I just hope that whatever choice she makes helps her to feel like a better and more fulfilled person, who is able to make contributions to society. regardless of her chosen faith or lack thereof.
that being said? I am very very Anti-Jar Jar Binks.
So in effect, we're a product of our environment (at least somewhat) whether our parents wished it to be that way or not.
With that in mind, can anyone really make an unbiased decision without being influenced by what was around them when they grew up?
This is something that was touched on in the Civil Religious Discussion thread (I do not recommend going in there. 'tis an ugly place). Not so much that beliefs are formed by parents, but by the surrounding culture.
I think it obvious it is not black and white. We are influenced by our parents and by the surrounding culture but neither influence is not 100% effective.
I think it obvious it is not black and white. We are influenced by our parents and by the surrounding culture but neither influence is not 100% effective.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that parents are simply one part of the child's surrounding culture?
I removed a couple posts. Civility and respect, please.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that parents are simply one part of the child's surrounding culture?I think it obvious it is not black and white. We are influenced by our parents and by the surrounding culture but neither influence is not 100% effective.
I think it important to note that someone's parents may not full align with the surrounding culture.
The reason I think this is important is, as I put to Samnell, who is where I originally heard this concept, what about Jewish families? Samnell's position was that beliefs are largely influenced by surrounding culture, so why do Jews persist amongst such strong and dominant surrounding cultures (merely as the first example that sprang to my mind)?
You could argue parents are part of the 'surrounding culture', but I think there are a lot of influences within such a definition that we may be over simplifying. How do we account for atheists from religious parents and societies? Surely they are not the only free thinkers. They must have also been influenced.
As with everything else, it is a complicated system. One that I think is difficult to deconstruct when we consider that one's concept of one's self was possibly not a conscious choice.
|
What about those who did make an informed decision, and just happened to decide differently than you?
They weren't the ones I was talking about, and as long as they do not try to force their decision on me, I accept them entirely. It's the ones who mindlessly follow, and the ones that choose to promote a negative message, that I pity.
And I would agree that I was 'conditioned' to not follow Christianity. I have, however, considered the religion I was raised in, and affirmed my desire not to follow it. (I identify as a Deist, btw.)
|
One trains just as much by what one does not do as by what one does. "Not taking children to church," conditions them just as much as "taking them to church."
False. When you take someone to church, their time in church is teaching them about whatever deity that church teaches. If you don't go to church, you can either:
A) Still teach them about a deity.B) Teach them that there is no deity.
C) Encourage them to research and decide for themselves.
Church, OTOH, only has option A.
By not doing it, you are conditioning them to think it unimportant. By doing it you are conditioning them to think it is important. By taking them irregularly, you are confusing them. Those advocating against taking children to church are actually advocating conditioning children to be ambivalent or hostile towards a religious experience.
Bills are important, but I don't include my children in the bill-making process...I am not teaching them that paying bills is unimportant. Rather, I am waiting to teach them about bills until an age at which they can fully grasp the importance of bills.
Parents should raise their children to behave in the fashion they believe is best for their children in the long run. If a parent believes that religion is important, they should train their children to be religious, otherwise they are practicing a confusing sort of hypocrisy.
I believe that having an open, analytical mind and making decisions for yourself is the most important thing a child can learn. Taking a child to church from the moment they're born is not teaching them religion, it is not allowing them to know anything else.
I'm curious, would people be making these same arguments for parents who decided to raise their children as racists or to be bigoted toward certain minorities? Absolutely not...but the parent still feels it is important and starts teaching them young...just like most do with religion. What difference (beside the fact that you happen to find my example objectionable) is there? Absolutely none.
'm curious, would people be making these same arguments for parents who decided to raise their children as racists or to be bigoted toward certain minorities? Absolutely not...but the parent still feels it is important and starts teaching them young...just like most do with religion. What difference (beside the fact that you happen...
