An Anointing Message To Fathers for 2012

[AKIRA]

Hmm, arch and ironic, Stephen...?  Let's see.


I like how you put to my two statements together without adding the one I made in between them AND leaving most of the second statements out.  I guess if can't overcome by reason, then accusations and creative cut'n'paste are a good strategy, as well.  The concrete poetry school of debating? 

Now that practice combined with a lesson on the definition of bigotry is (sadly) ironic......



Anyway, who am I saying is obtuse?  Not who, but what.  The statements made.  But I guess we're in a place where criticism of a statement is equal to calling a name?  Is it all really so sensitive, so soft...?  Ouch!  Oh well, I guess it's not like I'm accusing them of over pricing their coffee or complaining unfairly about noisy bars.  Those being to true horrors of our time that the truth must rage on so violently, so wild. 

Now that was (a sad attempt at being) arch......

[BridgeTroll]

DW said...

Giving young children religious instruction of any kind should be considered child abuse.

Since child abuse is criminal... I can only assume he (and apparently Stephen) believes religious instruction is a punishable criminal offense.  Most would find this extreme.  Most can also happily respect his atheism or agnosticism. 

[BridgeTroll]

No conflation whatsoever.  DW said... "religious instruction of any kind" This is an absurdly general statement. Any kind of "instruction" can be abusive.  Sure... "abusive indoctrination" of children has been performed by many over the millenia.  Hitler was pretty famous for his form of abusive "instruction" of children.  The Khmer Rouge were pretty famous also.  Certain Madrasa's are currently abusing children.

My guess is DW does not really believe that religious instruction of any kind is child abuse... but something he, himself would never afford his children.  I am also quite sure that since religious freedom is one of the most basic tenants of our Constitution... DW would never think it would be a good idea to restrict this basic human right.

[BridgeTroll]

ex·ag·ger·ate   /ɪgˈzædʒəˌreɪt/  Show Spelled [ig-zaj-uh-reyt]  Show IPA verb, -at·ed, -at·ing. 
verb (used with object)
1. to magnify beyond the limits of truth; overstate; represent disproportionately: to exaggerate the difficulties of a situation.

Giving young children religious instruction of any kind should be considered child abuse.

[BridgeTroll]

you will have to take that up with dogwalker, in the meantime, try not to conflate my opinion with your straw man argument about hitler, the khmer rouge, criminal religious instruction or assorted nonsense.

Not even sure what your opinion is Stephen.  My only issue has been with DW's exagerrated, generalized, and over reaching statement that all religious instruction is child abuse.

[Dog Walker]

In my view ANY teaching of a child that the supernatural is real is destructive to their growing awareness.  Be it the tooth fairy, santa claus, the easter bunny, jesus, monsters under the bed, ghosts.  Young children are just learning to separate the real from what is inside their heads.  Adding to their difficulties and fears is just wrong.

Why is not OK to tell a child that their are monsters under the bed that will eat them if they don't behave, but it is OK to tell a child that they must love an unseen ghost or burn in hell forever?  That's just evil.

I love reading fantasy and science fiction as much as anybody but am certainly old enough to know the difference between fiction and reality.  Young children don't have enough experience of life to make the distinction.

[buckethead]

In my view ANY teaching of a child that the supernatural is real is destructive to their growing awareness.  Be it the tooth fairy, santa claus, the easter bunny, jesus, monsters under the bed, ghosts.  Young children are just learning to separate the real from what is inside their heads.  Adding to their difficulties and fears is just wrong.

Why is not OK to tell a child that their are monsters under the bed that will eat them if they don't behave, but it is OK to tell a child that they must love an unseen ghost or burn in hell forever?  That's just evil.

I love reading fantasy and science fiction as much as anybody but am certainly old enough to know the difference between fiction and reality.  Young children don't have enough experience of life to make the distinction.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:43:10 AM by Dog Walker »

http://www.youtube.com/v/su7_sztPTr8

[Gonzo]

Right, teach your children to be afraid of a big, irrational, paranoid boogyman in the sky. 

Giving young children religious instruction of any kind should be considered child abuse.

For the most part, modern religions no longer portray God as wrathful or vengeful. Nor do they immediately espouse that a child will "burn in Hell," if they do not believe. Teaching religion to a child is teaching them to love and respect their fellow man, not to fear and loathe what is ahead.

Religion teaches charity, compassion, hope, respect, love, and tolerance. Sure, there are religious fanatics that still spout fire and brimstone. Absolutely there are misguided pastors that teach intolerance of other religions. But, while they are extremely vocal and tend to attract the limelight, they are by and far the minority.

