NationStates Jolt Archive

Keep her as far away as possible, start going over the ideas of John Wayne with her.
Honestly boobs are the most destructive force in the world; separating families, taking money away from governments, destroying lives, and limiting jobs and food consumption to certain rituals.

A good example of this is Madonna.
Fixed.
Just wanted to see how it would work out.

It's possible, even though I am currently without a clearly defined religion. I was more worried about the implications to Muravyets who seems very intelligent.

"Seems"? Bitch. :p


:fluffle:

"Seems"? Bitch. :p


:fluffle:

well...we've had our doubts. But don't worry, you're....special, in your own unique way.

well...we've had our doubts. But don't worry, you're....special, in your own unique way.
Friday, Neo. I will find you. ...

she will grow out of it.

i know its upsetting now but you are training your daughter to think. she is getting all this religion stuff from one side and questions from you on the other side that she has to figure out how to answer.

and as you well know, thought is the enemy of fundamentalism. she may end up with some kind of religious belief but its unlikely to be bible literalism.

My little girl is a smart cookie. Hopefully I've helped with that, but she's got a good head on her shoulders. And maybe that's why this religion thing is so upsetting... the inquisitive girl is suddenly getting easy answers... the world is six thousand years old, humans were created whole and perfect, leaves appear on trees in spring because god puts them there... I can understand the appeal. But I'm having to fight it... har - and try to do it without making myself her enemy.

To be honest, I'm thinking I should have kept the religion theoretical till she was older.

Friday, Neo. I will find you. ...

and what are you gonna do to me? :p

Hard to believe your child would mock another religion. You seem to have quite the opened mind on it yourself. I am sure you never ridiculed her beliefs considering that you believe them to be evil.

They are probably more like you than you would wish to see...

I have never ridiculed her beliefs. I do have a very open mind on the subject - I'm not the sort of Atheist that says "there is no god", I'm the sort that is still looking for truth. But there's one thing I have learned in that search - none of us KNOWS anything the rest of us don't - we just have different 'beliefs' - which is a very different thing.

I'm very tolerant of personal faith - much less tolerant of organised religion that preaches 'truths' that seem very much like opinion when you examine them on the world stage. It's a little close to home when my daughter's school, and some members of her extended family, convert my daughter by pretending they have some secret truth.

My little girl is a smart cookie. Hopefully I've helped with that, but she's got a good head on her shoulders. And maybe that's why this religion thing is so upsetting... the inquisitive girl is suddenly getting easy answers... the world is six thousand years old, humans were created whole and perfect, leaves appear on trees in spring because god puts them there... I can understand the appeal. But I'm having to fight it... har - and try to do it without making myself her enemy.

To be honest, I'm thinking I should have kept the religion theoretical till she was older.

It's interesting, I'd not thought of the easy simplicity of religion and I can see how it might take an early, formative hold on an impressionable brain, especially where it's such a part of culture in terms of peers and even schooling.

They're easy answers on the face of it, easy to digest and therefore dismiss questions that, as a parent, are hard to answer.

In terms of development, you'll notice a child asks questions without really caring for an answer at first, between 3-5 on average, it's more an aspect of learning the language and usually this starts with demand: I want apple; to question and answer: why is the sky blue?

Around 5-6, this changes into actually considering the answer, prior to that it's often about using it to ask the next question.

Religious answers are easy answers to difficult questions and therefore I can see that a: They can be understood and b: more importantly, they can be discussed among peers as naturally shared stories.

People might tell children different tales, Red Riding Hood over Cinderella but religion tends to be quite universal among a culture.

I might be rambling a little but interesting nonetheless, if only to me :)

and what are you gonna do to me? :p

Find out just how much pleasure you get out of pain. :p

Find out just how much pleasure you get out of pain. :p

oh no dear, I do fear you got that quite backwards. Now, on the other hand, if you're offering in inverse, I might be...receptive, to that idea :p

Find out just how much pleasure you get out of pain. :p

oh no dear, I do fear you got that quite backwards. Now, on the other hand, if you're offering in inverse, I might be...receptive, to that idea :p

Get a room you two, we're talking about the liddle a-a-a-angel children in here and your flirting is not appropriate.

Friday, Neo. I will find you. ...
So you say, Agent Smith.

I'm sorry, I REALLY couldn't resist. It was too good a set up!

Get a room you two, we're talking about the liddle a-a-a-angel children in here and your flirting is not appropriate.

pft, little bastards need to grow up sometime.

So you say, Agent Smith.
I'm sorry, I REALLY couldn't resist. It was too good a set up!

I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we... are the cure.
/Wilgrove

You are quite the funny man GnI. Blazing Angels isn't funny, Children who are indoctriated at an early age will make it impossible for them to object to the Church. I know plenty of people who used to be members of various churches and would attend at an early age and throughouit most of their childhood. They are adults and many of them don't believe in God or do not attend services any more. Now they might not hate relgion like you as some of your posts suggest, unless of course that is what you meant by being objective.

Yes, we all know stories of people who leave the church. And we all know that most people don't leave the church, even if their behaviour lapses, and they're not as observant as they once were. That's the point - I don't give a fuck about what someone else thinks or feels, that's their shit to deal with - but I do care about someone else shaping my daughter's thinking in such a way that it will stick with her the rest of her life.

Who said I hate religion?

I would say mostly the way you talk about religion, and the fact that generally, most atheists are regarded as having (ESPECIALLY on this forum) a "Religion is the greatest evil in the face of mankind, and it and all who are part of it should be exterminated at once" sort of attitude.

Most probably don't, but, with most things, it's that vocal minority that brands everyone. It's kinda sad.

Anyway. To the OP, I'd say that you should let your child choose her own path in life. Forcing your child on any one path is a guarentee that she'll dislike you, at least. Explain to her your view of the religion, and give her the facts (and not just the bad ones), and let her choose.

I will be disappointed if at least one of your children does not form a cult around himself and take steps to secede from the US.

Me too. *nod*

pft, little bastards need to grow up sometime.
And learn about life's pain.

Which is what you're gonna do when I spank your behind, little mister. MIT's going to see a very different show from what they expect. You wait. :p

Which is what you're gonna do when I spank your behind, little mister.

Be warned, I have reflexes like a cat.

My six year old is...enamoured of the Catholic church at the moment. She attended my niece's first communion and has been bitten by the Jesus bug. It doesn't help that churches tend to target children and make it all fun and games mixed in with a little 'God made the whole earth' and 'this is the Holy Trinity' blah blah blah.

Now...I'm an atheist. Any spirituality in this house comes from my First Nations background, and it decidedly anti-Catholic in particular. I am...concerned about her sudden interest in religious dogma, but I don't want to say horrid things about Christianity to her either.

So what does one do in a situation like this? At what age should children 'choose' their religion? Can I hope she'll grow out of it? Parents with experience in this area...please, help me draw my child back from the abyss...

i appreciate you bringing this kind of "real-life" issue to a forum like this, where there's a more distinct possibility of it affecting your life more than just the political posturing that is all too easy for too many of us. i love talking principles---it's always more difficult to talk practice. you have my respect---right out the gate---for bringing the discussion to that level.

i'm going to be unabashed in giving you my own recommendations, since i judge you to be not disingenuous in the asking of them.

first, in the interest of full disclosure, i should tell you:
---i am not a parent, nor have ever been (although i would like to be, someday).
---i am not a catholic (although my mother was, before her marriage to my father, so i have an intimate knowledge of the faith); neither am i a christian of any other variety (although i was "born" and raised a methodist).
---i am not affiliated with---or otherwise intimately familiar with---first nations cultural practices, or those of any other indigenous ethnic group.
---i am a formally religious person (and not merely "spiritual" in identification); i am devoted to a living Spiritual Master, and engage that relationship in a way that is institutionally formalized.

having said all of that, by way of introduction, i'll now drop my own opinion on what you should do in your situation:

1) until the age of seven, closely supervise all of your child's time; do not allow her to do anything that bothers you---including going to the catholic church. the child should be understood---by you and her and others---to be in the first stage of life; she is still in the process of individuation (no matter how close she may be to completing it).

2) at your child's seventh birthday, have a special rite of passage ceremony. it should be understood that the child is consciously beginning the process of socialization (in full). your child will now have more discretion over her free time. boundaries around what time is free and what is not should be clear. time that is not free can/should consist of responsibilities that you decide. the fulfillment of these responsibilities is the fundamental pre-requisite for the exercise of free time. during her free time, she should be allowed to attend the catholic church---or do whatever else she chooses---provided that she can make her own arrangements to do this in a way that is physically safe and responsible. there should also still be "common" time, that you have together---which is neither her chore time nor her free time. this is time for you to spend together; you should maintain the right and responsibility to decide what will happen during this time---including, but not limited to, your indoctrination of the child (which could include, of course, sharing your own point of view and some information about the catholic church). while you are free to consult with the child about her preferences for this time, it should be clear to you both that it is up to you, ultimately. this is also the category of time in which you would take the child to first nations activities, etc.; boundaries around all of these categories of time should be distinct, and clear to the child. for instance, the child should know that the first nations activity is not happening in free time, and is not up to her (although she may want to do it, as well), but she should also know that it is not part of her "chores" time, either---it is for enjoyment/edification/etc. the child should not be free to have her own money, during this stage of life. any money that she carries should be understood to be yours, and only to be spent in a way that is fully accountable to you. obviously, you will not likely be approving offerings at the catholic church. this arrangement should prevail until the child is fourteen years old.

3) at your child's 14th birthday, there should be another special rite of passage. everyone should understand that the child is entering the third stage of life, and beginning the process of integration (in full). the child should continue to have more responsibilities, but also more free time. the child should have the right to privacy, as well, particularly coincident with free time. there should still be common time, as well; however, the use of this time should now be decided via negotiation and mutual assent---you and the child should only do, together, during this time, what you both agree to do together---even if it is sit in the living room and stare at each other. you must become creative, cooperative, and tolerant together, on that account. while the child should now be allowed to have her own money, she should have to make it. the parent should still provide for all necessities, etc., but the child---during her free time---should be able to have her own job, during her own time, and make her own money, that she spends how she chooses. if the child wants to be a catholic, at this point, and give money to the church, it should be the child's business. also, the child, at this point, should not have to go to first nations activities with you, if she doesn't want, and you, of course, don't need to actively support her church activities---although you could both choose to be graceful enough to do these things with each other, during "common time". but i think they must be allowed---during free time. however, the child still has "chores", etc.---although the management of time around them may have become more fluid at this point; even so, these things must be done, in the context of relationship to the household/family---regardless of free time activities---as the "other side" of the bargain via which you continue to provide for her necessities. this stage of life can---optimally---last until the age of twenty-one. it's not that likely, in our present culture, but in a really good family---in which love is really known and practiced---this arrangement could continue to be a happy and fruitful one, even up to that point.

after this, however, the child is no longer a "child"; they are "on their own". although, however, they hopefully are not really "on their own"---just a fully independent adult, who is still free and positively disposed toward a loving interdependence with her family (and world).

given the situation that you are already in, it might be best to just go ahead and "ramp up" your daughter to the "second stage" situation, by allowing her to attend, conditional upon the quality of her own physical self-responsibility. (the focus of the first stage of life is becoming responsible for your own body---safety and maintenance). certainly this would be less traumatic than just cutting off the relationship that she already has, and setting yourself up as a villain. however, you could arrange it such that she had a chance to indulge this very infrequently, for the time being. and she is, after all, already 6---not far from seven. it's not like something magical happens on the 7th b-day, but it's about the right time, and a rite of passage can "create" consciousness in such a way as to engender responsibility. so, maybe you can fudge this one, a bit, in the interest of ramping up to a situation in which she'll be able to attend regularly---IF that's really how she wants to spend the limited amount of free time that she has!

---------------------------

in any case, i hope this is useful for you---even if only as "food for thought". (i hardly expect you to subscribe to all of my views, but i thought they were worth sharing, in any case.)

please feel free to ask any follow-up questions regarding my view on this, and to offer any feedback (you own opinion/reaction to my expression of my views).

my very best to you. :)

Be warned, I have reflexes like a cat.

My cat gets spanked, too, when he deserves it. ;)

(OK, not really, but I like him. His snotty wisecracks come out sounding cute.)

My cat gets spanked, too, when he deserves it. ;)

(OK, not really, but I like him. His snotty wisecracks come out sounding cute.)

hey now, you have to understand I only take the time to be snarky to those I actually like. If I didn't, you wouldn't be worth my time to insult dear.

And again, you're not going to get me that way, but on the other hand should you choose to offer....

hey now, you have to understand I only take the time to be snarky to those I actually like. If I didn't, you wouldn't be worth my time to insult dear.

And again, you're not going to get me that way, but on the other hand should you choose to offer....
I might choose to offer, if you ever choose to make it worth my while...

But not tonight. I'm still a bit put out by that "special" remark, and anyway, as Barringtonia pointed out, we're supposed to be caring about someone's kid in this thread. Or something. Aren't we? ;)

-snip-

check yer TGs

check yer TGs
:)

:)

careful dear, that smilie might have people wondering what's up :p

i think a bit of religion at that age is like a bit of penicillin at that age

probably unecessary but shouldnt do any harm

careful dear, that smilie might have people wondering what's up :p
Oh, right. The smilie will make people wonder. Is that because all the rest of our hijack leaves nothing for the imagination to wonder about? ;)

Anyway, I'm off till tomorrow. 'Night, dear. :)

Anyway, I'm off till tomorrow. 'Night, dear. :)

hey, I wasn't done with you in TGs yet!

I would say mostly the way you talk about religion, and the fact that generally, most atheists are regarded as having (ESPECIALLY on this forum) a "Religion is the greatest evil in the face of mankind, and it and all who are part of it should be exterminated at once" sort of attitude.

Most probably don't, but, with most things, it's that vocal minority that brands everyone. It's kinda sad.
Anybody who views atheists that way is an idiot.

Hell, even the so-called radical atheists* (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, etc.) don't advocate killing people for or even denying equal legal treatment from religious people. They simply do not want religion raised on this societal and legal pedestal above everything else. Sadly, many religious people feel that losing special treatment or state endorsement is anti-religious discrimination. These guys are saying "let's not treat religion differently than we treat other beliefs. Let's be willing to criticize it, and religious people shouldn't be so afraid of other people saying negative things about their ideas." However, a majority of (but by no means all) religious people are so used to everybody treating religion with the kiddie gloves that that people even advocating otherwise is seen as an attack.