We would be forced to at least concede the validity of said parent's teaching if they truly believed that what they were doing was right. Now, I think of those issues you mentioned, I'd be surprised if someone came out and said they think those are appropriate behaviors to pass on, but that's not the original issue. The issue was whether it is appropriate/right to pass on those things you feel passionately about to your children from a young age. And the ramifications of this sort of "conditioning" to the child as they try to make independent and educated decisions as an adult.
|
|
'm curious, would people be making these same arguments for parents who decided to raise their children as racists or to be bigoted toward certain minorities? Absolutely not...but the parent still feels it is important and starts teaching them young...just like most do with religion. What difference (beside the fact that you happen...We would be forced to at least concede the validity of said parent's teaching if they truly believed that what they were doing was right. Now, I think of those issues you mentioned, I'd be surprised if someone came out and said they think those are appropriate behaviors to pass on, but that's not the original issue. The issue was whether it is appropriate/right to pass on those things you feel passionately about to your children from a young age. And the ramifications of this sort of "conditioning" to the child as they try to make independent and educated decisions as an adult.
Watch a documentary on the KKK...scary s+&!. Children of members of the Klan are raised from birth to hate anything that isn't white...and the members truly believe that is the right thing and the only thing that should be taught.
nvm... edited to remove what i said... it came out harsher than I intended and I'm not sure it really reflected what everyone has said.
We should NOT condition our children to make a decision that is so central to their character as religion,My point is that you can't help it. By refusing to take them or encouraging them in it, you are conditioning them. Your behavior conditions your children one way or another.
Absolutely not.
By abstaining from skewing their view in this ONE field, you are neither neglecting NOR conditioning your children to do anything... other then maybe have an open mind.
What scares you so much about people making decisions without years of conditioning and pressure?
You can't have an objective view on anything related to religion if you're raised with an insiders perspective.
|
|
nvm... edited to remove what i said... it came out harsher than I intended and I'm not sure it really reflected what everyone has said.
I think I know where it might have been headed, so let me say this. I am not comparing religion to the KKK. Aside from the fact that the KKK used a distorted version of christianity to validate its hate, there is no real relationship between the two (much like radical Muslims' relationship to the Muslim faith).
That being said, you asked for examples of why it was wrong to condition children to believe the things that you feel passionately about and racism is a good example of why it shouldn't be done.
I am an atheist...i despise organized religion. I think that it is 99% of what is wrong with the world today (note that i have no problem with spirituality and the belief in god...just organized religion). I am not, however going to raise my children to feel the same way. I am going to do as little as possible to influence their decision when it comes to matters of faith--that is their decision to make, not mine to make for them.
By abstaining from skewing their view in this ONE field, you are neither neglecting NOR conditioning your children to do anything..
I used to have this argument with an ex-girlfriend a lot, who felt that raising your child without concrete and definite answers about the Big Questions--what happens to us when we die? is there a God?--was tantamount to child abuse, as you're sentencing your child to years of fear and uncertainty. Her answer was religion (and not even a specific religion--just *a* religion and a holy text that gave definitive answers). Whereas my parents raised me without any sort of faith. When I asked the big questions, their answer was always "I don't know--what do *you* think?" So while I lacked the comfort of solid answers, I also avoided her own repeated crises of faith as particular answers from her holy books no longer felt right to her.
Faith: it's a weird thing. And now I'll flee the thread, leaving behind only a repetition of Ross's request to keep it civil so he doesn't have to bring down the Hammer of Debate-Quashing!
nvm... edited to remove what i said... it came out harsher than I intended and I'm not sure it really reflected what everyone has said.I think I know where it might have been headed, so let me say this. I am not comparing religion to the KKK. Aside from the fact that the KKK used a distorted version of christianity to validate its hate, there is no real relationship between the two (much like radical Muslims' relationship to the Muslim faith).
That being said, you asked for examples of why it was wrong to condition children to believe the things that you feel passionately about and racism is a good example of why it shouldn't be done.
