen

Pablo,

Never mind, don't answer my previous question. I asked it in an attempt to be understood and after a review of our comments I realized that you are not interested in that and I apologize for dragging this on longer than necessary.

According to your definitions I'll concede that you are a free thinker and I am childish.

Gwenevere

Frankly, I'n sorry you feel that way. You wrote, "If you happen to disagree (or agree) with what I have posted, I'd love to hear your perspective, so bring it on!"

I thought that's what I was doing. But your (sarcastic?) concession would seem to indicate otherwise.

Pablo,

I’m sorry, did you have something else to disagree with me on?

While you think up of some new way to twist my words so that you can cram me into the pigeonhole you think I belong in, I’d like to share this poem by Shel Silverstein with you, Titled, The Meehoo with an Exactlywatt. It reminds me our dialogue and our inability to communicative effectively with one another.

The Meehoo with an Exactlywatt
by Shel Silverstein

Knock knock!
Who's there?
Me!
Me who?

That's right!
What's right?
Meehoo!
That's what I want to know!

What's what you want to know?
Me, WHO?
Yes, exactly!
Exactly what?
Yes, I have an Exactlywatt on a chain!

Exactly what on a chain?
Yes!
Yes what?
No, Exactlywatt!

That's what I want to know!
I told you - Exactlywatt!
Exactly WHAT?
Yes!
Yes what?

Yes, it's with me!
What's with you?
Exactlywatt - that's what's with me.
Me who?
Yes!

GO AWAY!

Knock knock...

I have been following your discussion and have enjoyed reading the two points of view. One thing I must say, as someone who holds a belief in God and a love of learning close to my heart, is that Pablo, you do seem to believe in god, too. Your god is science, and whatever we can prove and figure out on our own. What some of us believe is that God has given us intelligence, which is exactly what enables us to figure this world out. As we learn more about evolution, astronomy, philosophy, technology, and other disciplines, we get closer to God, whether we acknowledge Him or not. What you cannot argue with is that as advanced as we are, we still have no real idea, scientifically speaking, how life began. It is impossible to say what the world would be without God or religion, because that is a world that has never been, and never will be.

I respect your point of view and can appreciate the path you took to get there. I am amused that you think of "religious indoctrination" as child abuse. Maybe there will soon be legislation to prevent us from sharing the Lutheran and Jewish traditions to which you refer with our children, in order that they can arrive at adulthood without all this pesky baggage? Hang on, I think we can refer to the history of the Cultural Revolution in communist China to see how that worked out.

I become a little annoyed when people suggest that believing in God is cheating; that it is a way around pursuing scientific explanations for what happens in the world around us. Contrary to what you seem to think, it is much more difficult to believe in God than not. It takes courage to acknowledge spiritual experiences for what they are; much easier to explain them away. It is work to accept that there are some things that, while not unknowable, are unexplainable as yet by science. This is not a failure of God. It isn't even a failure of man. We just haven't figured it all out yet. But to those who are paying attention (and there are plenty of scientists among us), God assures us of His presence. Man is not the boss of everything, even though that would be comforting.

Just one more thing!:) C.S. Lewis addresses the question of "realness" so well. He is the great enemy of athiests, and here is why:

But there is a sort of attack on the emotions which can still be tried. It turns on making him feel, when first he sees human remains plastered on a wall, that this is "what the world is really like" and that all his religion has been a fantasy. You will notice that we have got them completely fogged about the meaning of the word "real". They tell each other, of some great spiritual experience, "All that really happened was that you heard some music in a lighted building"; here "Real" means the bare physical facts, separated from the other elements in the experience they actually had. On the other hand, they will also say "It's all very well discussing that high dive as you sit here in an armchair, but wait till you get up there and see what it's really like": here "real" is being used in the opposite sense to mean, not the physical facts (which they know already while discussing the matter in armchairs) but the emotional effect those facts will have on a human consciousness. Either application of the word could be defended; but our business is to keep the two going at once so that the emotional value of the word "real" can be placed now on one side of the account, now on the other, as it happens to suit us. The general rule which we have now pretty well established among them is that in all experiences which can make them happier or better only the physical facts are "Real" while the spiritual
elements are "subjective"; in all experiences which can discourage or corrupt them the spiritual elements are the main reality and to ignore them is to be an
escapist. Thus in birth the blood and pain are "real", the rejoicing a mere subjective point of view; in death, the terror and ugliness reveal what death
"really means". The hatefulness of a hated person is "real"—in hatred you see men as they are, you are disillusioned; but the loveliness of a loved person is
merely a subjective haze concealing a "real" core of sexual appetite or economic association. Wars and poverty are "really" horrible; peace and plenty are mere physical facts about which men happen to have certain sentiments. The creatures are always accusing one another of wanting "to eat the cake and have it"; but thanks to our labours they are more often in the predicament of paying for the cake and not eating it. Your patient, properly handled, will have no difficulty in regarding his emotion at the sight of human entrails as a revelation of Reality and his emotion at the sight of happy children or fair weather as mere sentiment,
Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE

http://www.mylibrarybook.com/books/67...

"Pablo, you do seem to believe in god, too. Your god is science...."

I'm not even going to dignify this presumptuous, nonsensical, and ill-informed comment with a response.

As as for the apologist pedophile Lewis, it makes perfect sense that he would defend Christianity.

Naomi...I didn't know you liked the taste of worms too! :)

Ouch! And the ad hominim attacks commence! I'm out. Enjoy yourselves.

BTW, I loved the book! I thought Ali did what she was doing very well. She is on my list of people I would like to meet someday.

Nothing "ad hominem" (spelled with an 'e', not an 'i') about it. I didn't make it personal, I was simply referring to the nature of your comment. As for Lewis, well he is an apologist, and there's plenty of documentation to indicate he had an affection for little kids.

You, on the other hand, had (apparently) no qualms about making personal comments, accusing me of being some kind of theist (I'm not). Then you condescendingly referred to how "amused" you are at my point of view before you coyly implied that I'm some sort of communist. Maybe you've never heard of places like Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark, but you can research them if you want to see other models of secularism.

Pablo, I am sorry I hurt your feelings. I was only saying that we all believe in something. You believe in science and all things documented and reproducible. I believe in those things, too, but I give credit to spiritual things and that doesn't make me a simpleton.

I do not think or care if you are a communist. But when you try to delete the foundation of a culture, the consequences are not simple. I have heard of those faraway-sounding places, thank you. You might be surprised to know that I am pretty well traveled.

By 'ad hominem' I meant that you dismiss Lewis as a pedophile rather than address the philosophical point in my post.

Really? Correcting spelling? C'mon dude.

Go Pablo!

Thank you!!!
Your comment "Instead I was left feeling like, it may be okay to uphold stereotypes that all Muslims are violent and potential terrorists…and I’m just not ok with that."
really made me smile.