* I find it interesting, by the way, that to be a "radical" atheist, all you have to do is speak out saying that you think religion is irrational, that ideas about religion should be subject to rational inquiry, and that you feel religion has done more harm than good. On the other hand, to be a radical theist, you have to advocate the denial of legal rights to people who don't agree with your religious views or who do not live their lives according to your religious dogma, and say things like "God let 9/11 happen because of teh gayz." It seems like an unfair double standard to me.

Anybody who views atheists that way is an idiot.

Hell, even the so-called radical atheists* (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, etc.) don't advocate killing people for or even denying equal legal treatment from religious people. They simply do not want religion raised on this societal and legal pedestal above everything else. Sadly, many religious people feel that losing special treatment or state endorsement is anti-religious discrimination. These guys are saying "let's not treat religion differently than we treat other beliefs. Let's be willing to criticize it, and religious people shouldn't be so afraid of other people saying negative things about their ideas." However, a majority of (but by no means all) religious people are so used to everybody treating religion with the kiddie gloves that that people even advocating otherwise is seen as an attack.

* I find it interesting, by the way, that to be a "radical" atheist, all you have to do is speak out saying that you think religion is irrational, that ideas about religion should be subject to rational inquiry, and that you feel religion has done more harm than good. On the other hand, to be a radical theist, you have to advocate the denial of legal rights to people who don't agree with your religious views or who do not live their lives according to your religious dogma, and say things like "God let 9/11 happen because of teh gayz." It seems like an unfair double standard to me.

Very well said my friend. I strongly agree with you.

My six year old is...enamoured of the Catholic church at the moment. She attended my niece's first communion and has been bitten by the Jesus bug. It doesn't help that churches tend to target children and make it all fun and games mixed in with a little 'God made the whole earth' and 'this is the Holy Trinity' blah blah blah.

Now...I'm an atheist. Any spirituality in this house comes from my First Nations background, and it decidedly anti-Catholic in particular. I am...concerned about her sudden interest in religious dogma, but I don't want to say horrid things about Christianity to her either.

So what does one do in a situation like this? At what age should children 'choose' their religion? Can I hope she'll grow out of it? Parents with experience in this area...please, help me draw my child back from the abyss...

she's 6. indulge her. its mostly harmless. she is very unlikely to end up in a convent

Yeah seriously she'll forget about it in a couple of days. Just don't tell her stories about Revelations, she'll have nightmares for a week.

Indoctrination, gotta love it.

I don't think I'm paranoid or dellusional to see an implication on your behalf that modern Christians are "evil torturers and fundamentalists"; especially considering your previous posting record. Once again, I'd suggest you be more careful with your writing style, especially with the use of trailing full stops (...).




You know what, thats the second time someone has said this, and I think its a load of bull. So, find me one post in any thread where I have said in a serious manner that "all christians are teh ebil!" Find me a post where I have said all Christians are sociopathic murderers who advocate the slaughter of differing opinions and beliefs.


Ive been critical of institutions (like the Catholic Church). Ive been critical of the Bible. Ive been critical of certian people. Ive been critical of certian beliefs commons to Christians. But Ive never incinuated what youve suggested I have.


Id normally say "Ill wait" but I wont. Because it would take you far to long to find what Im asking you to.


Its not my fault if people cant differentiate between the institution/belief and the individual person. I assume my "audienece" has the maturity to do so. Should I stop assuming this?

Yes, we all know stories of people who leave the church. And we all know that most people don't leave the church, even if their behaviour lapses, and they're not as observant as they once were. That's the point - I don't give a fuck about what someone else thinks or feels, that's their shit to deal with - but I do care about someone else shaping my daughter's thinking in such a way that it will stick with her the rest of her life.

Who said I hate religion?

Well if that is what you think then you better lock up your daughter for the rest of her life because no matter there will be people and not just churches but schools, friends, politicians, the media that will tell her stuff that will stick with her for her entire life.

I never said you hate religion I said your posts suggested it.

leaves appear on trees in spring because god puts them there

WTF that doesn't even make sense. Oh I get you are exaggerating, or do you truly believe that is what they are saying

When there's a clearly defined structure to doctrines of faith and/or religious leadership, I suppose.

Is every member of the religion is a religious leader "clearly defined"?

i think a bit of religion at that age is like a bit of penicillin at that age

It can create super viruses that will kill us all? :confused:

You know what, thats the second time someone has said this, and I think its a load of bull. So, find me one post in any thread where I have said in a serious manner that "all christians are teh ebil!" Find me a post where I have said all Christians are sociopathic murderers who advocate the slaughter of differing opinions and beliefs.
As I've noted above, your mention of modern-day Christian extremist groups and trailing full stops heavily implied so. We've established you don't believe this, but on an internet forum - devoid of facial expressions, tone of voice and the like - we've got to rely on the words you post.

Hence my call for my careful posting.

Is every member of the religion is a religious leader "clearly defined"?
I can't tell which 'is' is wrong in the sentence above, sorry. :p

Could you re-word that please?

There are certain things I don't mind children being indoctrinated in...things like the 'seven safety steps of road crossing'. Religion, politics etc...off limits. I don't intend to shove my beliefs down my children's throats...nor do I intend to allow anyone else to do so.
If you were interested in ensuring that your child would absolutely definitely become a die-hard atheist, then probably the best thing you could do would be to encourage Christians to force their faith on your child as soon as possible. In fact, make sure you send her to a Catholic school ASAP.

The most vehement and dedicated atheists I know were all brought up by hard-line Christians, and all of them attended religious schools as a kid. Also, I've yet to meet a single person my age who remained religious after attending Catholic school. Every one of my friends who went to religious schools is now either atheist or non-affiliated "spiritual."

Remember, too, that the evangelicals in America are currently panicked because their children are abandoning their faith in record numbers. These are people who eat, sleep, and breath Jeebus every second, and who do everything in their power to indoctrinate their kids from birth...and they're the ones who insist that if their child attends public school, or sets a toenail in a non-Christian university, or watches MTV for 15 minutes, then all that precious faith will be shattered.

Anybody who views atheists that way is an idiot.

Hell, even the so-called radical atheists* (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, etc.) don't advocate killing people for or even denying equal legal treatment from religious people. They simply do not want religion raised on this societal and legal pedestal above everything else. Sadly, many religious people feel that losing special treatment or state endorsement is anti-religious discrimination. These guys are saying "let's not treat religion differently than we treat other beliefs. Let's be willing to criticize it, and religious people shouldn't be so afraid of other people saying negative things about their ideas." However, a majority of (but by no means all) religious people are so used to everybody treating religion with the kiddie gloves that that people even advocating otherwise is seen as an attack.

* I find it interesting, by the way, that to be a "radical" atheist, all you have to do is speak out saying that you think religion is irrational, that ideas about religion should be subject to rational inquiry, and that you feel religion has done more harm than good. On the other hand, to be a radical theist, you have to advocate the denial of legal rights to people who don't agree with your religious views or who do not live their lives according to your religious dogma, and say things like "God let 9/11 happen because of teh gayz." It seems like an unfair double standard to me.
Quoted for truth.

If you were interested in ensuring that your child would absolutely definitely become a die-hard atheist, then probably the best thing you could do would be to encourage Christians to force their faith on your child as soon as possible. In fact, make sure you send her to a Catholic school ASAP.

The most vehement and dedicated atheists I know were all brought up by hard-line Christians, and all of them attended religious schools as a kid. Also, I've yet to meet a single person my age who remained religious after attending Catholic school. Every one of my friends who went to religious schools is now either atheist or non-affiliated "spiritual."

I know plenty of people who went to a Catholic school and still practice their religion very faithfully. Many of them even cite their school experience as being important to them staying with the faith. I also know plenty of people who cite that experience and their parent's strictness as being important to them losing faith or abandoning religion.

I suspect that those folks' choice to stay with the faith or not had a lot to do with their parents being dickwads or not, and them being socially accepted or not.

Remember, too, that the evangelicals in America are currently panicked because their children are abandoning their faith in record numbers. These are people who eat, sleep, and breath Jeebus every second, and who do everything in their power to indoctrinate their kids from birth...and they're the ones who insist that if their child attends public school, or sets a toenail in a non-Christian university, or watches MTV for 15 minutes, then all that precious faith will be shattered.

It's always seemed to me that if you indoctrinate someone effectively in faith and then indoctrinate them just as effectively to believe that they can easily lose it at any moment, you're kinda shooting yourself in the foot.

You might as well give someone a tank and then tell them that the tank can be easily destroyed by a rocket launcher with no trouble and that there are people who don't like the tank with rocket launchers all around you. Any halfway intelligent person is going to leave the tank.

Well if that is what you think then you better lock up your daughter for the rest of her life because no matter there will be people and not just churches but schools, friends, politicians, the media that will tell her stuff that will stick with her for her entire life.


That makes no sense. I have no objection (as already stated) to her being presented with information. I have no problem with her picking a religion. I have no problem with the Christian (or another) church courting her once she reaches the age of majority.

What I do object to, is this pretense that there is some 'truth' they know - and present it as such. What I do object to, is specifically targetting children. What I do object to, is circumventing the parent. What I do object to, is using the children to try to convert their parents. What I do object to, is presenting your faith to a CHILD, as though it means something in the reality of the world.


I never said you hate religion I said your posts suggested it.


No, they don't.


WTF that doesn't even make sense. Oh I get you are exaggerating, or do you truly believe that is what they are saying

No - I'm not exaggerating, and neither do I "believe that uis what they are saying". That IS what they are saying, I've heard them say it (and other stuff like it) to her - and then I have to address that kind of stupid shit.

As for 'not even making sense'... you are preaching to the choir, my friend. If it made sense, I might not object to it.

I am...concerned about her sudden interest in religious dogma, but I don't want to say horrid things about Christianity to her either.

So what does one do in a situation like this?
Say horrid things about Christianity.

Really. Religions target children because they're an easy mark. If you indulge her there's too great a risk she'll be devout within a few years.

I despise all religion, and when my child arrives (due this summer) I'll do all I can to protect it from religion until its old enough for me to explain how religion is a crutch for the weak-minded.

religion is a crutch for the weak-minded.


I've offten heard tha sentiment expressed and I have to say what a load of bollox it is.

I've offten heard tha sentiment expressed and I have to say what a load of bollox it is.

Why do you 'have to say' that?

Why do you 'have to say' that?

Heh coz it's true!

Heh coz it's true!

I dunno... he might have expressed it rather controversially, but I have to agree with the underlying notion.
Some people feel the need for religion or spirituality. Others don't. Those who do feel that need find it satisfied in practicing the religion of their choice. Those who don't look on and are slightly baffled about why the others would need religion...

I dunno... he might have expressed it rather controversially, but I have to agree with the underlying notion.
Some people feel the need for religion or spirituality. Others don't. Those who do feel that need find it satisfied in practicing the religion of their choice. Those who don't look on and are slightly baffled about why the others would need religion...

And within each group there are some people who wonder why some other people don't seem to be able to express their opinions without making insults. I think the issue some people take with the original remark is the "weak-minded" part. To say that one thinks religion is an unnecessary thing, an unrealistic world-view, etc, etc, would be relatively innocuous because it's about religion as a concept, not a personal comment about people. But to blanket-dismiss religious people as "weak-minded" is simply an insult against billions of people who have done nothing to deserve it except disagree with the speaker.

Of course, it becomes an ironic joke, instead of an insult, if the speaker is willing to acknowledge that weak-mindedness is not exclusive to the religious. Weak-minded people don't have to be religious. They can lean on the easy supports of all kinds of intolerance that feed their egotistical need to feel superior to others without actually having to be superior. You know, pretty much anything that lets a person look down their nose at others and call them "weak-minded." When we acknowledge that, we see that religion is really just one of many crutches on the market.

And within each group there are some people who wonder why some other people don't seem to be able to express their opinions without making insults. I think the issue some people take with the original remark is the "weak-minded" part. To say that one thinks religion is an unnecessary thing, an unrealistic world-view, etc, etc, would be relatively innocuous because it's about religion as a concept, not a personal comment about people. But to blanket-dismiss religious people as "weak-minded" is simply an insult against billions of people who have done nothing to deserve it except disagree with the speaker.

Of course, it becomes an ironic joke, instead of an insult, if the speaker is willing to acknowledge that weak-mindedness is not exclusive to the religious. Weak-minded people don't have to be religious. They can lean on the easy supports of all kinds of intolerance that feed their egotistical need to feel superior to others without actually having to be superior. You know, pretty much anything that lets a person look down their nose at others and call them "weak-minded." When we acknowledge that, we see that religion is really just one of many crutches on the market.

I'm just just reminded of near the end of Dogma, when Bartleby calls Loke "weak", the drunk and mortal Loki looks at him, stumbles, and goes "nuh uh, you're weak!"

All you can do is support her in whatever religion she chooses. That's what parents do. You would want your parents to support you, right? It doesn't matter if you agree, just let her choose.

Actually, I am forever grateful to my parents for disabusing me of various ridiculous notions over the years, and I value their wisdom, and their patience with me. I am happy that they never played the wishy washy fence sitting game, but rather made it clear where they stood on all matters, while still allowing me to disagree, or walk my own path. Nothing worse than a parent, or an educator, who refuses to admit what their biases and beliefs are.

I am always cautious when I hear people say they are wary of "extremely religious people" or "extremely liberal" or "extremely vegan." The feeling I always take away is that we're okay with people who are indifferent enough in their beliefs that they won't bother, you know, making us uncomfortable. No. The people on the extreme quite often don't have a good grasp of their belief system, because they adhere mindlessly to dogma. This is true of the extremely religious, political, or Hanna Montana fans.

I admire people with strong beliefs, who have the intelligence and ability to back their positions up. I do not consider these people 'extreme'.

Maybe what you mean is that you wouldn't be friends with prostelytizing religious people, or religious people who see their religious identity as proof of their superiority. I think of myself as "extremely religious" in that I try to do silly things like love everyone and stuff, but I don't try to convert my friends. I think there's a lot to say for evangelizing by not being incredibly obnoxious.

I can't stand proselytizers of religions, political, or any other persuasion.

I second what everyone else has said: Educate her unbiasedly.

No parent...no PERSON is capable of this.

Rather, I want her to know what my biases are, I want her to know the reasons for those biases, and I want her to feel comfortable developing her own biases, even if they are contrary to mine.

Nonetheless, I am not willing to give free reign to other adults with whom I disagree to an extreme extent when it comes to the education of my children.