I am an atheist...i despise organized religion. I think that it is 99% of what is wrong with the world today (note that i have no problem with spirituality and the belief in god...just organized religion). I am not, however going to raise my children to feel the same way. I am going to do as little as possible to influence their decision when it comes to matters of faith--that is their decision to make, not mine to make for them.
Actually what I was goign to say is that we haven't been debating on whether or not Christianity is a bad thing to pass on, but we were discussing whether or not parents have a right to condition their child at all.
The problem here is that I believe it IS within the right of a parent to condition a child to racism. Do I believe racism is in any way right or acceptable? No. But the second I begin telling someone what they are allowed to teach their child, we get into some very serious ramifications becuase all of a sudden it will not be okay to teach your children basically anything. This is extreme, but I believe it to be true.
I firmly believe you should condition your child to do what you believe is right. I ALSO believe it's important to teach them at the same time to think and act for themselves. I realize this seems self-contradictory, but in fact it's not. it actually teaches a child to challenge their parents' views and to make those decisions themselves, while seeing how the passions and beliefs of their parents has affected their parents lives.
I will definitely shape my child in what I believe.
Simply because I believe (as my Bible tells me) that I should love people above all else. Love the Lord... love others. That is what my Bible says. My Bible does not tell me to reject homosexuals (as many church organizations seem to do) nor does it tell me to persecute Democrats (again, many conservative religious republicans border on this).
But at the end of the day, I want intelligent, engaging, rational children who have a passion to love others according to the Truth.
I realize that even by saying this, I've potentially alienated a lot of you, but I sure hope not. it is not my goal.
But i believe you cannot lovingly adn intentionaly raise your kids without intentionally or unintentionally conditioning them to think a certain way. They may grow to resent and throw away what you believe, but usually that is a reaction to how you conditioned them. (At least that is my experience in such matters - which is addmittedly a small pool of experience)
|
We should NOT condition our children to make a decision that is so central to their character as religion,My point is that you can't help it. By refusing to take them or encouraging them in it, you are conditioning them. Your behavior conditions your children one way or another.Absolutely not.
By abstaining from skewing their view in this ONE field, you are neither neglecting NOR conditioning your children to do anything... other then maybe have an open mind.
What scares you so much about people making decisions without years of conditioning and pressure?
You can't have an objective view on anything related to religion if you're raised with an insiders perspective.
Heh.
If I share my faith with my children I am "skewing" their thinking and "pressuring" them to be like me. If I were an athiest/agnostic and share that fact with my children, while at the same time not practicing religion with them, I am raising them to have an open mind. Got it. :)
I'm not scared of people making up their own minds. I think it appropraite and necessary. But I also think that it is naive to believe that children aren't conditioned as much through what they observe in the parents as what their parents actually say to them.
Anyway, that's all I have to say, so I'll drop it. :)
I think people are thinking a bit simplistic when they talk about "conditioning" or "brainwashing" or whatever in most mainstream Christian faiths. In fact many of these religions specifically limit full inclusion of young members until they are "able" to make a decision to fully embrace the religion. Now the levels of when someone is deemed "able" to decide is of a much lower standard (almost non-require the person to be 18 to decide). The fact there is a window where someone is not fully included (which if they were brainwashing they would just say, your in) until they decide I think invalidates this "brainwashing" claim.
Even in the faith that Ms. Rice was raised, Catholicism, while a newborn can be baptized, they still must go through a confirmation process later. Most other (protestant) faiths, at least the ones I've run into, require a child to be older, I think around 8 is when many start deeming a child is getting able to make a decision for themselves.
As for suggesting that not attending a church or other organized religion event somehow makes you unbiased, I call b.s. on that. As the adage says, "The proof is in the pudding." We are all biased, to claim otherwise is to lie to ourselves. Instead of trying so hard to claim we are not biased, it is better to accept our bias and then try to maintain a rational approach in spite of it. Children are taught/socialized a great many things and very few of them are actually "formalized". No adult made up their mind on any issues of significance without being influenced, if you think you are one that did, I have some ocean-front property in Nebraska to sell you.