As a father, my philosophy on religion was to provide a ground-work for my children. Present them with the central tenets of my religion. Give them a foundation in Christianity and reenforce that foundation through actions and words. We prayed before meals, attended church regularly, and they went to Catechism. They were baptized, had their first Holy Communion, and were confirmed. My children were taught, not force-fed religion. We regularly discussed other religions and their beliefs, how they differed from ours and how their dogma may or may not follow the will of God. Other religions were never bashed, they were discussed intellectually. And, when my children became adults, I stood back and let them make their own decisions.

It is my firm belief that everyone is entitled to their own decisions regarding their personal beliefs. But, those decisions should be made from a position of knowledge. Not from one of ignorance and prejudice. There are many that will rail on me because I am Catholic, just as many rail on Jews, Islams, and Baptists. But, are those who do that doing it from a position of knowledge or one of ignorance? Do they cast stones without deep soul-searching, without truly trying to understand another's beliefs? Or, do they believe that "since there is no God, no one should be exposed to the belief that there is."? If you are speaking from that position, you are as hypocritical to your own beliefs as you say the religious-minded are to theirs.

Our world is full of enough evil and strife. Those who are fanatical to their religion and those who are fanatically against religion. There are just as many evil people who were atheists and agnostics as there are those who are deeply religious. To label teaching children religion as child abuse is ludicrous at best and evil at worst with many shades in between.

If teaching children to love God, their fellow man, and the world is child abuse, then lock me up.

[JeffreyS]

+ 1 Gonzo. 

[BridgeTroll]

Well said Gonzo...

[Dog Walker]

25. Fathers must teach respect, honor, and fear of the Lord.

There it is right there.  That is what I'm addressing.  We take this phrase completely for granted because it is so often repeated.

[Gonzo]

25. Fathers must teach respect, honor, and fear of the Lord.

There it is right there.  That is what I'm addressing.  We take this phrase completely for granted because it is so often repeated.

I get you DW, and you are right, in some religions it is taught that way. But, by pulling that one phrase out of the entire message and automatically ascribing that to all religions, you show a prejudice towards the religious-minded. You have prejudged that all religions teach that way and therefor all religions are bad. And that is simply not true.

Religion has played a central role in the civilization of the world. The methods of the past were not always what we would currently term "Christian" or compassionate, but it is an inescapable fact that the world needed religion in order to develop. The problem of atheism is that it doesn't always recognize the good that was accomplished in the name of religion. And that is the only real fault I find in that belief. Jesus was a historical person. There are many anthropologists who will attest to that. As a Christian, I believe that he performed miracles. But, whether he did or not is immaterial to the fact that he was a force for good. He encouraged men to accept one another as equals and to not hold grudges against the Romans even though they were oppressors. He willing went to his death knowing that he was betrayed and sent to the cross over a murderer. He was a model for love and compassion to his very last breath. You don't have to believe that he walked on water or fed thousands with just a few fishes and loaves, but you have to acknowledge he was a catalyst for good. As I stated before, you are entitled to your beliefs and your opinions. But, categorizing all religions and religious-minded as child abusers is unenlightened.

Consider this, could religion be merely another word for science? Ancient man did not possess the intellect to process things that happened around them, so they attributed it to the work of God or Gods. As technology advanced, more and more man found that there were natural and logical reasons for some of these occurrences. Recently, the movie Angels & Demons talked about the God Particle in terms of physics. The particle is so named because it is, "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive,". Could that also be said about God? Of course it could! Could God have been the architect of all that there is? Yes, he could. God is elusive, but to those of us who believe, we know He is there. For those of you who do not believe, you merely call Him science. So, should we stop teaching our children about science? Of course, not!

Again, these are my opinions. I take issue with anyone who forces religion on anyone just as I take issue with those who try to force atheism on anyone. But, I take particular issue with someone who blindly and without regard for other's beliefs says religious people are child abusers.

[RiversideLoki]

I'm raising my child to be a happy, content critical thinker. When she is old enough to choose religion, she may do so. But *my* job as a father is to teach her the ways of the universe and teach her right from wrong. My view is (and always has been) that any human can be "Good without God." And the challenge to any free-thinker is always that of remaining humble to our fellow man and respectful of others beliefs.

Now don't get me wrong, there are those of us non-believers out there who are the philosophical equivalent of Mark Brunson. Those who would rather see religion eliminated. But I don't necessarily see it that way. I figure if it comforts the sheep while the wolves prey, let them believe.

The problem that I constantly come across is that theists tend to constantly rain down fire upon atheists for "threatening" their religion. And in a town where religion is so tightly integrated into our day-to-day business life, I find myself forced to smile and say "Have a blessed day!" with empty meaning just to maintain a business contact. Or else I risk losing a source of income. What an absurd world we live in!

What threat am I to your religion? Is the thought of someone "catching" atheism just too much for you to bear that you become offended by my mere presence?

I guess the bottom line is that I fear nothing except my fellow man.