Actually, I am forever grateful to my parents for disabusing me of various ridiculous notions over the years, and I value their wisdom, and their patience with me. I am happy that they never played the wishy washy fence sitting game, but rather made it clear where they stood on all matters, while still allowing me to disagree, or walk my own path. Nothing worse than a parent, or an educator, who refuses to admit what their biases and beliefs are.

I wholeheartedly agree.

pft, little bastards need to grow up sometime.

You haven't....

:p

Anyway. To the OP, I'd say that you should let your child choose her own path in life.

She's six.

Should I give her the keys to my car too?

I know plenty of people who went to a Catholic school and still practice their religion very faithfully. Many of them even cite their school experience as being important to them staying with the faith. I also know plenty of people who cite that experience and their parent's strictness as being important to them losing faith or abandoning religion.

I suspect that those folks' choice to stay with the faith or not had a lot to do with their parents being dickwads or not, and them being socially accepted or not.

To be sure, I know the majority of people who are religious belong to precisely the same denomination as their parents. I know most people who are religious belong to the same faith they were brought up in.

The thing is, though, that wasn't my point. My point was that the virulently religious are their own worst enemy. If you want to make sure a kid is anti-religious, just let the most loudly religious folks talk to the kid for a few minutes. Hell, most religious people can't stand the loudly religious!

Actually, I am forever grateful to my parents for disabusing me of various ridiculous notions over the years, and I value their wisdom, and their patience with me. I am happy that they never played the wishy washy fence sitting game, but rather made it clear where they stood on all matters, while still allowing me to disagree, or walk my own path. Nothing worse than a parent, or an educator, who refuses to admit what their biases and beliefs are.
Seconded. I'm glad my parents weren't so lazy, or so uncaring, that they would just let me plow ahead with any stupid idea I came up with. My parents challenged me and expected me to reason and think all the time. As they should.

Seconded. I'm glad my parents were so lazy, or so uncaring, that they would just let me plow ahead with any stupid idea I came up with. My parents challenged me and expected me to reason and think all the time. As they should.

Ahhhh not mine, I had to figure all that out for myself. Still at least I had the freedom to do that free from any sorta interferance. Perants ya gota love em.

She's six.

Should I give her the keys to my car too?

What are saying? Do you think becoming Catholic is going to hurt her somehow or be dangerous?

having said all of that, by way of introduction, i'll now drop my own opinion on what you should do in your situation:

1) until the age of seven, closely supervise all of your child's time; do not allow her to do anything that bothers you---including going to the catholic church. the child should be understood---by you and her and others---to be in the first stage of life; she is still in the process of individuation (no matter how close she may be to completing it).
Ahhh, a nice, principled talk, yay! :)

Okay, well, first I'd like to point out that I try to raise my children in the Cree tradition. We try not to restrict our children, or outright forbid things to them, and leave it at that. We talk to them constantly while we complete tasks, we teach them, we point out the consequences of certain actions, both good, neutral and bad. Keeping in mind that children, developmentally, are capable only of certain levels of understanding.

Of course, that doesn't mean I don't actually forbid her anything. But I never do it without explanation. 'Because' is not a reason that is used in any seriousness in my home.

I am inclined to let her be exposed to a certain extent to her aunt's religion. But only if we talk about it...a lot. I've been asking her what she does, what she's been learning, and we discuss it. Then, when we engage in spiritual activities, such a smudging, I point out how our practices are somewhat similar in intent to the things she's seen at church.

It's a pain in the ass...and much more difficult than just telling her to do as I say. But it's the method I believe in.



2) at your child's seventh birthday, have a special rite of passage ceremony. Our ceremonies are not linked specifically to age, but don't worry, we've got it covered.


it should be understood that the child is consciously beginning the process of socialization (in full). your child will now have more discretion over her free time. boundaries around what time is free and what is not should be clear. time that is not free can/should consist of responsibilities that you decide. the fulfillment of these responsibilities is the fundamental pre-requisite for the exercise of free time. during her free time, she should be allowed to attend the catholic church---or do whatever else she chooses---provided that she can make her own arrangements to do this in a way that is physically safe and responsible. there should also still be "common" time, that you have together---which is neither her chore time nor her free time. this is time for you to spend together; you should maintain the right and responsibility to decide what will happen during this time---including, but not limited to, your indoctrination of the child (which could include, of course, sharing your own point of view and some information about the catholic church). while you are free to consult with the child about her preferences for this time, it should be clear to you both that it is up to you, ultimately. this is also the category of time in which you would take the child to first nations activities, etc.; boundaries around all of these categories of time should be distinct, and clear to the child. for instance, the child should know that the first nations activity is not happening in free time, and is not up to her (although she may want to do it, as well), but she should also know that it is not part of her "chores" time, either---it is for enjoyment/edification/etc. the child should not be free to have her own money, during this stage of life. any money that she carries should be understood to be yours, and only to be spent in a way that is fully accountable to you. obviously, you will not likely be approving offerings at the catholic church. this arrangement should prevail until the child is fourteen years old.

I'm interested in the age limits you've set...any reason for them in particular?

It's clear that she will be attending our cultural activities with me...I'm suprised so far that no one has accused me of 'indoctrinating my child' because of it. :D Any parent makes certain choices for their children...we don't just let kids drift around in a sea of their own choices. So whether the parent is Christian, Muslim, or First Nations...we all expose our children to our preferences and beliefs. I don't think that's inherently wrong...as long as our children are able to, and encouraged to question those beliefs.

I like your expression of scheduling of time.

3) at your child's 14th birthday, there should be another special rite of passage. everyone should understand that the child is entering the third stage of life, and beginning the process of integration (in full). the child should continue to have more responsibilities, but also more free time. the child should have the right to privacy, as well, particularly coincident with free time. there should still be common time, as well; however, the use of this time should now be decided via negotiation and mutual assent---you and the child should only do, together, during this time, what you both agree to do together---even if it is sit in the living room and stare at each other. you must become creative, cooperative, and tolerant together, on that account. while the child should now be allowed to have her own money, she should have to make it. the parent should still provide for all necessities, etc., but the child---during her free time---should be able to have her own job, during her own time, and make her own money, that she spends how she chooses. if the child wants to be a catholic, at this point, and give money to the church, it should be the child's business. also, the child, at this point, should not have to go to first nations activities with you, if she doesn't want, and you, of course, don't need to actively support her church activities---although you could both choose to be graceful enough to do these things with each other, during "common time". but i think they must be allowed---during free time. however, the child still has "chores", etc.---although the management of time around them may have become more fluid at this point; even so, these things must be done, in the context of relationship to the household/family---regardless of free time activities---as the "other side" of the bargain via which you continue to provide for her necessities. this stage of life can---optimally---last until the age of twenty-one. it's not that likely, in our present culture, but in a really good family---in which love is really known and practiced---this arrangement could continue to be a happy and fruitful one, even up to that point.
Ugh, the ugly teenage years...when hanging out with mom is horrific...

I'm hoping she'll still want to hang out with her age-mate relations though, and I don't agree that she should have the absolute choice to 'opt out' of First Nations activities, since those activities are inherently family-based. My youngest brother was anti-social to the hilt, and my mother allowed him to 'opt out'...he bitterly regrets it now because he did not form the relationships that are so integral to us as a people, and he is really struggling now to try to build them after the fact. I agree that she should be able to do more things that she enjoys, but she will still be 'forced' to attend certain events that require her presence.

Thanks for your detailed response!

I despise all religion, and when my child arrives (due this summer) I'll do all I can to protect it from religion until its old enough for me to explain how religion is a crutch for the weak-minded.

I had no idea you were about to be a father! Congratulations!

What are saying? Do you think becoming Catholic is going to hurt her somehow or be dangerous?
Can't speak for anybody else, but for myself...hell yes.

Be clear, I'm not saying all Catholics are dangerous. But I absolutely believe Catholicism is harmful and potentially dangerous, particularly to children.

I can't tell which 'is' is wrong in the sentence above, sorry. :p

Could you re-word that please?

Both is's are correct . . . but perhaps the wording is a bit confusing. If every member of the religion is considered to be a religious leader does that count as being "clearly defined".

Can't speak for anybody else, but for myself...hell yes.

Be clear, I'm not saying all Catholics are dangerous. But I absolutely believe Catholicism is harmful and potentially dangerous, particularly to children.

**Raises both eyebrows** why do you think that?

Seconded. I'm glad my parents weren't so lazy, or so uncaring, that they would just let me plow ahead with any stupid idea I came up with. My parents challenged me and expected me to reason and think all the time. As they should.

Argh, I had a professor once, in the faculty of Education...it was a course on global education practices. Now, keep in mind, most of the people in Education are white, middle class females. Very limited exposure to non white, middle class folk who make up the bulk of their students over the years. If ever there was a need to discuss 'controversial' ideas, it was that class. The professor was the wife of a man who won a UNESCO prize for peace education, and the two of them had worked extensively with soldiers in conflict zones, trying to get them to rehumanize the people they were terrorizing. This woman had strong views, and amazing experience.

She absolutely refused to state her beliefs, or take a stance on anything. The stupidest comments were allowed to sit...the most idiotic misconceptions were allowed to resonate throughout the room. She took the position that she was only a facilitator, and that she should not under any circumstances introduce her own beliefs into the discussion.

It was the worst course I ever took, and I feel, a completely wasted exercise for the bulk of the class who came out of there feeling just as priviliged and 'right' as they did coming in.

What are saying? Do you think becoming Catholic is going to hurt her somehow or be dangerous?

I'm saying that we don't let children make important life decisions all on their own.

**Raises both eyebrows** why do you think that?
Without wanting to create too much of a hijack, I guess the simplest way I can put it is that I believe core Catholic values are fundamentally fucked up. This isn't restricted to Catholicism, mind you, and I feel much the same about a lot of other religious orientations, as well as non-religious belief systems (like racism, for instance).

Of course, the Catholics believe precisely the same thing about me and my beliefs, so I figure we're even. Except for the whole bit about how they worship a deity who they believe will torture me endlessly forever and ever...but they're not the first to do that. :D

And within each group there are some people who wonder why some other people don't seem to be able to express their opinions without making insults. I think the issue some people take with the original remark is the "weak-minded" part. To say that one thinks religion is an unnecessary thing, an unrealistic world-view, etc, etc, would be relatively innocuous because it's about religion as a concept, not a personal comment about people. But to blanket-dismiss religious people as "weak-minded" is simply an insult against billions of people who have done nothing to deserve it except disagree with the speaker.
Religion offers easy explanations that people don't need. Religious belief offers no benefits save a false sense of certainty about how the world works, and in doing so promotes sloppy thinking.

I can't find any reason why someone might want that false sense of certainty except in cases where weak-mindedness won't allow persistent uncertainty. And since an unwillingness to accept uncertainty is itself sloppy thinking, then the lack of critical examination within religious dogma merely exacerbates pre-existing weak-mindedness.
Of course, it becomes an ironic joke, instead of an insult, if the speaker is willing to acknowledge that weak-mindedness is not exclusive to the religious. Weak-minded people don't have to be religious. They can lean on the easy supports of all kinds of intolerance that feed their egotistical need to feel superior to others without actually having to be superior. You know, pretty much anything that lets a person look down their nose at others and call them "weak-minded." When we acknowledge that, we see that religion is really just one of many crutches on the market.
That doesn't make it any less of a crutch.

I'm saying that we don't let children make important life decisions all on their own.
Yeah, I wonder if the people suggesting that you let your 6 year old "pick her path" regarding religion would apply that concept to other areas, as well?

What if your 6 year old were voicing racist thoughts? Would they say that you should encourage her to believe whatever she wanted, even if that meant hating people with the "wrong" skin color? I'm guessing not so much...:P

I don't know if this has been said already, but... to everyone who says his child should be allowed to "make their own choice":

What do you do with YOUR children? If you're religious, chances are you've brought them up to be religious. It's hypocritical to now say that he should let his child make its own choice - unless you intend NEVER to talk to your child about God and see where they go with it.

What if your 6 year old were voicing racist thoughts? Would they say that you should encourage her to believe whatever she wanted, even if that meant hating people with the "wrong" skin color? I'm guessing not so much...:P

Considering the particular church my sister-in-law attends is vehemently homophobic, I think your comparison is apt.

Yeah, I wonder if the people suggesting that you let your 6 year old "pick her path" regarding religion would apply that concept to other areas, as well?

What if your 6 year old were voicing racist thoughts? Would they say that you should encourage her to believe whatever she wanted, even if that meant hating people with the "wrong" skin color? I'm guessing not so much...:P
So few people seem to get this. I wonder if they don't understand why this example is bad (though they know it is), and thus can't apply the same standard to religion.

I don't know if this has been said already, but... to everyone who says his child should be allowed to "make their own choice":

What do you do with YOUR children? If you're religious, chances are you've brought them up to be religious. It's hypocritical to now say that he should let his child make its own choice - unless you intend NEVER to talk to your child about God and see where they go with it.
I intend to protect my child from any mention of religion until its old enough for me to explain why its silly.

You haven't....

:p

entirely irrelevant. I'm high functioning immature.

I'm saying that we don't let children make important life decisions all on their own.

But is it really a life decision? and is it really important? It's just a religion... why does it matter?

Yeah, I wonder if the people suggesting that you let your 6 year old "pick her path" regarding religion would apply that concept to other areas, as well?

What if your 6 year old were voicing racist thoughts? Would they say that you should encourage her to believe whatever she wanted, even if that meant hating people with the "wrong" skin color? I'm guessing not so much...:P
My solution still works with this. Ask the kid "why do you think that?" and "does that make sense?"

I would rather my kids think themselves out of racism. It's one thing for someone to tell you something is wrong, it's another thing for you to realize it is.

So few people seem to get this. I wonder if they don't understand why this example is bad (though they know it is), and thus can't apply the same standard to religion.
I have gotten into lots of trouble in the past, when I try to use racism as an example in situations like this. People get hung up on thinking that I'm saying religion IS racist or something, when the only point I'm trying to make is one about how we regard different ideologies.

Folks are fine with parents "indoctrinating" children into ideas like, "racism is a pile of ignorant crap," but if you replace "racism" with "religion" it suddenly becomes JUST PLAIN WRONG for a parent to interfere and deny their child FREE CHOICE.

I try to be more equal-opportunity about it. I think parents are going to indoctrinate their kids into various values, no matter what. It's gonna happen. I'll stick up for the values I personally think are good, and I'd expect anybody else to do the same.