Love the Lord... love others.
In my opinion, here is where the problem starts to seep in. If you can convince someone that a particular action is loving the lord, it is easier to justify it even if it is not very loving towards others. I am not accusing all Christians or any other faith here. I believe that Jesus would even say that loving the lord includes loving others. By doing the first, it should be impossible not to do the second. However, there are far too many examples that obviously do not see it the same way.
I am an atheist...I am not, however going to raise my children to feel the same way. I am going to do as little as possible to influence their decision when it comes to matters of faith--that is their decision to make, not mine to make for them.
I'm going to take this a step further, as I forgot to include it in my last post. (Sue me, i'm scatter-brained.) I don't believe it's possible to train your children to think and perceive the world intelligently without them picking up on what you believe and why.
Once they have this understanding, I don't know how convinced I am that the damage isn't already done. They see you, the parent that has been the authority on - well everything - since they were born staunchly believing something, and I believe the weight of that is already something that will definitely condition them to believe it.
I could be wrong, I am far from the smartest guy, but this seems to be the case with everyone I know. Either you accept what your child-hood was filled with becuase it was a good experience, or you reject it becuase it was uncomfortable. Now, that's not to say people can't rise above their past - more that they're already pre-dispositioned to believe one way or the other already.
|
By abstaining from skewing their view in this ONE field, you are neither neglecting NOR conditioning your children to do anything..
I used to have this argument with an ex-girlfriend a lot, who felt that raising your child without concrete and definite answers about the Big Questions--what happens to us when we die? is there a God?--was tantamount to child abuse, as you're sentencing your child to years of fear and uncertainty. Her answer was religion (and not even a specific religion--just *a* religion and a holy text that gave definitive answers). Whereas my parents raised me without any sort of faith. When I asked the big questions, their answer was always "I don't know--what do *you* think?" So while I lacked the comfort of solid answers, I also avoided her own repeated crises of faith as particular answers from her holy books no longer felt right to her.
Faith: it's a weird thing. And now I'll flee the thread, leaving behind only a repetition of Ross's request to keep it civil so he doesn't have to bring down the Hammer of Debate-Quashing!
Woot from now on I'm referring to Ross as "Ross The Hammer Byers".
EDIT: So it's been like 5 minutes since I originally posted this and no response from Ross. You know silent permission is still permission.
n my opinion, here is where the problem starts to seep in. If you can convince someone that a particular action is loving the lord, it is easier to justify it even if it is not very loving towards others. I am not accusing all Christians or any other faith here. I believe that Jesus would even say that loving the lord includes loving others. By doing the first, it should be impossible not to do the second. However, there are far too many examples that obviously do not see it the same way.
But this is clearly a case of mis-interpreting (or more likely flat out abusing) the intent of what was spoken in the Word. Unfortunately, the history of most churches (I know it's a part of mine) are fraught with examples of exactly this. This is actually the opposite of showing someone love, and it's selfish, to boot. I actually agreed with the sentiment of what the original post was about (Christiantiy failing to show love to certain groups), even though it saddens me.
But let's be honest, that's a failing of the man-made institution of the church, not a flaw with the beliefs set out in the Book they read. When you see people who take actions that do not show love, you are watching people who are not really reflecting Christ's love. There are shades of gray here, and it can be difficult to distinguish sometimes, but let's be honest, Christ's love is not hard to identify, and acts of non-love are equally easy to identify.
But even this is a tangent from what the thread was talking about, really.
Even in the faith that Ms. Rice was raised, Catholicism, while a newborn can be baptized, they still must go through a confirmation process later. Most other (protestant) faiths, at least the ones I've run into, require a child to be older, I think around 8 is when many start deeming a child is getting able to make a decision for themselves.