Clearly this site is mostly non-religion or anti-religion.... so bear that in mind... bearing in mind of course that religious institutions (monasteries) were for a long time centers of religious research.... The first real experiments with genetics was gone by a monk...

right now that that crap about me being fair and unbiased is over with down to the topic:

My dad put both me, my brother and my sister to a really religious school when we were young.... like REALLY religious (on site church, prayer attended by the entire school each day etc. etc.) and naturally all of use were for a long time Christian.....

Now the thing is as we got older we started to question it and we all eventually became atheists/agnostics.... whether this was because my dad's a scientist or I was more inclined to believe in the Big Bang and Stars dieing rather than some dude making the earth I don't know.... The thing was that despite my dad believing that all religion is a pathway to extremism I don't recall him ever mocking us.... just questioning it and offering alternatives (Darwin, Big Bang etc.)

Proof that if your converted as a child you don't necessarily STAY converted, whether this is just standard or abnormal.... I don't know so.... make up your own mind, we can only ever offer alternatives and for this topic there aren't really that many:

1: mock her about it and shame her out of it
2: refuse to let her go to church and keep her away from religious people
3: Don't interfere and let things take their course
4: Challenge her beliefs and offer alternatives but don't mock them
5: do your own thing not listed here possible a combination of some of them?

meh whatever happens you'll eventually have to take responsibility for however she turns out.... and anyway Christians haven't done high profile mass murders for a looooooooooooong time.... times change.... maybe

But is it really a life decision? and is it really important? It's just a religion... why does it matter?

The church in question teaches its followers that gays are evil. That homosexuality is a sin, unnatural, and that homosexuals should not be trusted.

The church teaches its followers that all people are inherently sinful, even babies. I take REAL issue with this.

The church teaches its followers that I, and all my people who have remained traditional, are destined for hell because we do not believe in Jesus. My daughter is being told that if she remains true to our traditions, she will be damned forever.

None of this is just religion. This is doctrinal, it is brainwashing, and it is downright pernicious. I would no more deliver my children willingly into the hands of secular homophobes, racists or xenophobes than I would deliver her into the hands of a church that has inflicted irreperable harm on my people over the past three two centuries.

My solution still works with this. Ask the kid "why do you think that?" and "does that make sense?"

I would rather my kids think themselves out of racism. It's one thing for someone to tell you something is wrong, it's another thing for you to realize it is.
Racism is easier to justify rationally than religion is. I'm not sure that approach would necessarily work with racism if the kid was clever enough.

Without wanting to create too much of a hijack, I guess the simplest way I can put it is that I believe core Catholic values are fundamentally fucked up. This isn't restricted to Catholicism, mind you, and I feel much the same about a lot of other religious orientations, as well as non-religious belief systems (like racism, for instance).

Of course, the Catholics believe precisely the same thing about me and my beliefs, so I figure we're even. Except for the whole bit about how they worship a deity who they believe will torture me endlessly forever and ever...but they're not the first to do that. :D

Those who think that everyone who is not like them has fucked up values are often called prejudice.

entirely irrelevant. I'm high functioning immature.

Your confession is anything but irrelevant.

Your confession is anything but irrelevant.

a confession is only useful if it tells people what they don't already know.

Racism is easier to justify rationally than religion is. I'm not sure that approach would necessarily work with racism if the kid was clever enough.

You can point out logical flaws to even the most clever of children. It's ignorant adults that are the problem. You have to teach them to think before their brain turns to mush.

My solution still works with this. Ask the kid "why do you think that?" and "does that make sense?"

I would rather my kids think themselves out of racism. It's one thing for someone to tell you something is wrong, it's another thing for you to realize it is.
Whether you use the Socratic method or not, I agree that it's generally best to explain WHY to kids.

When in doubt, use empathy. "How would you feel if somebody treated you that way?" Most kids are good at identifying their own feelings when they are mistreated, so if you put things in those terms the lightbulb will often go off.

Those who think that everyone who is not like them has fucked up values are often called prejudice.
Ok.

Did you have a point?

Ok.

Did you have a point?

Just something for you to think about.

Whether you use the Socratic method or not, I agree that it's generally best to explain WHY to kids.

When in doubt, use empathy. "How would you feel if somebody treated you that way?" Most kids are good at identifying their own feelings when they are mistreated, so if you put things in those terms the lightbulb will often go off.
When I was a kid growing up in a racist family my grandma bought some brown eggs. "They are just like brown people" she said, and cracked one "but inside they are just like the white ones" and then followed up with "brown people are the same as you are inside, sometimes they mess up, just like you do, but most of the time they try hard to do good things, just like you do, and if you are mean to them, they hurt, just like you do"

It's hokey but my 3 year old self really got what she was saying.

You can point out logical flaws to even the most clever of children. It's ignorant adults that are the problem. You have to teach them to think before their brain turns to mush.
But I suspect the position you'd want to put forward is that all the races are equal, and that's not necessarily justifiable.

With religion, I'd be promoting a position of uncertainty. You don't need religion to explain how the universe works because you don't need an explanation. If I were to apply to that same line of reasoning to racism, I'd defeat the belief any one race is better than any other, but I'd also defeat the belief that no one race is better than any other.

The church in question teaches its followers that gays are evil. That homosexuality is a sin, unnatural, and that homosexuals should not be trusted.

The church teaches its followers that all people are inherently sinful, even babies. I take REAL issue with this.

The church teaches its followers that I, and all my people who have remained traditional, are destined for hell because we do not believe in Jesus. My daughter is being told that if she remains true to our traditions, she will be damned forever.

None of this is just religion. This is doctrinal, it is brainwashing, and it is downright pernicious. I would no more deliver my children willingly into the hands of secular homophobes, racists or xenophobes than I would deliver her into the hands of a church that has inflicted irreperable harm on my people over the past three two centuries.
And don't forget about the icky anti-woman stuff they tend to toss around. It usually goes hand in hand with the homophobia. I don't think there's any healthy or kind way to indoctrinate a girl into a religion that teaches she is inferior because she is female.

Just something for you to think about.

There is no value in tolerating intolerance.

Something for you to think about.

There is no value in tolerating intolerance.

Something for you to think about.

The catholic church is not all about teaching intolerance. That's something...etc

But I suspect the position you'd want to put forward is that all the races are equal, and that's not necessarily justifiable.

With religion, I'd be promoting a position of uncertainty. You don't need religion to explain how the universe works because you don't need an explanation. If I were to apply to that same line of reasoning to racism, I'd defeat the belief any one race is better than any other, but I'd also defeat the belief that no one race is better than any other.

Racial equality is way too cerebral for children. You have to back it up. It's not logical to hate an entire race of people because of what color their skin is. Some people suck, but not all of them. Case in point my kids have blue eyes, now growing up I had a feud with this horrible blue eyed boy. He was mean and nasty and evil. His parents had blue eyes too, so did his brother, they were all horrible. I could take from that an assumption that all blue eyed people were mean, and never talk to them. However, it's just not true. I'm glad I didn't because my husband has blue eyes, and if I hated him based on something he had no control over, I would have missed out. Unless you have met every single blue eyed person ever and know them all to be mean, then it's stupid to assume they are.

Just something for you to think about.
Okay, since you clearly don't have the courage to actually stand up and say what you mean, even after I gave you the chance, then let me do it for you:

Your snide comment was supposed to be a cute little dig at how "prejudiced" I am for believing that certain religious (as well as certain non-religious) belief systems are fucked up.

There are some people (like yourself) who will insist that this makes me "prejudiced" and therefore I really should stop having opinions of my own because they might hurt somebody's feelings somewhere. Because, clearly, what could be worse than being called "prejudiced" by racists, homophobes, or superstitious folk who think I'm going to burn in Hell? I guess I should prove how "unprejudiced" I am by quietly standing aside while people advocate any and all hateful, damaging, dangerous, or otherwise fucked-up belief systems! That's the mark of a real "open mind"!

The catholic church is not all about teaching intolerance. That's something...etc

I don't care if the rest of it is sunshine and butterflies. The homophobia etc is enough to ruin the mix, and inherently reduce the value of anything else it has to say.

Evil people can have some good ideas. It doesn't make them less evil.

The Catholic Church, in particular the one my child has been attending, is inherently flawed. No sugar coating can change that.

I actually don't agree with people indoctrinating their children with the idea that racism is bad-- because it's better to show them why it's bad. Don't just teach your kids "racism is bad, so don't be racist" or they won't truly understand it. If you teach them why it is so, they're much more likely, I think, to continue to hold the beliefs as they mature.

When I was a kid growing up in a racist family my grandma bought some brown eggs. "They are just like brown people" she said, and cracked one "but inside they are just like the white ones" and then followed up with "brown people are the same as you are inside, sometimes they mess up, just like you do, but most of the time they try hard to do good things, just like you do, and if you are mean to them, they hurt, just like you do"

It's hokey but my 3 year old self really got what she was saying.

See, this, I think, is one good way to go about it. It'd make a better impression than "racism is bad mmkay."

I think, in the same way, there's a difference between teaching your kids "this is what I believe concerning religion, and why" and "you absolutely must believe this."

Okay, since you clearly don't have the courage to actually stand up and say what you mean, even after I gave you the chance, then let me do it for you:

Your snide comment was supposed to be a cute little dig at how "prejudiced" I am for believing that certain religious (as well as certain non-religious) belief systems are fucked up.

There are some people (like yourself) who will insist that this makes me "prejudiced" and therefore I really should stop having opinions of my own because they might hurt somebody's feelings somewhere. Because, clearly, what could be worse than being called "prejudiced" by racists, homophobes, or superstitious folk who think I'm going to burn in Hell? I guess I should prove how "unprejudiced" I am by quietly standing aside while people advocate any and all hateful, damaging, dangerous, or otherwise fucked-up belief systems! That's the mark of a real "open mind"!
Well when I wrote that I was going to start with' Not all catholics think you are fucked up for being athiest' then I imagine the response "I didn't say they ALLL think I'm fucked up" So I decided to say something that is just true. The catholics who think you are fucked up are prejudice and so are you.

I don't believe in god but I have no disrespect for those who do. and wrt sexism and homophobia. It is very possible to be a catholic feminist and a catholic homosexual. So instead of combating catholicism because you disagree with sexism and homophobia why not address these things directly because they are not the same as catholicism.

It is very possible to be a catholic feminist and a catholic homosexual.

Yes. If you deliberately reject Catholic doctrine on the matter.

Hardly a good argument.

So instead of combating catholicism because you disagree with sexism and homophobia why not address these things directly because they are not the same as catholicism.
Have you ever met a Catholic? Or listened to a single thing the Pope has ever said?

The catholic church is not all about teaching intolerance. That's something...etc

Oh really?


Homosexuals are sinful.

Women are inferior/temptresses/more sinful.

All other religions (or even religious sects of the same damn religion) are wrong/sinful/should be converted (at least theyre not trying to kill them anymore).

I mean, when you get right down to it, that is the very definition of intolerance.

Okay, since you clearly don't have the courage to actually stand up and say what you mean, even after I gave you the chance, then let me do it for you:

Your snide comment was supposed to be a cute little dig at how "prejudiced" I am for believing that certain religious (as well as certain non-religious) belief systems are fucked up.

There are some people (like yourself) who will insist that this makes me "prejudiced" and therefore I really should stop having opinions of my own because they might hurt somebody's feelings somewhere. Because, clearly, what could be worse than being called "prejudiced" by racists, homophobes, or superstitious folk who think I'm going to burn in Hell? I guess I should prove how "unprejudiced" I am by quietly standing aside while people advocate any and all hateful, damaging, dangerous, or otherwise fucked-up belief systems! That's the mark of a real "open mind"!

Welcome to what Ive been dealing with this whole damn thread. This is the part where someone accuses you of hating all Christians.

Whether you use the Socratic method or not, I agree that it's generally best to explain WHY to kids.

When in doubt, use empathy. "How would you feel if somebody treated you that way?" Most kids are good at identifying their own feelings when they are mistreated, so if you put things in those terms the lightbulb will often go off.
But, again, what if they spot the difference between their feelings and other people's feelings?

I had this problem as a kid. People would try to explain things to me like this, and I'd respond with something like "I wouldn't like it, but it's not happening to me."

Logic defies empathy.

But, again, what if they spot the difference between their feelings and other people's feelings?

I had this problem as a kid.
I thought you still had this problem? Isn't that the basis for all your 'logic' arguments?

Have you ever met a Catholic? Or listened to a single thing the Pope has ever said?
I've met lots, and I can vouch for what she's saying. The Catholic faith is a considerably more mature and rational approach to Christian spirituality than the kind of literalism that much of Western Protestantism has adopted. The problem with Catholicism is that there's a heirarchical structure that supposedly dictates to them what classifies as divine revelation, but in practice, Catholics are cautious and insightful enough to know when to trust their own judgement in matters of controversy.

Plus, from what I've read of the Catechism, the church is much more liberal than people give it credit for.

Oh really?


Homosexuals are sinful.

Women are inferior/temptresses/more sinful.
A slight point of correction. I am not a Catholic myself, but I know true Catholics believe that every human being, male or female, homosexual or heterosexual, is sinful.


All other religions (or even religious sects of the same damn religion) are wrong/sinful/should be converted (at least theyre not trying to kill them anymore).


So? Liberterians believe that government control is "wrong" and others should be converted from "control freaks" to believing whatever liberaterians believe.

All of us set out with a belief that we'd like others to approve of.

A slight point of correction. I am not a Catholic myself, but I know true Catholics believe that every human being, male or female, homosexual or heterosexual, is sinful.

Notice how I said more sinful for the women. And I dont believe the church peaches that the lifestyle of a heterosexual is inherantly sinful and thus should not be allowed to be practiced. But thanks for playing.



So? Liberterians believe that government control is "wrong" and others should be converted from "control freaks" to believing whatever liberaterians believe.

All of us set out with a belief that we'd like others to approve of.

Libertarians dont think that it is their duty to save people who dont view it the same way from an eternity of fire and brimstone, and thus their potential for intolerance is decreased to the point of non-existance.

A slight point of correction. I am not a Catholic myself, but I know true Catholics believe that every human being, male or female, homosexual or heterosexual, is sinful.

Yes, but some people are "more sinful" than others.


So? Liberterians believe that government control is "wrong" and others should be converted from "control freaks" to believing whatever liberaterians believe.

All of us set out with a belief that we'd like others to approve of.

Do they believe that it would be just to torture every non Libertarian for all eternity?

But, again, what if they spot the difference between their feelings and other people's feelings

I had this problem as a kid. People would try to explain things to me like this, and I'd respond with something like "I wouldn't like it, but it's not happening to me."

Logic defies empathy.
Logic does not defy empathy. You just didn't try the contrapositive. Egotism is not sensible in a system that acknowledges that memory and introspection are every bit the potentially fallible sensory data source that seeing and hearing other people are. The only reason you have to think that you're more real than others are is that something else is telling you that what you feel is real. In fact, this something else is the most real thing of all.

Notice how I said more sinful for the women. And I dont believe the church peaches that the lifestyle of a heterosexual is inherantly sinful and thus should not be allowed to be practiced. But thanks for playing.
Do Catholics really officially believe that [that women are more sinful then men]? Is there a quote you can show me?


Libertarians dont think that it is their duty to save people who dont view it the same way from an eternity of fire and brimstone, and thus their potential for intolerance is decreased to the point of non-existance.
That's not the point. The viewpoint, conservative or liberetarian, doesn't matter. It's the attitude in which the viewpoint is publicised which matters. There are militant conversatives and there are also militant libertarians. Most fall in the middle.

I consider myself a conservative in terms of viewpoint, but a liberal in terms of publicising them. So, e.g. I believe sex before marriage is wrong and I will tell you that I believe sex before marriage is wrong. But beyond that I accept that it's your choice and I certainly won't tell you that you will burn in Hell for having sex before marriage.

Yes, but some people are "more sinful" than others.
What do you mean by "sinful"? Do you mean:
a. some people have more sins than others, or
b. some people are naturally more inclined to sin than others?


Do they believe that it would be just to torture every non Libertarian for all eternity?
It is not my place to judge. People who believe that have already judged, and that is not fair.

Do Catholics really officially believe that [that women are more sinful then men]? Is there a quote you can show me?


Umm, yes. Yes they do. Go to a Catholic Church. Any catholic church.


If you wont even admit this, debating with you becomes pointless, because it shows you dont know anything about the Catholic Church.

That's not the point. The viewpoint, conservative or liberetarian, doesn't matter. It's the attitude in which the viewpoint is publicised which matters. There are militant conversatives and there are also militant libertarians. Most fall in the middle.

Um, so the fuck what? That is utterly irrelevent to what is going on.


You totally missed the point. Libertarians and Conservatives dont believe that unless they convert, they will justly be tortured for eternity. That is intolerance on a whole different scale. The indoctrinated belief that is a core of catholicism (and every abrahamic religion barring Judaism) that if someone has a different imaginary friend then you when they die, they will be tortured for eternity, and that such punishment is just and deserved.

Your comparision is moot.

To be sure, I know the majority of people who are religious belong to precisely the same denomination as their parents. I know most people who are religious belong to the same faith they were brought up in.

The thing is, though, that wasn't my point. My point was that the virulently religious are their own worst enemy. If you want to make sure a kid is anti-religious, just let the most loudly religious folks talk to the kid for a few minutes. Hell, most religious people can't stand the loudly religious!

I don't think that other religious people not being able to stand them has to do with them being loud. I think the loudness is a symptom of why we can't stand them.

We can't stand them because they're arrogant pricks who lack the humility to live their own lives according to the standards set by their religion before going around and telling everyone else how to do it. We can't stand them because they are so often loud due to a need to compensate for the fact that they are often the most flawed individuals of all. We can't stand them because they take a set of ideals that involve treating other people well and use those ideals as an excuse to treat other people badly.

On the other hand, maybe sometimes we just can't stand them because they have the gall to tell us we need to shape up and be better people, and we think we're good enough already. Maybe we can't stand them because we think they're horribly, stupidly wrong about a lot of things and are unwilling to see it.

My suspicion is that it's a mix of both sets of issues, depending on the person, of course.

Some handouts she brought back from church :D

"We will have everlasting life if we do what? Draw an x through the squares with a '.'. Believe in Jesus!"
"We believe in the three persons of God. Who are they? Match the shapes! The son, the Father and the Holy spirit!"
"Who did God send to save the world from sin? Trace and colour the letters! Jesus!"
"God made the whole world! Draw a square behind what god made! (only picture is of the world)"

I want to create a fairy-tale handout like this.

"What lives under your bed? Connect the dots to reveal a picture! It's the boogeyman!"

:D

Umm, yes. Yes they do. Go to a Catholic Church. Any catholic church.

If you wont even admit this, debating with you becomes pointless, because it shows you dont know anything about the Catholic Church.
He doesn't want vague generalities. He wants specifics. Can you produce them? Because there are specifics, and "Go to a Church" just doesn't beat citing Ratzinger's "Letter to the Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World" and opening yourself up the possibility of discussion about precisely what was meant by that letter.

OP, I'm assuming you chose, on your own, after consideration and thought, research and inner reflection and debate to choose the life of atheism. Why do you fear giving your child the same right to choose for herself what she chooses to believe or not believe? Why not supply all requested information about all religions and atheism in a non-judgmental way and teach your child about reasoned decision making and then give the child the freedom to choose for themselves. If your child chooses Catholicism, Methodist, Buddhist or Crom worship, it should be their choice, not yours. You seem to worry about the church "brainwashing" your child, yet don't see how you could also "brainwash" your child.

In the Book of Proverbs it says "train up a child in the way he should go and when he is older he will not depart from thy paths" this is a very solid piece of advise, train up your child in the ability to critically and rationally reason things out for herself and when she is older, that is exactly what she will do on the subject of religion.

He doesn't want vague generalities. He wants specifics. Can you produce them? Because there are specifics, and "Go to a Church" just doesn't beat citing Ratzinger's "Letter to the Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World" and opening yourself up the possibility of discussion about precisely what was meant by that letter.

Have you never heard the whole "original sin" arguement?


The catholic church doesnt have a website. This must be done through real life experiance. Something that this poster apperantly doesnt have in the matter.

The catholic church doesnt have a website. This must be done through real life experiance. Something that this poster apperantly doesnt have in the matter.

:confused:

The Catholic Church's Website (http://www.vatican.va/) disagrees.

And just FYI, you can read articles and encyclicals and other stuff like that on the site.

Have you never heard the whole "original sin" arguement?
Yes, I have. I know that the Catholic church uses Original Sin as a statement about humans as a whole. I have never, once, heard a Catholic or a representative say (except possibly in jest, but I can't think of any time that's happened) that the Eden story provides Catholic dogma with the belief that women are more evil than men. If you're prepared to provide a counterexample, by all means do so and your position will be entirely vindicated.

My point is that "common knowledge" doesn't cut it when it comes to backing up generalities. When you're asked for specifics, you give specifics or you back down. I'd hope you would hold me to the same standards.

OP, I'm assuming you chose, on your own, after consideration and thought, research and inner reflection and debate to choose the life of atheism. Why would you assume this? I simply wasn't exposed to religion, luckily. I was raised within my own traditions which although spiritual to some extent, are not in any way religious. Religion has never been anything but silly superstition to me.

Why do you fear giving your child the same right to choose for herself what she chooses to believe or not believe? Why not supply all requested information about all religions and atheism in a non-judgmental way and teach your child about reasoned decision making and then give the child the freedom to choose for themselves.
Because I don't believe that I need to learn about all religions and lay them out in nice pamphlets at my child's feet. I will teach her those things I know about our own spirituality and when she is much older, she can explore other beliefs.

If your child chooses Catholicism, Methodist, Buddhist or Crom worship, it should be their choice, not yours. You seem to worry about the church "brainwashing" your child, yet don't see how you could also "brainwash" your child. Yes. I should expose my child not only to religious thought, but also to horror films, drugs, various political views and so forth, at age six...or I'm brainwashing her.

Ahh, the deluded life of some.



In the Book of Proverbs it says "train up a child in the way he should go and when he is older he will not depart from thy paths" this is a very solid piece of advise, train up your child in the ability to critically and rationally reason things out for herself and when she is older, that is exactly what she will do on the subject of religion. I shall do this. And in the meantime, I will not allow her to be indoctrinated by adults who are not her parents. Not allowing certain people to tell my children about right and wrong according to their beliefs is the essence of parenting. I will not let other people parent my children.

Umm, yes. Yes they do. Go to a Catholic Church. Any catholic church.


If you wont even admit this, debating with you becomes pointless, because it shows you dont know anything about the Catholic Church.
Vraiment? Hmm...need to check that out.


You totally missed the point. Libertarians and Conservatives dont believe that unless they convert, they will justly be tortured for eternity. That is intolerance on a whole different scale. The indoctrinated belief that is a core of catholicism (and every abrahamic religion barring Judaism) that if someone has a different imaginary friend then you when they die, they will be tortured for eternity, and that such punishment is just and deserved.

Ah. I see your point. So you think it is what they think that incriminates them?

That sounds quite 1984-ish.

:confused:

The Catholic Church's Website (http://www.vatican.va/) disagrees.

And just FYI, you can read articles and encyclicals and other stuff like that on the site.

Holy God they actually do have a website....

Ah. I see your point. So you think it is what they think that incriminates them?

That sounds quite 1984-ish.

How the fuck is that 1984-ish?


It is the belief that someone who disagrees with you deserves eternal torture. What is not intolerant about tha.

Holy God they actually do have a website....

Sure. It's pretty cool, too. Good design, very functional. They even have free online versions of the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law on the site. Basically, the information about Catholic teaching is all there for you to read about for free without ever having to set foot in a Catholic Church.

It is the belief that someone who disagrees with you deserves eternal torture. What is not intolerant about tha.

By the fact that the logic functions the same way as government. Offend the laws, get the punishment. Yeah, it is intolerant. Sometimes we need to be intolerant.

You mean Catholics believe that if somebody disagrees with a Catholic they deserve eternal torture?

Yes, I have. I know that the Catholic church uses Original Sin as a statement about humans as a whole. I have never, once, heard a Catholic or a representative say (except possibly in jest, but I can't think of any time that's happened) that the Eden story provides Catholic dogma with the belief that women are more evil than men. If you're prepared to provide a counterexample, by all means do so and your position will be entirely vindicated.

My point is that "common knowledge" doesn't cut it when it comes to backing up generalities. When you're asked for specifics, you give specifics or you back down. I'd hope you would hold me to the same standards.

New track then.


Tell me, why cant women be priests?

You mean Catholics believe that if somebody disagrees with a Catholic they deserve eternal torture?

Thats exactly what their doctrine is.


Stop trying to compare it wih political beliefs. Its totally different and you know it.

Thats exactly what their doctrine is.

Stop trying to compare it wih political beliefs. Its totally different and you know it.

But when two Catholics disagree with each other, who goes to hell then...?

According to your view of Catholics I will go to hell too. Catholics can tell me that but I really couldn't care less. They can be intolerant in their thoughts and in their comments but as long as they are not actually threatening me I don't see what your big reaction is.

:confused:

The Catholic Church's Website (http://www.vatican.va/) disagrees.

And just FYI, you can read articles and encyclicals and other stuff like that on the site.

But do they have Facebook?


Friend updates:
PapaRatzinger is saving AIDS ridden African villages from condoms
Cormac O'Murphy is pushing dubious science at British MPs
Mary is appearing in a portion of scrambled egg


Forthcoming events:
Communion this Friday, bring a bottle!

Friends list:
Catholic Church has 1.1 billion friends

New track then.


Tell me, why cant women be priests?

Because they can't molest alter-boys? ;) :p

But when two Catholics disagree with each other, who goes to hell then...?

According to your view of Catholics I will go to hell too. Catholics can tell me that but I really couldn't care less. They can be intolerant in their thoughts and in their comments but as long as they are not actually threatening me I don't see what your big reaction is.


No, because theyre beliefs that unite them in being catholic is what makes them intolerante.


Look, you either get this or you dont, and Im done repeating it to you. It is intolerante and dangerous to believe that everyone who diesgarees with you on the nature of the universe is going to be punished forever and that such a punishment is just. Its not comperable to politics, so stop. You either understand this or you dont. I personally think you do put are being stubborn.

But do they have Facebook?

Not yet. The Pope, however, does have Facebook.

If every member of the religion is considered to be a religious leader does that count as being "clearly defined".
I don't see why not.

Why would you assume this? I simply wasn't exposed to religion, luckily. I was raised within my own traditions which although spiritual to some extent, are not in any way religious. Religion has never been anything but silly superstition to me.I assumed it because I assumed you were not forced to be an atheist, but rather chose it after considering the options.

Because I don't believe that I need to learn about all religions and lay them out in nice pamphlets at my child's feet. I will teach her those things I know about our own spirituality and when she is much older, she can explore other beliefs.That's fine. My point was that you should not fear her being exposed to religion, instead you should make sure all exposure is truly balanced and objective

Yes. I should expose my child not only to religious thought, but also to horror films, drugs, various political views and so forth, at age six...or I'm brainwashing her.now you are putting words in my mouth. I said none of these things. However, as your child grows, you will have to discuss these things with her. Again, when it is age appropriate, present the information but recognize the final choice is hers, not yours. While age 6 is too young to discuss the pros and cons of drug abuse, it is not too young to start teaching critical thinking skills that can be used later on to discern those pros and cons.

Ahh, the deluded life of some.I see no reason to insult me. I did not insult you.

I shall do this. And in the meantime, I will not allow her to be indoctrinated by adults who are not her parents. Not allowing certain people to tell my children about right and wrong according to their beliefs is the essence of parenting. I will not let other people parent my children.
Good, I never said let others parent your child, I never said let anyone indoctrinate her in anything. I was merely trying to point out there is nothing wrong with some exposure to religion, it won't harm her if you are teaching her to think for herself.

The catholic church is not all about teaching intolerance. That's something...etc

It's not exactly big on tolerance, though, either.

How the fuck is that 1984-ish?


It is the belief that someone who disagrees with you deserves eternal torture. What is not intolerant about tha.

well, I think that if they let you have opposing views as you and did not show you any disrespect for it or refuse to associate with you because of it then they are being tolerant of your differences. If they leave all the judging up to god and treated you just the same as they would anyone else then that is tolerence.

well, I think that if they let you have opposing views as you and did not show you any disrespect for it or refuse to associate with you because of it then they are being tolerant of your differences. If they leave all the judging up to god and treated you just the same as they would anyone else then that is tolerence.

Nope... that can't be the Catholic church you're talking about, then.

I assumed it because I assumed you were not forced to be an atheist, but rather chose it after considering the options. And I wasn't forced to be an atheist. Religion, once I was exposed to it, simply sounded so silly to me, that I didn't bother with it after that.