I think the point is, regardless of when an individual gets to make an official declaration, they have been exposed to a particular belief for all of their life.
I agree that, whether it is religion or non-religion, a child is going to be influenced by his parents and by society.
I am certainly not advocating parents being forced not to share their beliefs with their children.
Even in the faith that Ms. Rice was raised, Catholicism, while a newborn can be baptized, they still must go through a confirmation process later. Most other (protestant) faiths, at least the ones I've run into, require a child to be older, I think around 8 is when many start deeming a child is getting able to make a decision for themselves.I think the point is, regardless of when an individual gets to make an official declaration, they have been exposed to a particular belief for all of their life.
I agree that, whether it is religion or non-religion, a child is going to be influenced by his parents and by society.
I am certainly not advocating parents being forced not to share their beliefs with their children.
And I would suggest that point is effectively meaningless, as you point out children are already and will always be influenced and exposed to certain things decided by those around them, either consciously or unconsciously. If someone is an adult and mentally capable of making choices, then they made a choice and claiming they didn't "try hard enough" or "get exposed to enough" because they chose the same thing as their folks is assine.
But this is clearly a case of mis-interpreting (or more likely flat out abusing) the intent of what was spoken in the Word.
According to you. I do not mean that to be as confrontation as it sounds. My point is I highly doubt the people who 'mis-interpret' the Bible do it intentionally. And they are as wholly convinced they have it right as you are that you have it right.
But let's be honest, that's a failing of the man-made institution of the church, not a flaw with the beliefs set out in the Book they read.
But the Bible is man made and not divinely inspired. It is a false authority. Granted, any authority can be abused. The insidiousness of religion is that it claims to be the final authority. Absolute power, if you will, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. How do you question god?
The Bible is not all bad. But its rules need to be questioned and must stand on their own merit. I can get behind loving your neighbor as yourself. The rest of it? Not so much.
But the Bible is man made and not divinely inspired. It is a false authority. Granted, any authority can be abused. The insidiousness of religion is that it claims to be the final authority. Absolute power, if you will, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. How do you question god?
The Bible is not all bad. But its rules need to be questioned and must stand on their own merit. I can get behind loving your neighbor as yourself. The rest of it? Not so much.
At this point we will simply have to agree to disagree, my friend. I frankly do believe the Bible is divinely inspired. Once again, I realize that by admitting that it puts me firmly in the "disillusioned" category to many of you, but I am a believer none-the-less. I believe God is the final authority. We're basically not going to get around that fact at this point in the conversation, and that sucks, but that's okay. I have a set of beliefs you don't.
We do both believe that loving others important, and that's what the thread was originally about - or at least what the issue was with the author the thread was originally about. I'm happy we can agree about that.
We should NOT condition our children to make a decision that is so central to their character as religion,My point is that you can't help it. By refusing to take them or encouraging them in it, you are conditioning them. Your behavior conditions your children one way or another.
Not really. All people start out atheistic as atheism is the lack of religion not an alternate religion.
At this point we will simply have to agree to disagree, my friend. I frankly do believe the Bible is divinely inspired. Once again, I realize that by admitting that it puts me firmly in the "disillusioned" category to many of you, but I am a believer none-the-less. I believe God is the final authority. We're basically not going to get around that fact at this point in the conversation, and that sucks, but that's okay. I have a set of beliefs you don't.
We do both believe that loving others important, and that's what the thread was originally about - or at least what the issue was with the author the thread was originally about. I'm happy we can agree about that.
I don't think I'd say you're disillusioned. You probably use different criteria to make certain decisions than I do, but that's your prerogative. I catch a lot of crap (some of it deserved) 'round these parts because I can be rather scathing, especially when someone implies (or outright states) that faith is evidentiary.
I believe most people, religious or not, are basically good. Flawed, and prone to act irresponsibly (especially in groups), but fundamentally good. Further, people need to be allowed to make up their own minds, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on others. Doing that is just wrong, no matter which side you're on.