That's fine. My point was that you should not fear her being exposed to religion, instead you should make sure all exposure is truly balanced and objective And I don't think that's possible, frankly. Since I don't know enough about religion to present it, she's going to be hearing it from followers, who are most likely anything but balanced and objective. There are very few religious people I would trust my children with when it comes to discussions of religion.



Good, I never said let others parent your child, I never said let anyone indoctrinate her in anything. I was merely trying to point out there is nothing wrong with some exposure to religion, it won't harm her if you are teaching her to think for herself.
The problem is, it's not just exposure to 'religion' in general. It's exposure to a particular church with a particular doctrine that I do think is inherently harmful, for reasons I've stated before.

No, because theyre beliefs that unite them in being catholic is what makes them intolerante.

So all Catholics believe all of the same things?


Look, you either get this or you dont, and Im done repeating it to you. It is intolerante and dangerous to believe that everyone who diesgarees with you on the nature of the universe is going to be punished forever and that such a punishment is just. Its not comperable to politics, so stop. You either understand this or you dont. I personally think you do put are being stubborn.

I think you're making a big fuss out of nothing. According to what you believe Catholics believe I will go to hell too and I'm hardly bothered. What's the big attitude for? Intolerance is one thing and danger is another. If you don't even believe in the concept of heaven or hell why does it bother you so much that Catholics believe their God is going to smite you?

So all Catholics believe all of the same things?


Actually, they're supposed to. Not all of them do, mind, but they are supposed to.
The catechism is quite detailed as to who and what god is, how and when he will have to be worshipped, what is sin and what isn't, what is a more severe sin than another sin (all the way down to parking in no-parking zones), and what penance needs to be offered at confession. Catholicism is best for people with very little imagination, I sometimes feel.

Tell me, why cant women be priests?
*Cracks knuckles*

Pope John Paul II and his successor Benedict both assert that women not being Priests is a response to something Jesus himself said. Here's an exerpt from an open letter:

If Christ-by his free and sovereign choice, clearly attested to by the Gospel and by the Church's constant Tradition-entrusted only to men the task of being an "icon" of his countenance as "shepherd" and "bridegroom" of the Church through the exercise of the ministerial priesthood, this in no way detracts from the role of women, or for that matter from the role of the other members of the Church who are not ordained to the sacred ministry, since all share equally in the dignity proper to the "common priesthood" based on Baptism.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/doc/doc_44towomen.html

Basically, Christ only told men to do it, so women haven't been allowed to. Of course, PJP is himself here guilty of a generality in his "Clearly", and at least part of this uncertainty is, I believe, due to an attempt to hastily rationalise "common knowledge" that is not inherently self-justifying.

Why they do what they've always done in the lack of a default is, however, very easily explainable, even if the reasons why they did it in the first place are not. Christianity is institutionally based around the preservation of a 2000 year old system, and thus is, by its very nature, conservative. Modes and understandings that are "common knowledge" in such a system are inherently favoured because deviation from the norm is deviation from purpose. Consequently, unless clear justification within the original source material for a change in system can be found, it is against the nature of the organisation to be moulded to circumstances wherein men and women are (however correctly) acknowledged to be of equal standing.

So your answer is twofold. "Jesus said so" and "They're institutionally forbidden to admit ideological mistakes".

How's that?

Thats exactly what their doctrine is.


Stop trying to compare it wih political beliefs. Its totally different and you know it.

Please, tell us which doctrine this is.

Actually, they're supposed to. Not all of them do, mind, but they are supposed to.
The catechism is quite detailed as to who and what god is, how and when he will have to be worshipped, what is sin and what isn't, what is a more severe sin than another sin (all the way down to parking in no-parking zones), and what penance needs to be offered at confession. Catholicism is best for people with very little imagination, I sometimes feel.

Well if people think it over and believe it's a good thing to adhere to, who are we to say no?

Actually, they're supposed to. Not all of them do, mind, but they are supposed to.
The catechism is quite detailed as to who and what god is, how and when he will have to be worshipped, what is sin and what isn't, what is a more severe sin than another sin (all the way down to parking in no-parking zones), and what penance needs to be offered at confession. Catholicism is best for people with very little imagination, I sometimes feel.

Ah, not really. Look in any catechism, and you'll find it safely vague.

Well if people think it over and believe it's a good thing to adhere to, who are we to say no?

I'm not.
But if they do think it's a good thing to adhere to, I think it's justified to call them intolerant, seeing as it is spelled out quite clearly in their belief system.

I'm not.
But if they do think it's a good thing to adhere to, I think it's justified to call them intolerant, seeing as it is spelled out quite clearly in their belief system.

Why is it intolerant to believe you are right and everyone else is wrong? If this is true, NSG is about as intolerant as a Klan meet.

Ah, not really. Look in any catechism, and you'll find it safely vague.

Damnit, I'm stuck without link on this one. My granfather is devout Catholic, and I read it in one of his catechisms, sometime in the 1980s. I'll try and find something online for it.

Ahhh, a nice, principled talk, yay! :)

Okay, well, first I'd like to point out that I try to raise my children in the Cree tradition. We try not to restrict our children, or outright forbid things to them, and leave it at that. We talk to them constantly while we complete tasks, we teach them, we point out the consequences of certain actions, both good, neutral and bad. Keeping in mind that children, developmentally, are capable only of certain levels of understanding.

Of course, that doesn't mean I don't actually forbid her anything. But I never do it without explanation. 'Because' is not a reason that is used in any seriousness in my home.

I am inclined to let her be exposed to a certain extent to her aunt's religion. But only if we talk about it...a lot. I've been asking her what she does, what she's been learning, and we discuss it. Then, when we engage in spiritual activities, such a smudging, I point out how our practices are somewhat similar in intent to the things she's seen at church.

It's a pain in the ass...and much more difficult than just telling her to do as I say. But it's the method I believe in.

yeah, yeah, yeah---i get all of this; there is absolutely nothing that you're saying here that clashes with what i was intending to recommend. i didn't say that she should spend all of her time doing only what you've specifically told her to do---just that you shouldn't allow her to do anything that really bothered you, or lose sleep over that!


I'm interested in the age limits you've set...any reason for them in particular?

yes. they are seven year cycles---which are valued in many traditions, including mine. i am taught---and have seen the evidence in my own experience---that the first three seven-year cycles in a human lifetime correspond roughly to these first three stages of life: individuation, socialization, and integration. i do acknowledge that how this process actually manifests is a totally individual manner---but i also believe that these broadest strokes are quite universal. of course, the world is full of people with "arrested development"---or unresolved issues in all of these stages. i believe that these first three stages correspond to ages (roughly) because the body-mind-complex is still developing toward full adulthood. however, i also believe that there are an additional 4 possible stages of life (7 total!), which are about development beyond the body-mind-complex, and which therefore need not correspond to any condition of the body-mind-complex, including age. in fact---i believe, for my part---that very few people even enter any of these remaining 4 stages of life, at all---let alone progress through all of them! after all: few adults are true adults---or really, fully "human"---but, rather, are still dramatizing/living something that is essentially sub-human---and real adulthood is a pre-requisite, in my understanding, for practice in these further stages of life.

It's clear that she will be attending our cultural activities with me...I'm suprised so far that no one has accused me of 'indoctrinating my child' because of it. :D Any parent makes certain choices for their children...we don't just let kids drift around in a sea of their own choices. So whether the parent is Christian, Muslim, or First Nations...we all expose our children to our preferences and beliefs. I don't think that's inherently wrong...as long as our children are able to, and encouraged to question those beliefs.

right! it's not like every parent teaches their child to brush their teeth in exactly the same way! there are some things that are going to prevail across the board, some things that are going to be "special"---and some things the child is going to make up for herself, no matter what you tell her!

I like your expression of scheduling of time.


thanks. i think it's really critical.

Ugh, the ugly teenage years...when hanging out with mom is horrific...

I'm hoping she'll still want to hang out with her age-mate relations though, and I don't agree that she should have the absolute choice to 'opt out' of First Nations activities, since those activities are inherently family-based. My youngest brother was anti-social to the hilt, and my mother allowed him to 'opt out'...he bitterly regrets it now because he did not form the relationships that are so integral to us as a people, and he is really struggling now to try to build them after the fact. I agree that she should be able to do more things that she enjoys, but she will still be 'forced' to attend certain events that require her presence.

Thanks for your detailed response!


obviously, you should do whatever you think is best, in good conscience. but!: i hope that you will consider letting her "opt out", anyways---or you might build even greater disdain into her, once she is in this stage of life.

just because your brother regrets it, doesn't mean he wouldn't be really pissed if someone had made him! sometimes that's just how it is.

i hope that you will consider this approach:
---until fourteen, take the child to every first nations thing you can!
---make sure that's one of her very favorite things to do! do what it takes to make that happen, if at all possible.
---serve her conection to her uncle; if this connection is strong, he can advise and inspire her to continue in her family tradition, after fourteen, even if she's feeling rebellious about it, at that point.

but---in my humble opinion---she should still have the choice, past that point.

and, after all---i'm betting---your brother's heart would probably be healed even more to see her choose it---and at his advice!---than to see you make her. just a hunch.

my best to you. it sounds like you have a lucky child.


peace.

Why is it intolerant to believe you are right and everyone else is wrong? If this is true, NSG is about as intolerant as a Klan meet.

THAT isn't.
What is intolerant is to be misgynistic, homophobic, anti-contraception and anti-abortion, anti-divorce (well, divorce and re-marriage, but some priests do take the cake) and anti-animal rights. Basically, they refuse to tolerate me as having the exact same rights and capabilities as a man, and I find that offensive.

THAT isn't.
What is intolerant is to be misgynistic, homophobic, anti-contraception and anti-abortion, anti-divorce (well, divorce and re-marriage, but some priests do take the cake) and anti-animal rights. Basically, they refuse to tolerate me as having the exact same rights and capabilities as a man, and I find that offensive.

Exactly. If all Catholicism said was "we think you are incorrect," that would not be intolerant. BUT!

They say that gay people are inherently inferior.
They say that people who do not wish to have children every time that they fuck are horrible people.
They say that women are not capable of being priests. That's something only men are capable of doing.
Worst of all, they say that people who disagree deserve eternal torment.

THAT isn't.
What is intolerant is to be misgynistic,
Don't think it is, but yes, by definition to be misogynistic would be intolerant.
homophobic,
Same as above.
anti-contraception and anti-abortion, anti-divorce (well, divorce and re-marriage, but some priests do take the cake) and anti-animal rights. Basically, they refuse to tolerate me as having the exact same rights and capabilities as a man, and I find that offensive.
:confused:
I do not see how being these things, especially anti-animal rights, is intolerant. These are the three definitions of "intolerant" I found on the Merriam-Webster website:

unable or unwilling to endure (Not relevant)
a. unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters (This could fit, depending on the time period and place)
b. unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted (The closest thing I can think of is the "professional rights" part)
exhibiting physiological intolerance (Again, not relevant)

So while the teachings of the Church may be immoral, I don't really think it can be called doctrinally intolerant except in its preventing women from becoming priests.

Exactly. If all Catholicism said was "we think you are incorrect," that would not be intolerant. BUT!

They say that gay people are inherently inferior.
No, they don't.

They say that people who do not wish to have children every time that they fuck are horrible people.
No, they don't.

They say that women are not capable of being priests. That's something only men are capable of doing.
Yes, they do. (Say that, I mean.)

Worst of all, they say that people who disagree deserve eternal torment.
No, they don't. Like mortal and venial sins, the Church is comfortably vague on how you get to Hell. What it does say is no different from what people here say all the time: you disagree with me/us, therefore you are wrong.

I thought you still had this problem? Isn't that the basis for all your 'logic' arguments?
Once I realised I was right, it stopped being a problem.

Logic does not defy empathy. You just didn't try the contrapositive. Egotism is not sensible in a system that acknowledges that memory and introspection are every bit the potentially fallible sensory data source that seeing and hearing other people are. The only reason you have to think that you're more real than others are is that something else is telling you that what you feel is real. In fact, this something else is the most real thing of all.
None of those are fallible. Memory and especially introspection are just more complete than the others.

Why is it intolerant to believe you are right and everyone else is wrong?
The intolerance arises when you insert a "therefore" after the "and". In and of themselves, there's nothing wrong with believing everyone to be wrong, or even believing that your position is the most likely, but it is most certainly intolerant to refuse to acknowledge that anything other than what you believe could be right. That satisfies point (1) of your dictionary definition.

None of those are fallible. Memory and especially introspection are just more complete than the others.
What did you make of Descartes?

Basically, Christ only told men to do it, so women haven't been allowed to. Of course, PJP is himself here guilty of a generality in his "Clearly", and at least part of this uncertainty is, I believe, due to an attempt to hastily rationalise "common knowledge" that is not inherently self-justifying.
Except, you're forgetting Papal infallibility. PJP couldn't make mistakes. He was necessarily correct in all he did.

What did you make of Descartes?
Descartes made an error in reasoning. His perception wasn't flawed; his interpretation of it was.

Except, you're forgetting Papal infallibility. PJP couldn't make mistakes. He was necessarily correct in all he did.

According to Catholic teaching, Infallibility only applies to the Pope if the following conditions are met:

a) the Pope is the legitimate successor of Peter acting in union with the Bishops
b) the Pope is speaking on faith and/or morals
c) the Pope is speaking ex Cathedra

Even Catholics can't actually say that the Pope was correct in all that he did and be consistent with Catholic teaching. Besides, that strong of a claim would clash with the whole concept of Original Sin.

According to Catholic teaching, Infallibility only applies to the Pope if the following conditions are met:

a) the Pope is the legitimate successor of Peter acting in union with the Bishops
b) the Pope is speaking on faith and/or morals
c) the Pope is speaking ex Cathedra

Even Catholics can't actually say that the Pope was correct in all that he did and be consistent with Catholic teaching. Besides, that strong of a claim would clash with the whole concept of Original Sin.

Thank you. Many people, including Catholics, give much more weight than they should to what is basically a tautology. ("The Pope is never wrong when he is right.") Of course, the popes don't necessarily want to change this impression.

Except, you're forgetting Papal infallibility. PJP couldn't make mistakes. He was necessarily correct in all he did.
To the Catholics, perhaps, and thus my assertion that the reason Catholicism gives for not allowing female priests is that "Jesus said so" seems to be allowed in that system, even if my skepticism at the validity of that "saying so" is not. I don't believe there to be any contradiction in what I said with the Catholics believing the Pope to be correct, but maybe I'm not looking hard enough, eh?