Not really. All people start out atheistic as atheism is the lack of religion not an alternate religion.
Actually, two of the main atheist organizations in Seattle are currently duking it out over that issue. One group believes atheism is the lack of faith ("I don't have sufficient evidence to believe in god, but if I had a revelation, of course I'd believe!"), the other that it's a deliberate refutation of faith. They squabble a lot, since the latter likes to put up big "there is no god" billboards, and the former thinks that's just incendiary snark that helps nobody.
And before we can open THAT can of worms, I highly recommend everyone shake virtual hands and go back to talking about gaming. :D
I'd also throw out there that "agnostic" is an awfully nice third camp, if you feel like maybe you don't want to label yourself as faithful or atheist.
Not really. All people start out atheistic as atheism is the lack of religion not an alternate religion.Actually, two of the main atheist organizations in Seattle are currently duking it out over that issue. One group believes atheism is the lack of faith ("I don't have sufficient evidence to believe in god, but if I had a revelation, of course I'd believe!"), the other that it's a deliberate refutation of faith. They squabble a lot, since the latter likes to put up big "there is no god" billboards, and the former thinks that's just incendiary snark that helps nobody.
And before we can open THAT can of worms, I highly recommend everyone shake virtual hands and go back to talking about gaming. :D
That doesn't sound like a different philosophical position so much as a differing degree of respect for the feelings of others.
The problem I see is that everyone is absolutely convinced they are right (and this goes way beyond religion). But we all can't be right. So who has the right and how do we 'prove' it?
I'd also throw out there that "agnostic" is an awfully nice third camp, if you feel like maybe you don't want to label yourself as faithful or atheist.
My "problem" with agnostic is that the connotations vary a lot. After describing my beliefs, I've been told I'm an atheist. Just as often, I've been told I'm agnostic.
In any event, declaring with absolutely certaintity that there is no God is silly; one only needs postulate that God wishes to deceive us is sufficient to demonstrate that.
The problem I see is that everyone is absolutely convinced they are right (and this goes way beyond religion). But we all can't be right. So who has the right and how do we 'prove' it?
We can't. It is impossible to prove with absolutely certainty that God exists. It's equally impossible to prove he doesn't.
At the end of the day, people find different things persuasive. I find evidence and deductive reasoning persuasive. Others apparently find feelings and personal insights persuasive. It seems to me that many people see abstract logic as valueless, instead insisting on a real-world context.
I believe my position is objectively more logical, but I can't say it's superior. I also can't say it's better for me, or for society as a whole, but to me that's a separate question altogether.
Personally, I wish I could die and come back Vulcan. :P
Emotion is what makes us human, no? Compassion is an emotion, is it not? Is not compassion worth striving for?
Emotion is what makes us human, no? Compassion is an emotion, is it not? Is not compassion worth striving for?
Absolutely. I didn't mean to say that emotion has no value to me. I guess I should have said I want to be reincarnated as Spock, who clearly does experience emotion, but generally doesn't let it interfere with his decision-making (unless we're talking about the JJ Abrahams movie, in which case, he really does =P). Rather, I don't believe that emotion constitute a good methodology for investigating and understanding the universe.
By the way, this conversation really belongs in the religious discussion thread, does it not?
I hear what you are saying and to some extent I agree, but I think emotion plays a larger role than you think. Curiosity is an emotion. Enthusiasm is an emotion. Would we bother investigating and understanding the universe if it were not for these emotions?
I agree, this should be in the Civil Religious Discussion thread…but then that might have scared off some of the people that posted in here. And I for one and glad for some new blood.
Emotions are irrational. Beliefs are irrational. You will be assimilated.
Deys jus' ned ta go down ta Bon Temps ways an learn be real vamps.
Not Bon Temps....but Shreveport thats where the real vamps be.
As with everything else, it is a complicated system. One that I think is difficult to deconstruct when we consider that one's concept of one's self was possibly not a conscious choice.