Descartes made an error in reasoning. His perception wasn't flawed; his interpretation of it was.
If we're taking perception as being the intake of raw sensory data then I'll give you that. If we're talking processed data, though, as in asserting that what I see before me reflects a real keyboard, then he's not verifiably wrong to suppose that this could be entirely illusionary. The self and memory that is perceived, for instance, is not necessarily real by virtue of being perceived, even though the perception is absolute and objective fact.

Except, you're forgetting Papal infallibility. PJP couldn't make mistakes. He was necessarily correct in all he did.

Bold is false.

Umm, yes. Yes they do. Go to a Catholic Church. Any catholic church.


If you wont even admit this, debating with you becomes pointless, because it shows you dont know anything about the Catholic Church.

<puts on my pointy red advocate horns>

In that case you'll be able to provide something to prove your statement, right?

I don't see why not.

Then by your definition Discorianisim is "organized religion".

Religion offers easy explanations that people don't need. Religious belief offers no benefits save a false sense of certainty about how the world works, and in doing so promotes sloppy thinking.

I can't find any reason why someone might want that false sense of certainty except in cases where weak-mindedness won't allow persistent uncertainty. And since an unwillingness to accept uncertainty is itself sloppy thinking, then the lack of critical examination within religious dogma merely exacerbates pre-existing weak-mindedness.
The same can be said of lots of things. There are many, many complex concepts that lazy people will dumb down for their own convenience, to relieve themselves of the responsibility to actually think on their own.

That doesn't make it any less of a crutch.
I wasn't commenting on the crutch part, only the insult part.

Neesika, just force her to go. She'll lose all interest.

Yeah, I wonder if the people suggesting that you let your 6 year old "pick her path" regarding religion would apply that concept to other areas, as well?

What if your 6 year old were voicing racist thoughts? Would they say that you should encourage her to believe whatever she wanted, even if that meant hating people with the "wrong" skin color? I'm guessing not so much...:P
I wonder if they would apply that concept to their own 6-year-old children.

The church in question teaches its followers that gays are evil. That homosexuality is a sin, unnatural, and that homosexuals should not be trusted.

The church teaches its followers that all people are inherently sinful, even babies. I take REAL issue with this.

The church teaches its followers that I, and all my people who have remained traditional, are destined for hell because we do not believe in Jesus. My daughter is being told that if she remains true to our traditions, she will be damned forever.

None of this is just religion. This is doctrinal, it is brainwashing, and it is downright pernicious. I would no more deliver my children willingly into the hands of secular homophobes, racists or xenophobes than I would deliver her into the hands of a church that has inflicted irreperable harm on my people over the past three two centuries.
Geez gods. Aren't there any nice, like, Russian Orthodox churches she could go to instead? They do all that shit in Russian or Old Slavonic or something so that rot is unlikely to seep into her poor brain, and their rituals are twice as long and you have to stand through the whole things. She'll get all the pagentry she needs is less than half the time. One good Easter ought to do the trick.

In any event, no, I'm sorry. It's enough to have to worry about a religious indoctrination you don't agree with. If they're doing all that right-wing shit too -- well, if it were me, there'd be a serious dust-up about parental authority with that aunt, and an end to unsupervised visits as well. But that's just me. It's not about controlling the child. It would be about controlling the adults around her.

Then by your definition Discorianisim is "organized religion".
Discordianism's tenets and leadership structure are hardly 'clearly defined', and moreover, it's debatable whether it's a religion or not. So I don't think we could class it as 'organised religion'.

I'd personally describe it as an extended thought experiment.

Discordianism's tenets or leadership structure aree hardly 'clearly defined', and moreover, it's debatable whether it's a religion or not. So I don't think we could class it as 'organised religion'.

I thought that was an imaginary religion. I apologize if there are any Discordians, but didn't some guy write about it in a 1960s book?
If you are quoting this to make a joke about how all religions are imaginary, I've beaten you to it.

I thought that was an imaginary religion. I apologize if there are any Discordians, but didn't some guy write about it in a 1960s book?
Yeah, Principia Discordia.

I doubt there are many, if any, people who take Discordianism particularly seriously, at least to the level of actively worshipping Eris. But the general message of Discordianism, or at least the one I discern, that we should be always questioning of what we are told, plus the sense of awe at the power of chaos in the universe, is very much real to me.

I've described myself as a Discordian atheist, at times.

Yeah, Principia Discordia.

I doubt there are many, if any, people who take Discordianism particularly seriously, at least to the level of actively worshipping Eris. But the general message of Discordianism, or at least the one I discern, that we should be always questioning of what we are told, plus the sense of awe at the power of chaos in the universe, is very much real to me.

I've described myself as a Discordian atheist, at times.

That seems like common sense to me. I'm a Discordian trapped in a Catholic's body!

I am christian and first off if you are an athiest try teaching her what you believe in. DO NOT think oh she'll grow out of it ladeedadeeday because she won't! If you were always tought wash your hands before dinner and always reminded when you get older you wash your hands before dinner! She's six if you tell her what you want her to belive in she will most likley end up doing it when she is older BUT religion is a personal choice when she is old enough to make her own decisions (15-18) she will choose things like that for herself.


So just do your best in teaching her what you belive, that's all you CAN do.

P.S. Thank you for not saying things about other religions!

I wonder if they would apply that concept to their own 6-year-old children.

Of course not Mur, you honestly expect people to follow their own advice?

Of course not Mur, you honestly expect people to follow their own advice?
That's why we have advice: because we don't follow our own.

No, wait, I mean, "Why advise if we can listen to ourselves?" No that's not right, either. I had a very profound and siggable aphorism, but it doesn't look right on the screen. Come back to me.

Thank you. Many people, including Catholics, give much more weight than they should to what is basically a tautology. ("The Pope is never wrong when he is right.") Of course, the popes don't necessarily want to change this impression.

Oh, you're quite welcome. You know, I could spend every moment of every day for the rest of my life debunking myths about Catholic teaching (held by Catholics and non-Catholics alike), and I still wouldn't be finished by the time I were dead.

Of course, if people were to read for themselves and, in reading, not just take pieces out of context and put a bad spin on it to help them rationalize their preconceptions, that would alleviate the problem somewhat too.

Somehow, I don't see that happening, so I'll just bring facts in where it's most needed and as I'm available to do so.

Of course not Mur, you honestly expect people to follow their own advice?
Of course. What was I thinking? Obviously, all these people wouldn't let a 6-year-old pick their own shoes, but they think nothing of telling Neesika to let her child pick a whole religion for herself, and that's perfectly reasonable. :rolleyes:

I swear, I have such a low opinion of other people, that if I had a kid, he or she would be harder to get to than the president.

My six year old is...enamoured of the Catholic church at the moment. She attended my niece's first communion and has been bitten by the Jesus bug. It doesn't help that churches tend to target children and make it all fun and games mixed in with a little 'God made the whole earth' and 'this is the Holy Trinity' blah blah blah.

Now...I'm an atheist. Any spirituality in this house comes from my First Nations background, and it decidedly anti-Catholic in particular. I am...concerned about her sudden interest in religious dogma, but I don't want to say horrid things about Christianity to her either.

So what does one do in a situation like this? At what age should children 'choose' their religion? Can I hope she'll grow out of it? Parents with experience in this area...please, help me draw my child back from the abyss...

:) Sorry, I like how you say 'target' kids, like its some big conspiracy.
Guess the church just can't win hey. Make the message relevant for our society, you're sucking people in. Keep the church the way it was, you're irrevelant and outdated. Anyway, thats not the point.
What would be wrong with your daughter being a christian exactly? Why is your daughter having faith, compared to falling into an abyss?
If a Christian family, has a child which decides to become an atheist, any intervention on behalf of the family is condemned. We're told that the child has the right not to accept it. Seems to be a bit of a double standard on this forum anyway. (not aimed at Neesika, but just general comments in this thread)
And Neesika, if you don't believe in God...and liken it to fairy stories, why would her belief in a fairy story threaten you? Seriously, whats the worst thing that could happen to her? What is it about the possibility of faith which is so scary?

If a Christian family, has a child which decides to become an atheist, any intervention on behalf of the family is condemned. We're told that the child has the right not to accept it. Seems to be a bit of a double standard on this forum anyway.
If a racist family has a child which decides to be non-racist, any intervention on behalf of the family is condemned. We're told that the child has the right not to accept it.

Yes, Piu, there is a "double standard," and I don't see why that should be remotely surprising. See, some people think religion is lousy, so when a child rejects religion they think that's good. Just like how you probably would consider it good if a child rejected their family's racism, right? GASP! You have a double standard!

If a racist family has a child which decides to be non-racist, any intervention on behalf of the family is condemned. We're told that the child has the right not to accept it.

So the child chooses, right?

So the child chooses, right?

Right.

If a racist family has a child which decides to be non-racist, any intervention on behalf of the family is condemned. We're told that the child has the right not to accept it.

Yes, Piu, there is a "double standard," and I don't see why that should be remotely surprising. See, some people think religion is lousy, so when a child rejects religion they think that's good. Just like how you probably would consider it good if a child rejected their family's racism, right? GASP! You have a double standard!

Sorry, I guess I don't see how the racist example is relevant. Unless you mean to imply that religion has a racist component?
Its not suprising that there is a double standard, I am suprised that the non-religious posters have admitted it.
I see where you're going with the racist thing, but I really don't see how thats relevant in regards to religion. Seeing as this particular thread is about the acceptance or rejection of christianity, a religion which does not preach racism.

If religion truly did respect the beliefs of others, then it wouldn't desperately try to indoctrinate young children with terrifying images of Hell to keep them in line and keep them 'believing'.

Look ma! The Commie is going to lecture us about the evils of indoctrination!

So the child chooses, right?

I think Piu's original post was slightly confusing - her point was that any Christian family that tries to intervene in the choice of the children to become atheist is condemned by the average citizen of NSG.

So Bottle replaced Christian with racist and atheist with non-racist.

One might take umbrage at religion being equated with racism but given the close-mindedness active religion takes - and note the active, who tend to be the most vociferous and therefore the most influential on government policy where they can - it can be seen as bigoted in a similar way.

I think Piu's original post was slightly confusing - her point was that any Christian family that tries to intervene in the choice of the children to become atheist is condemned by the average citizen of NSG.

So Bottle replaced Christian with racist and atheist with non-racist.

One might take umbrage at religion being equated with racism but given the close-mindedness active religion takes - and note the active, who tend to be the most vociferous and therefore the most influential on government policy where they can - it can be seen as bigoted in a similar way.

Thankyou for straightening that out. :)

If a racist family has a child which decides to be non-racist, any intervention on behalf of the family is condemned. We're told that the child has the right not to accept it.

Yes, Piu, there is a "double standard," and I don't see why that should be remotely surprising. See, some people think religion is lousy, so when a child rejects religion they think that's good. Just like how you probably would consider it good if a child rejected their family's racism, right? GASP! You have a double standard!

I think Piu's original post was slightly confusing - her point was that any Christian family that tries to intervene in the choice of the children to become atheist is condemned by the average citizen of NSG.

So Bottle replaced Christian with racist and atheist with non-racist.

One might take umbrage at religion being equated with racism but given the close-mindedness active religion takes - and note the active, who tend to be the most vociferous and therefore the most influential on government policy where they can - it can be seen as bigoted in a similar way.

Eh...militant libertarianism can be as bigoted as militant religion: both seek to implant a certain viewpoint on others.

I don't think the problem hinges so much on whether Christianity or religion in general is good or bad, but how much direction do we give our children. I would raise my children to be non-racist, but if they choose to be, what can I do? I would also raise my children to be Christian, but if they choose not to be, what can I do?

I would raise my children to be non-racist, but if they choose to be, what can I do? I would also raise my children to be Christian, but if they choose not to be, what can I do?

You can come to NSG and write a thread about it, we'll be sure to advise you :)

You can come to NSG and write a thread about it, we'll be sure to advise you :)

Assuming NSG still exists 10 years from now. :p

Assuming NSG still exists 10 years from now. :p

Heretic! Burn him!

Woah, wait a minute...

I remember a thread not long ago in which a heated discussion (of which I was a part) broke out over at what age a religious parent should teach their children about religion. I seem to recall a lot of debate for leaving them alone to choose for themselves regardless of age, (when atheism was the hypothetical choice).

Interesting how people react when the shoe's on the other foot.

Thats exactly what their doctrine is.


Stop trying to compare it wih political beliefs. Its totally different and you know it.

Still living Pre 1972 I see KoL, seriously dude update your knowledge before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

Umm, yes. Yes they do. Go to a Catholic Church. Any catholic church.

Umm, no. No they do not. And yes I have been to plenty have you?

I remember a thread not long ago in which a heated discussion (of which I was a part) broke out over at what age a religious parent should teach their children about religion. I seem to recall a lot of debate for leaving them alone to choose for themselves regardless of age, (when atheism was the hypothetical choice).

Interesting how people react when the shoe's on the other foot.
Instead of snidely whipping out your scorecard of Things From the Past You'd Like to Throw Up To People Even If They Had Nothing To Do With It, why don't you try responding to what the people here, now, have actually been saying about the topic of this thread (rather than that one from long ago)?

Yes, it is true that some people here have come out as vehemently anti-religion, but it strikes me that many of us have actually been saying that religion is all well and good but we would object to adults other than the parent trying to indoctrinate a very young child into ANY belief system without the consent and supervision of the parent. Would you consider that an ureasonable position for a parent to take?

Speaking just for myself, I would extend that to ALL other adults, no matter what kind of claptrap they're trying to push on my kid, whether it be religious or otherwise. Other people would not get to sell god to my kid, any more then they'd get to sell atheism, or politics, or their pet theory of history, or bubblegum that turns kids' teeth different colors. Nothing, because they wouldn't get to my 6-year-old except through me. Period. What that means is that all these people declaring that Catholicism would automatically turn my kid into a weak-minded gay basher would be locked out just as much as the priests declaring that if my kid is nice to a gay person, she'll go to hell.

Like I said, this is just me, but speaking just for myself, I would consider it part of my duty as a parent to erect around my very young, still developing child as impenetrable a Bullshit Barrier as I possibly could until her brain is developed enough for her to detect bullshit on her own. So no child of mine would be allowed to be exposed to other people's nonsense without me right by her side, to filter, referree, and let her observe the process of intellectual challenge. I would let my child read NSG with me before I would let her go to a Sunday School without me.

Yes, it is true that some people here have come out as vehemently anti-religion, but it strikes me that many of us have actually been saying that religion is all well and good but we would object to adults other than the parent trying to indoctrinate a very young child into ANY belief system without the consent and supervision of the parent.
Yet another reason to foster an environment of free-thinking, reasoning and a healthy questioning mind in (young) children.

Go philosophy classes in primary education!

Yet another reason to foster an environment of free-thinking, reasoning and a healthy questioning mind in (young) children.

Go philosophy classes in primary education!

Are you joking? It's confusing even for adults!!! :headbang:

That makes no sense. I have no objection (as already stated) to her being presented with information. I have no problem with her picking a religion. I have no problem with the Christian (or another) church courting her once she reaches the age of majority.

What I do object to, is this pretense that there is some 'truth' they know - and present it as such. What I do object to, is specifically targetting children. What I do object to, is circumventing the parent. What I do object to, is using the children to try to convert their parents. What I do object to, is presenting your faith to a CHILD, as though it means something in the reality of the world.

You said you care about people shaping your daughters thinking that will stay with her for the rest of her life. And I was saying that there will be a lot of groups such as the ones I mentioned amongst others that will be doing this to her on a whole range of issues, which these groups will believe as the 'truth'.

Just a question, you did mention your child and you don't want people to be doing that to your child. Do you object parents taking their own children to church with them? Would they be justified if they told you to bugger off if you began telling their children to tell their parents they they can't make them go to church?

No, they don't.

In this case perception is the key, and to my perception, some of your posts have suggessted that you are not to fond of Christians.

No - I'm not exaggerating, and neither do I "believe that uis what they are saying". That IS what they are saying, I've heard them say it (and other stuff like it) to her - and then I have to address that kind of stupid shit.

As for 'not even making sense'... you are preaching to the choir, my friend. If it made sense, I might not object to it.

Is that the church or members of the Church because they is a difference, now maybe these people because your child is young? instead of explaining in detail including the chemical process on how trees grow they just gave some vague misinformed explanation.

Are you joking? It's confusing even for adults!!! :headbang:
So are foreign languages, but little kids can pick them up with ease. I agree with Chumbly.

The reason you have to be careful what you pump into very young brains is because in their first few years, they are in full data absorption mode, but they do not yet have any abiliity to critique and edit. To the extent that philosophy teaches critical judgment, I would much rather have my small child dealing with some age-appropriate overviews of the great philosophers than dealing with religious instruction.

In other words, I would rather be teaching my child HOW to think, than WHAT to think.

So are foreign languages, but little kids can pick them up with ease. I agree with Chumbly.
Actually, foreign languages are easier for children because it doesn't require them to think. They just learn.


The reason you have to be careful what you pump into very young brains is because in their first few years, they are in full data absorption mode, but they do not yet have any abiliity to critique and edit. To the extent that philosophy teaches critical judgment, I would much rather have my small child dealing with some age-appropriate overviews of the great philosophers than dealing with religious instruction.
Heh. Exactly. See Dexter. :p


In other words, I would rather be teaching my child HOW to think, than WHAT to think.
That would be the way I will raise my child, when I have any, if I have any. But even so, there are many ways to think.

Are you joking? It's confusing even for adults!!! :headbang:
Only if one dives headlong into something like Being and Time or Critique of Pure Reason. Rather than in-depth study of a particular philosopher or philosophy, I would suggest a introduction to reasoning/elementary logic, and fostering the ability and attitude of a questioning mind.Here in Scotland, there's already a state school system which teaches basic philosophical skills to 5-year-olds.

I can only praise Clackmannanshire council for their efforts.

Actually, foreign languages are easier for children because it doesn't require them to think. They just learn.


Heh. Exactly. See Dexter. :p


That would be the way I will raise my child, when I have any, if I have any. But even so, there are many ways to think.
Yes, there are many ways to think -- some better than others. There are also many ways to avoid thinking.

Your statement about small kids learning without thinking -- if you had read (and thought about) my post in its entirety, as a unit of thought, you would have seen I said the exact same thing, in the second paragraph, in the bit about them absorbing data but not being able to critique or edit it. Hence the need to be careful about what they are exposed to and my approval of the idea of helping them develop their critical cognitive abilities. Sigh.

If you had actually thought about what I said, and/or considered what I've been saying throughout the whole thread, you might also have realized that I am not criticizing religion or endorsing any particular philosophy or belief system. I am only arguing in favor of parental authority on this particular subject.

Are you joking? It's confusing even for adults!!! :headbang:

It's only confusing because adults have mush brains full of preconceived bias.

Only if one dives headlong into something like Being and Time or Critique of Pure Reason. Rather than in-depth study of a particular philosopher or philosophy, I would suggest a introduction to reasoning/elementary logic, and fostering the ability and attitude of a questioning mind.Here in Scotland, there's already a state school system which teaches basic philosophical skills to 5-year-olds.

I can only praise Clackmannanshire council for their efforts.
I would praise them for both their efforts and their name. :) (That's fun to say.)

Yes, there are many ways to think -- some better than others. There are also many ways to avoid thinking.

Your statement about small kids learning without thinking -- if you had read (and thought about) my post in its entirety, as a unit of thought, you would have seen I said the exact same thing, in the second paragraph, in the bit about them absorbing data but not being able to critique or edit it. Hence the need to be careful about what they are exposed to and my approval of the idea of helping them develop their critical cognitive abilities. Sigh.

If you had actually thought about what I said, and/or considered what I've been saying throughout the whole thread, you might also have realized that I am not criticizing religion or endorsing any particular philosophy or belief system. I am only arguing in favor of parental authority on this particular subject.

Woohey...hold your horses. I am agreeing with you. I'm just saying that saying "I will teach my children how to think" isn't enough because there are also many methods of "thinking".

It's only confusing because adults have mush brains full of preconceived bias.

I can see a Plato's Republic coming out of this. :p

It's only confusing because adults have mush brains full of preconceived bias.

If that statement is true, shouldn't we be suspicious of it because it comes from an adult?

We're forgetting that this girl is Neesika's daughter and that, ultimately, as the mother, Neesika will do what she thinks is best, according to her own beliefs and background, for her. She only asked for an opinion, not for what course of action she needs to take with her 6 year old.

Woohey...hold your horses. I am agreeing with you. I'm just saying that saying "I will teach my children how to think" isn't enough because there are also many methods of "thinking".
*beats the crap out of Dragons Bay for failing to be sufficiently clear while I'm still having my first cup of coffee* Oh, well, that's okay then. :p

And obviously (dripping sarcasm), the method that I prefer is the only right one. ;)

You said you care about people shaping your daughters thinking that will stay with her for the rest of her life. And I was saying that there will be a lot of groups such as the ones I mentioned amongst others that will be doing this to her on a whole range of issues, which these groups will believe as the 'truth'.


Provided they allow her to have some level of adult maturity before they start setting out their little platforms, I'll have much less argument - even if I disagree with their premise.

Hell, if they could just provide some real, empirical evidence, I'd have less objection, even if I disagree with their premise. (Example - I don't buy the trite concept of 'Dark Matter' as anything more than a cute and convenient mechanism, but at least there's math to back it up).


Just a question, you did mention your child and you don't want people to be doing that to your child. Do you object parents taking their own children to church with them? Would they be justified if they told you to bugger off if you began telling their children to tell their parents they they can't make them go to church?


If I start telling 'Christian' children to tell their parents not to take them to church? Here in rural Georgia? You'd probably be reading about me as a statistic. Not that I'd do that anyway.... I'm not sure what the point of the question is supposed to be?


In this case perception is the key, and to my perception, some of your posts have suggessted that you are not to fond of Christians.


Some of my best friends are Christians.


Is that the church or members of the Church because they is a difference, now maybe these people because your child is young? instead of explaining in detail including the chemical process on how trees grow they just gave some vague misinformed explanation.

My daughter's church is a Southern Baptist church, although I'm not sure if they are Southern Baptists, or "Southern Baptists". Her church teaches a direct interventionist god... the sort of god that is required to participate directly for every aspect of life to continue. The church teaches the 'god powered leaf' thing.

*beats the crap out of Dragons Bay for failing to be sufficiently clear while I'm still having my first cup of coffee* Oh, well, that's okay then. :p

And obviously (dripping sarcasm), the method that I prefer is the only right one. ;)

Please excuse me. I had six hours of sleep last night and just finished my French oral exam. I have another exam creeping up on Friday. Just not on my best behaviour.

*goes and sits in the corner, sulking*

If that statement is true, shouldn't we be suspicious of it because it comes from an adult?

Under what kind of warped definition of the word "adult" do I fall?

Don't trust anyone over 40!

Please excuse me. I had six hours of sleep last night and just finished my French oral exam. I have another exam creeping up on Friday. Just not on my best behaviour.

*goes and sits in the corner, sulking*

*pats DB on the head* There, there. Please don't take it personally. I think I was influenced by the radio, which was playing "Good Morning, Starshine," a song that always triggers my bloodlust. :)

If we're taking perception as being the intake of raw sensory data then I'll give you that. If we're talking processed data, though, as in asserting that what I see before me reflects a real keyboard, then he's not verifiably wrong to suppose that this could be entirely illusionary.
Agreed.
The self and memory that is perceived, for instance, is not necessarily real by virtue of being perceived, even though the perception is absolute and objective fact.
Again, agreed. Descartes's error was his penultimate conclusion that he exists. Everything before that was fine.

We're forgetting that this girl is Neesika's daughter and that, ultimately, as the mother, Neesika will do what she thinks is best, according to her own beliefs and background, for her. She only asked for an opinion, not for what course of action she needs to take with her 6 year old.

I'm assuming people know that...I think now it's just an issue of debating the merits of religion in general :D

I'm assuming people know that...I think now it's just an issue of debating the merits of religion in general :D

Don't be so sure you'll draw her out of the abyss - she might draw you right in! Who knows? ;)

I'm assuming people know that...I think now it's just an issue of debating the merits of religion in general :D

Pros and cons, it has them. What do you feel is the right thing to do, babe?;)

Pros and cons, it has them. What do you feel is the right thing to do, babe?;)

I'm keeping her out of Sunday school...she can go to services with her aunt. We'll continue talking about what she brings back from those services, and her talks with her aunt. I've been telling her trickster tales from my own culture, and explaining some of the spiritual reasons behind some of the things we do, such as smudge, our prayers when we pick plants etc. She doesn't get to choose, at six, to join the Catholic faith, but I won't completely forbid her any contact with it, as that would be impossible and would cut her off from family.

Don't be so sure you'll draw her out of the abyss - she might draw you right in! Who knows? ;)

That's hilarious. The second time someone has suggested my child might convert me.

Please. Have a little more respect for my intelligence. I've walked this earth for 30 years, and I've yet to allow myself to descend into easy outs, easy answers, and mindless adherence to superstition. No amount of amazing cuteness on my daughter's part is going to suddenly melt my brain into mush thusly.

I'm keeping her out of Sunday school...she can go to services with her aunt. We'll continue talking about what she brings back from those services, and her talks with her aunt. I've been telling her trickster tales from my own culture, and explaining some of the spiritual reasons behind some of the things we do, such as smudge, our prayers when we pick plants etc. She doesn't get to choose, at six, to join the Catholic faith, but I won't completely forbid her any contact with it, as that would be impossible and would cut her off from family.

Then you're proceeding responsibly.;)

but I won't completely forbid her any contact with it, as that would be impossible and would cut her off from family.
I would. Not all of her family is Catholic (you're not), so she'd only be losing the parts of her family that belong to a destructive cult.

My parents (protestants) are under strict instructions not to expose my imminent child to religion at all. My sister-in-law gave us little baby socks that read "My little angel", and I threw them away.

At age six, Jesus and Santa Claus are BFF's and there aren't any seriously metaphysical questions running through her head. And there are worse people she could be learning about than Jesus.

At age six, Jesus and Santa Claus are BFF's and there aren't any seriously metaphysical questions running through her head. And there are worse people she could be learning about than Jesus.

I don't see the correlation between my gardner and Santa Claus.

I don't see the correlation between my gardner and Santa Claus.

I'll tell you when you're older.

I'll tell you when you're older.

I have a loose tooth, too.

I have a loose tooth, too.

But the Tooth Fairy doesn't have a church.

But the Tooth Fairy doesn't have a church.

SO you're playing the cult card, eh?

SO you're playing the cult card, eh?

No, I'm hoping someone will rectify the matter! Poor woman...she does so much for us...

No, I'm hoping someone will rectify the matter! Poor woman...she does so much for us...

Maybe she is a demi-goddess.

No, I'm hoping someone will rectify the matter! Poor woman...she does so much for us...

We, the Children of the Tooth Fairy, wish to make it known that the High Church of the Most Benevolent Mother Tooth Fairy is a well established church.
TEETH FOR THE TOOTH FAIRY!!!

That's hilarious. The second time someone has suggested my child might convert me.

Please. Have a little more respect for my intelligence. I've walked this earth for 30 years, and I've yet to allow myself to descend into easy outs, easy answers, and mindless adherence to superstition. No amount of amazing cuteness on my daughter's part is going to suddenly melt my brain into mush thusly.

I have high respect for your intelligence. My grandmother walked the Earth for eighty-three years before becoming Christian, and good grief I had the utmost respect for her. Neither intelligence nor age matters when it comes to faith.

You're right. No amount of amazing cuteness on your daughter's part is going to suddenly melt your brain into mush. There was a lapse of forty years between my mum becoming Christian and my grandma becoming Christian.

Just a hypothesis. Calm down a bit.

Best thing is to encourage the 6 year old to ASK QUESTIONS. They will find that religion is quite intolerant to questions. At some point the answer is STFU from the 'holy' ones. That is when you will know that there are no realities in religion. They claim 'faith' is the answer. Kind of like 'playing dice with the universe'.

The thing that religion steals that you can never get back is LIFE. If you spend your days doing what other people think you should be doing instead of living your life you have lost something very important.

Question your world. Live life as it comes and never let ayone tell you what you 'should' be doing to make them happy.

Your mileage may vary

The thing that religion steals that you can never get back is LIFE.
However, if it wasn't for the Creator, you wouldn't have a life. :p

However, if it wasn't for the Creator, you wouldn't have a life. :p

Who created the creator? Who created the creator's creator?

The simple answer is there is simply an answer we haven't found yet. No reason to pop off and assume it is a creator.

Who created the creator? Who created the creator's creator?

The simple answer is there is simply an answer we haven't found yet. No reason to pop off and assume it is a creator.
The bottom line is that there is a Creator, and that cannot be denied. :)

The bottom line is that there is a Creator, and that cannot be denied. :)

Well it can, because many people do deny it.

Gravedigging much?