Were your conscious choices conscious choices? :) I don't think so. The way you make it, and what choice you make, is determined by a huge number of things, often contradictory and conflicting things, not at all under your control. And even when you have something that it appears you can control, that's still involving making choices and we're right back to one's upbringing, culture, etc.
Same for all of us.
Directly comparing church attendance to brainwashing isn't cool. It needs to stop.
Please remember that someone can have a differing opinion from yours without being irrational or prejudiced.
Emotions are irrational. Beliefs are irrational. You will be assimilated.
I'm not entirely certain one can claim all emotions are irrational. They are subjective, but subjective does not necessarily mean irrational.
Emotions are irrational. Beliefs are irrational. You will be assimilated.I'm not entirely certain one can claim all emotions are irrational. They are subjective, but subjective does not necessarily mean irrational.
Your lack of certainty in the face of my certainty is irrational!
|
|
Directly comparing church attendance to brainwashing isn't cool. It needs to stop.
Please remember that someone can have a differing opinion from yours without being irrational or prejudiced.
I agree, and to help clear the terminology. A child raised in a church is not brainwashed, what is being formed is what we in psychology call a comprehensive worldview, it is exactly how one grasps and views the world around them, a comprehensive worldview is formed when we are children and is shaped by our experiences as we grow. It is indeed true that some people under religious influences will form a worldview that is completely dependent around the existence of God. This by definition is not brainwashing.
Not really. All people start out atheistic as atheism is the lack of religion not an alternate religion.Actually, two of the main atheist organizations in Seattle are currently duking it out over that issue. One group believes atheism is the lack of faith ("I don't have sufficient evidence to believe in god, but if I had a revelation, of course I'd believe!"), the other that it's a deliberate refutation of faith. They squabble a lot, since the latter likes to put up big "there is no god" billboards, and the former thinks that's just incendiary snark that helps nobody.
And before we can open THAT can of worms, I highly recommend everyone shake virtual hands and go back to talking about gaming. :D
heh... I think that's because so many atheists consider themselves existentialists (which begins, classically, with a refutation of god)...
Atheism isn't an activity. There shouldn't really be an atheist's club or group.
Leaving Christiantiy because of the practitioner's doesn't make much sense to me. Reminds me of a T-shirt: "I'm not anti-Christ...I'm anti Christians."
Anyways, I think it was a mistake to create this thread. If you want a debate, go to the Civil Discussion.
Oh, and CJ, you sound more like a troll than he does.
Perhaps I'm just begging to get banned here (but I hope not), but I feel that, in this discussion, alot of the "keep it civil" remarks have been made at those speeking up against christianity (or religion)
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Now I know americans are very fond of their religion (well most of you), but I also belive you value the freedom of speech. If someone realy believes religion is a form of brainwashing, perhaps you shouldn't strike out at him, instead propose a councterpoint. I realy can't see anything inflamatory in such a statement. It's just an argument (and one without solid evidence).
Let people present their arguments without all the heavy moderation. It's a touchy subject, I get that, but I think this discussion has been very good at keeping to subject (mostly), and not character assassinating.
Just keep i civil.
|
|
One trains just as much by what one does not do as by what one does. "Not taking children to church," conditions them just as much as "taking them to church."
By not doing it, you are conditioning them to think it unimportant. By doing it you are conditioning them to think it is important. By taking them irregularly, you are confusing them. Those advocating against taking children to church are actually advocating conditioning children to be ambivalent or hostile towards a religious experience.
Parents should raise their children to behave in the fashion they believe is best for their children in the long run. If a parent believes that religion is important, they should train their children to be religious, otherwise they are practicing a confusing sort of hypocrisy.
So what do children learn when one parent is religious and the other is not? Better yet, when one parent is politely atheist and the other believes Christ is the only way to Heaven, all others will burn?
"Mommy, is Daddy going to burn in Hell?"